Why Biocryptics should replace direct use of Biometrics

There’s a very old idea found in the old testament that says to go out and name all the animals so that mankind can have dominion over them. You know who wasn’t given a name? God. The closest God has gotten to being named is “YHVH”. Did you ever wonder why that was? The idea is that if you name it you have control over it. Give it an ID and you have control.

(Google Images - Wikimedia Commons)

ID’s are depersonalizing because it creates a situation where you go from being a sovereign individual to becoming property. It has within it the essence of slavery. The way this world is currently structured, most of you are actually property and belong to a corporate entity. There is an interesting video on the subject of sovereignty that explains this issue in detail…

credit - White Walking Feather

Currently we are living in an increasingly digital panopticon that surveils our every move. One reason is because we made the mistake of not encrypting the base layer of the internet backbone (TCP/IP). Centralized data structures everywhere are getting hacked and leaking information and authority’s answer to this is to require even more information (from 2FA to 3FA, etc). This is the wrong way to do it.

There really isn’t a good reason to require identification in most cases. But in the few situations where proof might be desired it can be proved in much the same way that Steemit handles reputation scores. But never should we be storing biometrics directly. In cases where identification might be desirable (such as proving who owns what where legitimate property rights exist), a decentralized solution should be used so that we don’t end up with a digital panopticon. This video by Andreas Antonopoulos explains why centralized data structures are inherently flawed and can never be fully fixed…

One such ID proposal by Cicada DDD lays out a procedure for handing biometrics for creating what is known as a HUID (Human Unique Identifier). In this case one would use biomarkers such as an iris, retina, fingerprint or DNA that can be used as inputs to a hashing algorithm such as SHA256.

If you use biometrics directly, then you compromise the entire technology eventually because it’s no longer a secure source of identity. However if the biocryptic is compromised, only that identifier is ruined. Creating a new one is as easy as creating a new SALT and sending it through SHA256 again. Then you can revoke the old one in the same way PGP allows revoking of public keys. You can however, never revoke a biometric. This is why you should never use one directly.

---

Donations (public bitcoin address):

3FwxQsa7gmQ7c1GXJyvDTqmT6CM3mMEgcv

---

---