Biometric BIO NET TRICKS

Sweaty palms, dirty fingers, discharged batteries, bloodshot eyes: the signs of despair that, oddly enough, truly worry cyber novices. How can we trust technology, one can hear them scream, if the ordinary markings of a working man (and we are talking men here!) are so easily able to derail whatever technologies are put between a man and his right to be armed, dangerous, and carelessly free?

To them, the science is a fiction that has been shown to be false because, already and without signs of hope, biometrics have come up short.

But what’s funny is that they are probably right. Except not for the reasons they obsess about. Biometrics come up short because there are other, less biologically exact measures that are better and will soon be proven to be able to guard and activate devices with extreme precision -- mostly without regard to the blood, sweat, or tears of the humans hiding behind their walls of protection. The protective methods of tomorrow have to do with the patterns of our actions, our behaviors, and the devices that we latch on to, not so much the biological bits or bytes our bodies project. And guns are a perfect companion for this evolution of security progress.

Which means, by looking at this situation as a whole, the setback for technology comes from the fact that biometrics have already been shown to be something of a trick pulled on the networks that connect us. It is almost as if someone has tried to cash in on the sensitivity we have for all things related to our unique bodies by making it appear that our individuality is not up to the job.

Before getting into this a little deeper, first a note: I use guns as an example here (once again) because the issues are timely and dramatic. And because the topic aligns so well with people's perceptions that if something is tied to their deeply individualistic being ... it has to be good, and powerful, even empowering. Few of us want to accept the notion that who we are as unique individual humans is insufficient to keep us strong, and well, and ... well ... safely unique. Thinking otherwise acts to reinforce the notion that we are subject to the whims of others to keep us secure.

Meaning ... they want to believe that if biometrics will work ... that's awesome. They can say, "I told you! I can be the source of my own survival ... especially when protected by a fast-action assault weapon aimed at those who dare attack me, my home, or my family!" 

But proven to be easily derailed, biometrics comes up short and there can be no better alternative. In fact, most are willing to draw rapid conclusions based on only the scantest of evidence. Which is where the problem lies. They have been convinced, one, that biometrics are beyond repair as a safety lock for guns, and two, that because of this there is no market and thus no desire to make those efforts work better. Biometrics have failed the technology tests ... so ... "thanks ... I'll just stick with my dumb guns instead of what you say are smart guns!" 

What they have missed is the depth of the deceptions about the failure of biometrics has been internalized as part of an intentional strategy by groups like the NRA. Gun enthusiasts have been led to believe that smart tech cannot work on guns because gunner men have dirty, moist hands, wear gloves, and can't be bothered to plug in their guns, thus leaving that equipment subject to the failure of bad batteries. 

If biometrics fail this simple test ... technology cannot exist between a man and his guns. Period. End of story. Go away. Leave me and my weapons of mass protection unhindered by progress. There may be an Internet of Everything, but EVERYTHING does not include guns ... it's in the Constitution ... somewhere ... that bearing arms means bare of technology.  

End of biometric story: biometrics is nothing but a trick and they cannot even achieve the potential that our individual bodies deliver so much better.

Only thing is: this is not where the issue is today, and not the course for the technologies of tomorrow. The existence of a massive, smart, and rapid fire system of behavioral information gathering ... blockchains of knowledge ... this is where the future of security access lies. And this has little to do with biology. The systems that will really unlock the weapons of pure destructive force will be those that validate who we are through the devices, practices, and activities of living, not of the functions of our bodies. And those metrics are proving to be rather impressive. 

Can you imagine systems being able to make decisions to confirm who we are in less time than it takes the hordes to beat down and eat our children?

To many, this is not conceivable, and as such is the result of the great Bio Net Trick that fed us biometrics first and that now feeds us the believe that such systems are less human that the owners of guns.

Yet technology has no such bias. It favors fast and smart decisions and is more than capable of making just such decisions -- way quicker than most of us are willing to accept. It may even be able to measure your need for a weapon significantly before the attacker gets physically near you -- assuming such a thing might happen -- and possibly even days before. The proof of concept has been established. Software can tell when a bout of depression is heading your way, and when certain evil folks are practicing routines that indicate their evil intentions ... evil aimed at a social institution, important people, or even us as particularly distinct individuals. This isn't science fiction, just cyber science ... and taken on its merits, the making for some very smart gun options.

Start thinking about this. Biometrics is, even by accident, a BIO NET TRICK .... We have been led to believe they cannot meet the human standard, and thus they have no right to exist. That other collectivity technologies are better than humans too, well that thought cannot measure up against the notion of human superiority either.

The New York Times recently asked, “Just How ‘Smart’ Do You Want Your Blender to Be?” It is a silly but good question, and one that we need to ask ourselves about ourselves as human machines too.