Biometric verification has become a routine part of everyday life. From clocking in at work to logging into a bank account or even just unlocking a smartphone, a scan of the user’s fingerprint or face is frequently used. 

For those people who use their biometric data several times per day to carry out routine tasks, what percentage of them ever consider what service providers do with their data?

The news frequently reports on data leaks, hacks and the occasional ransomware attacks on healthcare providers . Considering the lack of clarity over who owns the biometric data submitted to service providers and what they can do with it in the future, users are right to be concerned about how their information is secured and used.     

On Episode 45 of The Agenda podcast, hosts Ray Salmond and Jonathan DeYoung explored the topic of data security and biometric privacy with Sebastian Rodriguez, chief product officer at Privado ID.

The ethical implications of biometric verification

While using biometric data to log in to apps and websites is convenient and a good way for users to secure their devices and accounts, Rodriguez warned that users should be concerned about giving service providers access to their data in “perpetuity.” 

“When I am giving biometric data about myself that would allow you or other verifiers to identify me at perpetuity, what I am selling is what I am. And the ethical implication here is, I think, that there is an asymmetry of information.”

In response to a question about play-to-earn-style programs that compensate people for their time, computing power or other activities, Rodriguez suggested that providing or even selling your biometric data differs.

He explained that when he plays a game to earn money, he knows “the scope of my activity. I’m selling my time.” Unlike play-to-earn incentives, submitting or selling one’s biometric data differs, especially when considering that all the future uses and value of this data are currently unknown. 

“When I sell my biometric identity, I don't think most people will understand the long-term implications of this.”

 

Worldcoin: Good, bad or a monopoly?


No conversation about blockchain, security and biometrics could conclude without a brief mention of Worldcoin , and Rodriguez did have a few opinions to share about the project and its objectives. 

“Everybody is asking me for Worldcoin because it's a very controversial project, I guess. Most people in other interviews, they expect me to jump on them and start criticizing and hating them because they represent the opposite of what we’re doing. Actually, I have to say, the technology is good. They are using many of the techniques that we use.”

Rodriguez said that he is not against biometric technology and agreed that “at some point, [...] we will need to prove that we are not only humans but unique humans to a number of services.” Similar to many science fiction movies’ portrayal of the future, Rodriguez predicted that “the proliferation of synthetic identities, automatization and also the weaponization of these fake news bot farms [...] is going to become higher in the next years.”

Related: Privacy is missing ingredient for business blockchain adoption: EY exec

From a business perspective, Rodriguez said his main criticism is that “the Worldcoin model assumes that they will be a monopoly.” 

“There is no other way for that to work. Biometric proofs of uniqueness are very special because you can only have one issuer of that, because biometric hashes, they are not compatible. There are some something called biometric templates that they are used in passports, something like that. But the technology they are using, for them to work, they need to be the unique provider.”

To hear more from Rodriguez’s conversation with The Agenda — including deeper explanations of why people should be cautious with their biometric data — listen to the full episode on Cointelegraph’s Podcasts page , Apple Podcasts or Spotify . And don’t forget to check out Cointelegraph’s full lineup of other shows! 

Magazine: Dorsey’s ‘marketplace of algorithms’ could fix social media… so why hasn’t it?

This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.