Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • Hilariously, this is the second Sam that wants to collect everyones iris's for nefarious purposes
    by yosame
  • Big difference between a hash for use as an attestation (proof of humanity) and a digital ID associated with your name
    by tern
  • In this case, I suspect it's more Uncle Donald (or Aunt Kristi, but she usually doesn't do anything without Uncle Donald's approval).
    by rob74
  • This WorldCoin image will forever live rent free in my head:

    https://www.crikey.com.au/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2023/08...

    by qingcharles
  • I think it's worth mentioning that while biometrics for identification have flaws (as mentioned in this thread, they're not 100% collision free, are not necessarily secret, and are non-trivial to collect), DNA has a different risk profile if it leaks than fingerprints and iris scans if you consider technology advances. DNA could let people (moving beyond government, since you should probably assume anything in a government database will be leaked at this point) target your family and not just you, it includes information that could let adversaries find out ways you're uniquely exploitable (for instance allergies, sensitivities, diseases) and in general its potential for harm goes far beyond impersonation or being used in court.

    (On the plus side, I suppose, I think the story on storing DNA at the scale we're talking about is not fully complete. DNA does denature and it takes a reasonably good sample to get a full genome sequence, and fully sequencing and storing data for every person has other practical issues. The article itself only references using DNA results to "prove or disprove biological sex", which is much more trivial and while it's likely to come with its own problems and edge cases, is also much less information.)

    by arandr0x
  • Hospitals in california steal the DNA of every single baby born there and collect it in a database.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-newborn-dna-privacy-...

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/baby-dna-parental-consent-genet...

    by Schlagbohrer
  • Take it easy. The federal budget for the backup of that database was cancelled. We just have to wait for the next HD failure. And then we are anonymous again !
    by lolive
  • Be careful - this may be a case where they say they're going to do one thing (collect data from US citizens), but walk that part of it back after people protest - while those very same people overlook the fact that they're still going to be getting every immigrant to submit to the scans.
    by Sophira
  • I think it's an interesting visual to compare the Stasi's rows of scent jars to data centers filled with banks of flash memory storing biometric data.
    by aerostable_slug
  • The horror of that constrasted with the blithe compliance of modern citizens.
    by djmips
  • Don't most people in the US get fingerprinted at some point?

    Let's see. I've been fingerprinted, all 10 fingers, for, at least, 1) the US Army, 2) security clearance for a DoD job, multiple times, 3) a permit to ride a horse on SF Water Department property, and 4) Customs and Border Protection Global Entry, which also took an iris scan.

    California DMV takes a thumbprint, but not all 10 fingers. They've been recording me at every transaction for decades.

    So I'm on file.

    I think of being IDd as a normal part of life, for any position of trust. Is this unusual?

    by Animats
  • Depend what the "position of trust" is taken. Security clearance for departement of defense is certainly not something the median citizen can be expected to go through.
    by psychoslave
  • Exactly. As a naturalized citizen my fingerprints are already on file. - everytime I entered the US when I was not a citizen - when I filed my green card application - when I went for my citizenship interview - TSA precheck biometrics because I travel quite a bit.
    by orochimaaru
  • Also in the US, never been fingerprinted. Well, I think. You mentioned CA DMV, and I don’t remember a fingerprint, but I did have a California drivers license over a decade ago, so maybe? But most people don’t have security clearance, most are not in the military, most do not have global entry. Also the horse permit one is just funny.
    by uxp100
  • Surely there's a difference between collecting a thumbprint for a driver's license or even collecting full fingerprints for a specific job type, and collecting your DNA and an iris scan just for being a citizen?

    I'm German. My government literally issues ID cards and requires fingerprints for those nowadays as well (because terrorism or the children or whatever works as the excuse at the moment) but the idea of a government agency collecting my DNA seems far more invasive given the kind of things you can do with that information and the kind of things governments (especially in my country but in the US and Canada too) have historically done to groups of people under them.

    If you think there's nothing concerning about the government wanting to collect extensive biometric data including DNA from not only people applying for immigration but also people associated with them or their application, maybe it would sound more concerning to you if I said that in German.

    by hnbad
  • I live in the apparent dystopia that is the UK and I've never had my fingerprint or DNA taken. Seems a bit of an overreach.
    by jansper39
  • What may be information regarding a check for position of trust today, may well be information regarding a check if you should be locked up because of other reasons, tomorrow.

    The issue is not the information itself, but how the information will be used. The chance of abusing information is not zero. But having rigorous rules and processes regarding that information, for instance mandatory destruction of said information, will greatly reduce the chance of abuse in the uncertain future.

    by b3lvedere
  • Did you know that the State of California has a DNA sample from every person born in the state since 1983? It's required by law for the hospital to collect it and give it to the state.
    by jedberg
  • The trick is that you don't elect someone like Donald Trump. I just read on the BBC that the president of America threatened New Yorkers not to vote for Mamdani.

    People in the Netherlands trust their government because noone in the 500 years of history has ever gotten close to getting dictatorial power unless you count Napoleon and Hitler.

    by Yeul
  • ... The concept of DNA sample collection existed in 1983?
    by zahlman
  • What about people born outside of a hospital?
    by eru
  • I just got back from the Millennium Seed Bank in the UK and was marveling at the size of a small footprint facility that stores samples of more than 10% of all known living plants.

    Reading this thread, I was curious about what the size of California's sample collection looks like. I made an estimate using a little 1ul vial and an estimated 40 million people born in California since 1930. 100 samples in each box means 400,000 boxes. It's something like a 60 foot by 60 foot room with shelving.

    If you extended it to a bank of 100 billion (about all humans ever born), that gets you to a pretty low tech solution that stores samples in the footprint of five Costcos.

    by tito
  • Do you have a source? I know there is an index[0] of the information on California birth certificates from 1905 to 1995 and technically, despite the privacy implications, birth records in California are considered "public record".

    [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Birth_Index

    by layman51
  • This is a particularly incendiary way of putting this information out there.

    What is collected and stored is a small blood-spot sample from a heel prick on a newborn. This is used to test for various kinds of conditions that affect newborns.

    This isn't a full DNA genome sequence or even any data at all, just the blood-spot specimen.

    Law enforcement does not have automatic access to this sample, but individual samples have been given to law enforcement through court orders or warrants. There isn't a clear SOP for how law enforcement typically gets this information or how often it's given to law enforcement, but there's been proposed legislation to make this more transparent.

    by yannyu
  • You can submit a public comment on the proposal to DHS at the link below:

    https://www.regulations.gov/document/USCIS-2025-0205-0002/co...

    by lesona
  • I suspect this government isn’t receptive to commentary from anyone other than only one person. While I’d never discourage anyone from advocating their beliefs this feels like at best a waste of energy. They are going to do it because they decided to do it - the solicitation of comments is performative and required. The only way to stop it is via the courts and by voting next November.
    by fnordpiglet
  • It's weird how many people's perception of this type of behavior is shaped by the person sitting in the White House.

    EDIT: It's also weird how my comment is being perceived exclusively as criticizing the critics of this administration rather than criticizing the supporters of this overreach. My comment was intentional phrased very generally, if you think it is specifically about you, that reveals something about you.

    by slg
  • Biden cancelled this during his administration
    by comrh
  • It's also weird how people gatekeep resistance on the basis of their perception that it's motivated by the person sitting in the White House.

    If people are ready to resist now, let's welcome them, rather than questioning whether their motives are related to some tangentially related disagreement.

    by jMyles
  • Fwiw, I would be unhappy with the Biden and Obama administrations trying to do this as well. For me this has nothing to do with who's in the White House, it's an overreach plain and simple.
    by nozzlegear