Although you are of course right there is something underlying interesting about what could be done to track us in order to build a unique "ghost" of us that can can be used for many purposes beyond logging in.
But given I am not an expert in this field I would like to turn around and perhaps ask you, what is the bigger vision?
Surely biometrics in all sorts of shapes and forms comes with it's own issues and shortcomings.
Isn't the idea to make it good enough not necessarily 100% airtight (although I do understand that the scaleability of technology makes it the requirements many times higher than between people)?
This concept was used in _The Dosadi Experiment_, by Frank Herbert. The Dosadis would input all available information on an adversary into a computer, and build a personality model of them. They would then run game scenarios against the model to find the optimal strategies to achieve some desired goal.
If you can assemble an AI copy of someone, you have an almost unbeatable weapon against him. You can make him do things that he thinks are his own ideas, just by adjusting the input parameters.
If you want someone to walk on one side of the street, and you know he avoids panhandlers, you put a fake panhandler on the other side. If you want him to slow down or stop at a certain point on that side of the street, and you know he likes motorcycles, you park a custom chopper there. And while he's gawking, you pick his pocket, or bag his head and shove him into a van, or stab him with a drugged needle, or whatever other spy movie crap you might have in mind.
If you have a detailed enough model to authenticate someone, you may also have a good enough model to impersonate them, or to influence their behavior for your own ends.
Agree, the question I guess is if there is any research into finding a way to make the ghost "part of your dna" in some way so that it's tied to you and you to it?
I know this is probably naive sci-fi but I have heard crazier things. I guess at the end of the day it requires that the interfacing is not just digital but also somehow biological/genetic.
> Surely biometrics in all sorts of shapes and forms comes with it's own issues and shortcomings.
Indeed. A behavioral biometric like this is probably most similar to gait recognition (identifying someone by they way they walk). It's slightly better than a 'soft biometric' like skin color and gender, but not good enough for any type of large scale deployment. Usually when researchers show this stuff it's more or less for novelty. With that in mind, there really shouldn't be a 'bigger vision' because recognition rates are usually not good enough to merit anything other than an occasional paper.
But given I am not an expert in this field I would like to turn around and perhaps ask you, what is the bigger vision?
Surely biometrics in all sorts of shapes and forms comes with it's own issues and shortcomings.
Isn't the idea to make it good enough not necessarily 100% airtight (although I do understand that the scaleability of technology makes it the requirements many times higher than between people)?