On Tue, 08 May 2012 12:05:02 -0400 "Richard-qbiciii" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think with the current technologies ( hardware, software, data > encryption) a system could be bolted together fairly rapidly that > could be used to create a digital unique 'personal' certificate. To > ensure uniqueness ( no person could ever hold more than one), some > bits of biometric information has to be offered at the creation of > the certificate 'object'. I know that now I am raising an array of > red flags, big brother....etc, but hear me out. None of this > information is ever stored, but is used in the encryption process to > develop the 'masterkey' that allows the holder access to all the > objects attributes (name, address....). No one but the originator has > the private key, and in fact, no other attributes need be added if > the holder does not wish to. The only thing that is important is that > the certificate is unique and that it represents a valid living > person. THAT IS ALL. The only information held on any server would be > the encrypted 'outcome' of the biometric input. No voice tape, or > fingerprint scan, or retinal scan would ever be stored.... only the > outcome of the algorithm that encrypted that piece of data. The only > reason to even store that is to ensure that another certificate could > never be created for the same person.... or a mix of people. I > envision that at least three bits of information would be needed to > ensure uniqueness, and all could be done in the privacy of one's > house with the current phone technologies. A voice sample, a > fingerprint scan and maybe a ear or eye scan ( using the phone > camera). The programs on the server would process each piece through > 'standard' algorithms and look for an existing match. If no match is > found for all submitted information, the applicant is issues a > certificate, a master key, a public key, and a empty 'certificate' > object is created. Three bits? 2^3 = 8, so 8 unique persons? I'm sure you meant something else, but I don't understand what you mean with "three bits". How would you ensure that a person did not first use a picture of their right ear and then a picture of their left ear, to identify themselves as two persons? Or use a retina scan and say they're three persons? I think it is better to just use PGP and have people in real life recognize that a certain PGP key *is* "equal" to one real person. (Like all those key-signing parties.)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
