I've been telling people for years now not to engage with systems such as these. Some say I'm just being paranoid. But a growing number concerningly reply with either "So? What are they gonna do with it?" or "They already have it, it doesn't matter." Normal people either don't know the dangers present or they don't understand that stopping the flow hurts the machine. And they want neither to know or understand. Apathy or the desire for convenience cannot adequately explain why.
> Normal people either don't know the dangers present<p>But what are the dangers? I mean concretely, in a way that can affect their day to day life, with significant probabilities.<p>HN is a tech forum, people here are very aware the tech risks. But talk to anyone in a given field and they will find a way to scare you. Don't go out in the sun without SPF50 gear or you will get cancer, your house electrical system is a fire hazard because you don't have the latest breakers, buy a gun, don't buy a gun, have this and that survival equipment, learn self defense, never talk to the cops, don't leave your drink unattended,...<p>At some point, people just want to stop worrying and do their things. And guess what, most people are fine! In fact considering how many things can turn bad, normal people are rather good at avoiding the worst despite an apparently carefree attitude. Meaning they are not so bad at evaluating risks, and that society has pretty good guardrails.<p>So cut normal people some slack unless they are in immediate danger (for example if they are in the process of responding to fishing), uploading their picture to Yoti is not that. They have other worries in their own field.<p>Inform them, but don't press it, and if you are in the field, your job is to help normal people be carefree, not cause more anxiety, they have more than enough already.
>not to engage with systems such as these<p>Yoti is used by governments. Principled stances are all good and well for hn comments but eventually collide with reality
But what is the alternative?<p>Many of these systems are added to digital wallets due to legal requirements or fraudulent cases. For example, one case of fraud that I’m aware of happened in Chile, where citizens were able to open bank accounts digitally with just their ID. But since there is no good biometric information, many criminals took the IDs of homeless people to open accounts and move money around.<p>Sadly, these shitting things happen, then companies use these services to avoid the liability, and then these services abuse the information they have.<p>People don’t have much choice unless their representatives in government do something; it’s not about apathy: you can stop using one bank app, but not all of them otherwise you’ll be out of the financial system.
What can people do? Systems like these are mandated by companies that provide services that people need, and they are hard to avoid. In-person verification is sometimes an option but not always.
Since those people don't care about privacy and anonymity, perhaps they are also willing to trade by verifying for someone who does care?
All this biometric data is setting people up for identity theft attacks. These types of attacks are going to grow enormously over the coming years as biometric data is gathered and leaked on a massive scale. Anything put on the internet has been leaked already, almost every company with a web presence has lost data. Biometrics unlike passwords, phone numbers and credit cards can not be changed.
And that assumes a relatively stable environment; but politics can change drastically for the worse. We have examples from relatively recent history of governments turning evil, rounding up unfavored groups, and shipping them off in rail cars to an early demise. God forbid it happens again with all the information available to sort, categorize, and identify people.
What I'm afraid of is that this is all a ticking bomb that is going to explode VERY hard on the most technologically vulnerable.