Proof of Unique Human At Birth

Hypothetical questioning now. Would it be possible to take bio metrics of babies as they are born. Finger prints and Retinal scans and create an anonymous ID on the network. If the network knows they are a real person and the information is scanned in by trusted parties then we could do a lot with that unique id. Voting rights, benefit payments, community payment systems, pay the contributor.

The person scanning in the data does not need to know who they are. It could be done anonymously.

Be great to hear peoples ideas on how this would technically be implemented. Would be a great little app to build as an experiment. It would be great if a small community trialed a system like this.

I currently cant think of a way of doing this without a centralized body but I don’t think that is necessarily a problem as the nature of the network promotes anonymity. Obviously a central body could double collect data by taking images and corrupting but there would probably be a way around that with using a decentralized approach to the biometric registering.


The only issue with this is that as soon as someone lifts your fingerprints off a cup and takes a sufficiently detailed image of your eye using a 3D scanning camera, they completely own everything you do. You lose control over your voting rights, benefit payments, community payments, etc. The problem with ever using biometrics is that once compromised you’re totally unable to change them, you’re stuck with them for life.


Maybe brainwaves could provide the solution. Yeah I could pin you down and force a log on but for general societal actions its doesn’t need to be that fool proof.

1 Like

I think a combination of biometrics with web of trust could work better. Web of trust by itself could potentially lead to people making duplicate accounts while biometrics by itself are easy to copy.


Probably wouldn’t want to require that agents/parties be intact biologicals or even biological at all.

1 Like

And then I register my baby 100 times with slightly modified biometrics. Enough to get 100 IDs but not enough that the baby’s biometrics still pass for any of the 100 since these things can change very slightly as the baby grows. Every biometric scanner to check a person does not look for perfect accuracy but a close match that does not match anyone else but also is close enough.

If you look at face recognition systems and they only pick a face from a database of faces and even then they don’t always find a match. I know finger print and retina are better, but neither is perfect to be able to build such a system.

And then I could craft biometrics and have 1000’s or more bogus IDs created and capable to be used when I want to be 1 of 1000’s of IDs.

The issue is that you cannot police the ID creation process enough to guarantee there is no abuses. Also the idea is to have proof of ID without the need for security to check its all done right.

I think it’s one of those cases where you “could” but why on earth would you ever want something like this? And like neo said, it might be easily abused/circumvented anyway. It would be nice if there was a way to somehow have SAFE protect against this use of biometrics by design. I could see how some industries might really want a feature like that though.


That’s actually an interesting potential use. Until we learn how to copy it, of course.

It’s creepy. Leave my kid alone.

Also: There are no trusted parties. Only parties I chose to trust. Can you see the difference?


I find very intriguing the notion of combining identity and anonymity. Being sure someone is who he/she pretends to be without actually knowing who he/she is.

I understand this is the whole idea of the blockchain with private keys and digital signatures but when applied to a real person in his/her wholeness … this is really intriguing.


I think the way around this is to assign a public / private key pair the first time someone is added to the system, and after that they just sign with the key to prove it is them. If someone tries to register the same details it will be refused.

1 Like

Yes. Similar to how secrecy and privacy are in practice antithetical despite efforts to conflate them to eliminate privacy. And this in turn is important for having human rights frameworks because while rights are difficult to define or pin down they disappear in practice in the absence of privacy as people will generally will not assert rights in the absence of privacy turning them hypothetical.

Between identity and anonymity there seems to be a sweat spot. Too much pressure in the grip and the object may be deformed, too little and it may fall from the grip. Corporate anonymity and corp secrecy bad- we no longer like corps and what they stand for it seems- they have become mercinary with law breaking and law avoiding as possibly their core focus or reason for being.


Warren, can you elaborate on how secrecy and privacy are antithetical?

Yes me too and it is fascinating to think of all the ways this could be done.

Seems to be a spectrum

Friendship-trust(to the point of trustless)- transparency -open inclusiveness- privacy protecting-rights preserving-liberty recognition on one side

and then moving toward the other:

Control (fear projection right down into AI control problem) censorship(sponsorship to capture media and law, and secret gag)- secrecy- spying- co-optation (impoverish to create rule by money)- security state- spin (false flags)- terror, disappearing people, torture, totalitarianism.

Its a long discussion. But what happens is secrecy veils surveilance to the point that taking things out of context to foist public incrimination and shame/humiliation loss of face shift the environment from more trusting to pure fear. People are turned into informants and society becomes an expression of paranoia and ultimately megalomania. Due process and transparency are lost.

Anonymity coupled with broad anonymous, instant, sorted distribution can help balance this. But with regard to organizational secrecy in particular state and corporate secrecy (courts should never be enforcing the corporate stuff) it will be argued that diligence and due process
are harmed relative to progressing investigation etc. Expediency and efficiency will be brought up and false claims on launch codes and the Manhattan project and ticking time bombs and every other way possible to conflate a horrid insular self consuming fear based security state with liberty will be used. So in general organizational secrecy over any extended period is horrid and it leads to weak brittle damaging organizations, resultant instability and corruption (black mail based or captured organizations) and damages the individual psychological supports for rights assertions and support for a culture that is able to recognize and protect a human rights approach.

You could see an open transparent public sector coming 10 years off and it doesn’t mean it can be stopped from right action.

1 Like

Warren, I feel where you are going with this. It’s interesting. I’ll “percolate” on it.

1 Like

I know it seems creepy but if a system can be 100% secure and autonomous and there is no way of knowing who that unique person is, then there can be some positive uses. I think it would be creepy if a central power had access to the register. Also it already kind of happens. When our kids were born we had to register their birth. This is the same.

Think about the potential for a completely decentralized participatory democracy where everyone gets a voice.

Another thought experiment I have had is, would it matter if the network watched everything that happened if it couldn’t be seen by people. What if it was like minority report where crimes committed were known by the network because the network always watched you. Now that’s creepy

1 Like

Registering kid’s existence is NOT the same as registering kid’s full biometric profile.

If they know her name, they know her name.

If they know her DNA, they know if she sneezed in that bathroom.

Birth-time biometric registration is neither necessary nor sufficient for that.

Would you stake your life on such statement about a system?

In history, there was no 100% secure only 100% arrogant.

Safe Network is good step. However. What if all your keys can be seen? How will you know they can’t be? For example: Who designs the hardware?

Heard about Meltdown / Spectre? Broke most “100% secure” systems, just not how expected. Couldn’t even seen if you got compromised. Nobody can say they were not, leaves no proof.

Not even the worst problem. “Intel Management Engine” is in all their CPUs, have full DMA access, network access, can’t be disabled, nobody know’s what’s in it. Security nightmare.

So again: 100% secure?


No need for biometric ID. You know it’s @norimi (a pseudonymous identity) writing because you see the name and you trust authenticated him or her. Safe Network identities are better because they are cryptographical you can verify it without depend on 3rd party. See what’s missing from the picture? Biometric IDs. Because we don’t need it for verifiable pseudonymus identity.


How would you achieve a micro decision making participatory democracy with out unique proof of human? If we were been asked to make decisions daily?