There&#x27;s some conversation about this fairly far down the page. It would appear that the HN crowd are not even slightly concerned about the privacy implications of &#x27;passive&#x27; biometric identification. Given HN is a fairly intelligent and tech-adept demographic, I suspect the general population would care even less. Pretty worrying IMHO.<p>Short of surveillance cameras in our homes, I can&#x27;t think of anything worse for privacy than government coming in to possession of passive biometrics like voice signatures (e.g. a google voice DB dump collected through a FISA warrant). Just in case people genuinely don&#x27;t comprehend the danger:<p>1. They allow a third party to identify you against your will.<p>2. They allow a third party to identify you without your knowledge that you have been identified&#x2F;authenticated.<p>3. You can&#x27;t revoke a voice sig credential like you can with a password credential. Once the government has it, they can do (1) and (2) at will for the rest of your life.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.scientificamerican.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;biometric-security-poses-huge-privacy-risks&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.scientificamerican.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;biometric-security...</a>