Okay, let me get this straight. The idea of treating biometric tracking like webcookies may sound convenient on paper, but let alone let people clicking agree on every single notice that they get blindlessly and calling it a day is just a throw-up banner, you know? So, that's just massive false equivalents. A web cookie is different from... Never mind. A web cookie is a disposable string of code for your browser. And biometric data, your biometric data specifically, your face, your fingerprints, your actual unchangeable body is all collected. And treating those blueprints of who you are like a temporary internet tracker isn't a smart regulatory upgrade. It's lazy and most importantly, it's dangerous for everyone. Look, in all common sense, many things could go wrong if we can't change our face after a breach. If a database gets hacked and a company loses your cookie data or your password, it sucks, right? But you clear your cache, reset your password, and move on. You think you're fine. Sure. But now imagine a company getting hacked and loses your biometric template What do you do You can reset your face You can get new retina And once a permanent physical identifier is leaked it out there forever So applying cookie level security rules to something you can never change actually makes zero sense. We also have to be real about human behavior because every single one of these, every single one, every single act that we do, Whenever we blindly tap accept all on every cookie banners 20, 30, 40, 50 times a day just to get them out of our faces, we don't want to read them. We don't read them actually. Nobody does. So if we regulate biometrics like cookies, all we're doing is training people to carelessly hand over their biological identity with that same automated thumbtap. It gives the corporations a legal shield to harvest all our data while pretending that we actually gave it. And finally, the whole cookie model relies on one basic assumption. If you don't like the tracking, you can close the tab and leave the site. How does that work in the real world? If your job installs a facial recognition turnstile, or an airport pulls up biometric security cameras in the terminal, how do you opt out? You can't just close a tab on physical space. A cookie-style banner gives you zero leverage when you physically have to walk through the door. We can't let corporate convenience turn our physical identities into disposable data.

Well, require explicit consent sounds great in theory. Applying a simple yes or no to a pop-up model to biometrics fundamentally misinterprets both human behavior and even the laws of privacy. First, we have the cookie style consent. Well, that's now actually just a proven failure of protection. Because in practice, people just carelessly click accept on web notices within not even 10 seconds reading the fine print. Lowering biometric regulation to a standard click-through mechanism doesn't protect citizens. It has them the legal shield to claim that their consent is informed about their consent and that they gave it, while people blindly sign away unchangeable physical identifiers. The speaker is making their case. The speaker is making a statement about the fact that the security breaches are not just a frictionless yes button. So regulating biometrics like privacy actually weakens privacy protections by reducing permanent physical identity to routine tracking practices.

You're exactly proving my point. A company wants to track data from ourselves. And they do ask us first. But the problem there is that people act on it as if it's something... as if it's something unserious. Whenever they see these banners, they carelessly just swipe yes. They just press yes. Not even looking at the terms of policy. Not even looking at what it's all about. So, even if a company does ask me to track my data, to track everything else, what will be the cost? Because if people just keep doing the same thing over and over again, changing and regulating these, It just feels useless.

The is a spoken, the truth is that you are a person who has used to be associated with a topic. The is explicitly stating my point. The real consequence you are not about how the company harms you but it's how the company claims The company claims that I or the person agreed to share their data. And this is why we have to always think before we click. And always re-review everything that we press. Because in the internet, you can never be too safe.

Actually, it's actually unrealistic for you to say that because there are many laws that go against that situation. But if you let me imagine it, I believe that both situations will just lead to harming our personal data. That's why it's not about how the system works. It's actually about how we deal with it.