> In Bangladesh, it announced that the government would create a database of children’s immunisations linked to their parents’ biometric information – most likely a digital fingerprint.
What is meant by "[biometric] digital fingerprint"? Do they just mean a literal fingerprint, but digitized? When I think of "digital fingerprints" I think of things like canvas fingerprinting or maybe perceptual hashing, not anything to do with biometrics.
If they just mean taking prints of fingers and digitizing them, maybe just say "fingerprint" and drop the "digital" from the description. That's easier to understand. If people understand something, they'll fear it less.
Matching of fingerprints and other biometrics is typically not done by storing an actual image, but by storing feature information hash-like. "digital fingerprint" is a pretty good term for that.
I'm aware that comparison of fingerprints is done by extracting/storing/comparing features. But in 2020 the digitization of fingerprints can/should go without saying and the details of how fingerprints are compared are just a distraction at best for most of the general public.
As for 'digital fingerprint' being a good term for that, I disagree. I think that's a term that's very likely to confuse the layperson. If you search that term on wikipedia you'll find a disambiguation page that lists six options, none of which have anything to do with fingers: Message digest, Device fingerprint, Digital video fingerprinting, Acoustic fingerprint, Canvas fingerprinting, Content ID (algorithm)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_fingerprint
If you search the same on google in a private window, the first two or three pages of results are all about the same computer-related topics as that wikipedia page (the first result is that wikipedia page, and the second is a blog post from Mozilla about browser fingerprinting.) After a few pages I started to find pages about digitized prints of fingers, so I don't doubt that people in the fingerprinting industry use this terminology. Nevertheless I can easily see laypeople being mislead.
Does anyone know where Alex Jones gets his ideas? Part of me thinks his team just makes shit up, but sometimes he seems to be part of a coordinated effort.
> Does anyone know where Alex Jones gets his ideas? Part of me thinks his team just makes shit up, but sometimes he seems to be part of a coordinated effort.
IIRC, a former InfoWars employee goes into that a bit in this article:
> I dropped out of film school to edit video for the conspiracy theorist because I believed in his worldview. Then I saw what it did to people.
> ...
> Shortly after Jones began selling the supplements, someone posted a video on YouTube holding a Geiger counter displaying high radiation readings on a beach in Half Moon Bay, Calif. The video went viral, stoking fears that radiation from Fukushima was drifting across the Pacific Ocean. Jones saw an opportunity and sent me, along with a reporter, a writer and another cameraman, to California. We had multiple Geiger counters shipped overnight, unaware of how to read or work them, and drove up the West Coast, frequently stopping to check radiation levels. Other than a small spike in Half Moon Bay — which the California Department of Public Health said was from naturally occurring radioactive materials, not Fukushima — we found nothing.
> Jones was furious. We started getting calls from the radio-show producers in the office, warning us to stop posting videos to YouTube stating we weren’t finding elevated levels of radiation. We couldn’t just stop, though; Jones demanded constant real-time content. On some of these calls, I could hear Jones screaming in the background. One of the producers told me they had never seen him so angry.
I don't believe AJ believes anything he says. That was clear in his divorce trial where he said his insane statements (being used against him in the trial) were not real.
Him and a bunch of others on radio and TV use these extreme views to get filthy rich. It is truly digusting.
I actually do think he 100% believes everything he says. If you read the transcript from the trial, it was just his lawyer trying to list that as one of many defenses. "It's just entertainment, it's not real", basically. Just a lawyer doing what they have to do for the sake of their client; kind of like how there were all those articles about Elon Musk saying some crazy thing in his defamation trial, when it was just his lawyers using a standard defense. He's never himself said what he's saying isn't real or isn't what he truly believes.
If you listen to Jones speak for hours (which may or may not be recommended, depending on what you're looking for), I think that sort of thing is hard to fake. The sad thing is probably millions of people organically believe the sorts of things he believes, including people who don't watch him. They read the same sources, they're part of the same circles, they have a rigid preconceived world view that's very different from everyone else's.
ID is not a requirement for democracy. ID requirements are a convenience for the state, and it's possible to run a society without them without being overrun by fraud.
It's useful for people to be able to present ID to receive entitlements, but it's only there because the state has imposed a requirement.
Nobody asks for an ID when you vote in the UK. You show up, tell them your address and name, they look up up in the book and give you the ballot. There's no check that you are who you say you are at all - you could be anyone.
Yet the UK is a functioning democracy. So ID certainly is not a requirement for democracy.
> You show up, tell them your address and name, they look up up in the book and give you the ballot.
When they talk about ID they don't mean a document you carry around with you.
They mean the processes that allow someone in England to register to vote, and then walk into a polling booth and give their name and address and get a ballot paper in return.
Using your example: you can't vote twice. You walking into your local station, and use your vote. If you return later in the day your identity is known to have already voted. If you walk to a different polling station your identity is not known there (even if you take your passport), so you can't vote there.
That is a good point, I hadn't thought about it like that. However the requirements to register to vote in the UK are pretty lax as well - to go on the electoral roll you tell the government your name and address, and you pinky promise that you're telling the truth. They then mail you polling cards for any election, which you don't need to use.
You don't need to give them any national insurance numbers or other ID to do this. It literally amounts to "I'm Joe Bloggs and I live at 20 Smith Street". That seems like the bare minimum required to have a voting system to me.
Creepy UN propaganda arm indignantly declares creepy "tech NGO" not guilty of anything untoward, tries to blame humble water filter merchant for their misfortunes, despite his obviously not being involved at all beyond having mentioned them once a half a year ago.
I feel a little bad for Gates who probably means well, but then I see crap like this and don't blame the tinfoil helmet crew for mistrusting these creepazoids. Their every action seems designed to engender mistrust. Can't they afford a real PR firm? Maybe they should hire Wolfram's; they're doing something right.
The whole phrase is a multilayered meme. It’s generally used by alt-right neo nazis with conflicted emotions who believe Alex Jones works for the Jews but also find his tantrums endearing. “Humble merchant” is a phrase often used by modern antisemites when they parody the speech of an imaginary Jew describing himself in a disarming way. Use of the meme also reveals how long a person has been immersed in alt-right neo nazi internet culture, because it likely originated when Alex Jones’ primary product was water filters rather than supplements, so anyone using the meme has probably been an alt-right neo nazi for 4+ years, or at least reads what such people say fairly often.
That's morbidly interesting but I don't think it's fair to tar scottlocklin with that brush. That's a severe accusation, a smear if untrue, and I've not seen any evidence of it. In fact his comment upthread expresses a contradictory view, just in a 'pox on all your houses' way.
Thanks dang. I'm pretty sure this person is a troll I know IRL.
For the humor deprived, I'll spell it out.
1) I'm pretty sure Alex Jones would be mad if I called him that. That's one of the many things that makes it funny.
2) Alex Jones is a completely harmless kook, and it's shameful how he is demonized by powerful elements in our society with the acquiescence of people who should know better.
3) For example: this is a literal smear done by a UN propaganda agency done against ... Alex Jones, who, by the facts listed in their own accounts, had nothing to do with the problems of their creepy NGO. I'm pretty sure the UN is more powerful than Alex Jones. It's not a good look a literal UN propaganda agency flinging poo at some weirdo in Texas who ultimately hawks water filters for a living.
4) That NGO probably "means well" but is super creepy!
5) Bill Gates is also well meaning (I was once a subcontractor for his foundation), but is acting like a grade-A creep. He has arguably done some fairly evil things both in the past and in the present day. It is terribly ironic that the man who brought us Microsoft Windows is lecturing us about viruses. The reaction against him may be unfair and is probably ill informed, but he should really think about the figure he cuts in the world. Maybe touting a spooky vaccine global-ID regime isn't a good use of his time. Just a suggestion!
Oligarchs like Gates are powerful and involved in some incredibly shady stuff. They should expect no deference from ordinary people, and should work hard for the approval of the masses. The insane insular arrogance of people like this, and their hangers on, well, perhaps they should consider why people trust kooks like Alex Jones more than themselves.
The problem with those reasonable-sounding complaints is that the first paragraph is so out-there. I guarantee you that far less than 30% of HN is in favor of this. You're grossly overestimating the appeal of your posts.
You're also assuming that people are downvoting and flagging based on disagreement alone, which is incorrect. Many downvotes and flags are because they identify a comment as flamebait or otherwise guideline-breaking. I personally downvote and/or flag many comments that I agree with (i.e. that are on 'my' side of an issue), because I disagree with how they're using HN. Similarly, I upvote many comments that I disagree with, if they're following the guidelines and are interesting contributions. A lot of HN users use the site like this—enough to counteract a lot of downvotes-for-mere-disagreement.
So if your comments are being routinely downvoted and flagged, you'd do better to consider how you might not really be using HN as intended, rather than just blaming "mainstream narrative believers".
What is meant by "[biometric] digital fingerprint"? Do they just mean a literal fingerprint, but digitized? When I think of "digital fingerprints" I think of things like canvas fingerprinting or maybe perceptual hashing, not anything to do with biometrics.
If they just mean taking prints of fingers and digitizing them, maybe just say "fingerprint" and drop the "digital" from the description. That's easier to understand. If people understand something, they'll fear it less.