RE: QC biometrics needs re-engineering NOW!

[Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Ed,

>Anders Rundgren wrote:

>> Seeing the virtually ZERO progress on the biometric part of QC, I get the feeling it may be
>> a better idea (if speed counts) to keep things within a group with members that are more focused
>> on solutions rather than just making "noise" or running private political campaigns (Ed & Co).

>Anders:

>Sometimes, an attack is the best defense. Not here. Please either defend your
>"secret standard" approach on its own merit (which I postulate does not exist
>and agree with Ben) or keep silence.

A part of this can be found at the biometric Consortium web site:
http://www.biometrics.org/html/x_509.html

>I have no private (or, public) political
>campaigns to run and I feel harassed just by having to come here and say this
>to you.

Since you (and others) do not address the interoperability questions raised, I feel that the
design issues are obscured by too much politics.  Why not allow a design to support
different political/personal opinions instead of forcing a specific one upon everybody?
You believe that privacy is the #1 issue.  That is a personal opinion that not everybody
have to support.   MY personal opinion (which you don't have to share) is that you can
information-wise be "intimate" with a few selected parties.  And to these parties the
authentication of the subject may be of uttermost importance.  Even for the subject BTW!

So let *implementers*,  *customers*, *lawyers* and *market* decide what they feel comfortable with!
It is a free world, isn't it?

>If your point is not accepted today, there is no need to become desperate ;-)

Since a lot of knowledgeable people outside of this pretty boring list support the in-line bio-stuff,
I don't feel that desperate *anymore* :-).  Just puzzled. 


>Maybe, just maybe, you are wrong.

I won't say that you are wrong or than I am right.  I just say that my suggested solution
(user certificate selection), to the subject privacy issue (in my concept not limited to biometrics)
is well worth a comment and hopefully even could be an OPTION in QC.

>Cheers,

Well...

Anders