Lets see here
Touch screens and using a finger print security feature :/
I believe iphone's were already hacked with that option once not easy but has been done.
I don't see biometrics with good eyes !
Biometric Security Poses Huge Privacy Risks - Scientific American
Had a baby lately? He/she gets a Social Security number when born. For the past forty plus years, hospitals have been gathering this information; fingerprints, footprints, palm prints, iris scans, DNA. The only thing they probably don't collect is voice data and photos of faces; however, there are cases where a young picture can be aged so that a likely match of what they may look like now can be made. I wouldn't be surprised if they can enhance a baby's cry to the likeness of his/her voice today.The fbi is currently building its Next Generation Identification database, which will contain fingerprints, palm prints, iris scans, voice data and photographs of faces.
Face it folks, we're sunk! <muahahaha>
No, I haven't had a baby.
As much information that we give the hospital they wouldn't need to worry about fingerprints, footprints, palm prints, iris scans, DNA. I really don't think they do all the above. They might do some for the parents if requested. I have a hand print and a foot print on paper when I was born. I don't think they would keep that info, however I was born in 1968 that might make a difference. I have been admitted to the hospital and I never been asked for fingerprints, footprints, palm prints, iris scans, DNA. Aclu wouldn't allow that to happen secretly either.
I was born at home; my mother was attended by a country doctor . . . no hospital involved, but my brothers and sisters were all born in hospitals. Fast forward to when my last was born 46 years ago today and she wasn't issued a Social Security number at birth, but yes, there were foot prints and hand prints. I don't think DNA testing was available then, but it is now. They put that stuff in their eyes without the parents' permission (not that I worried about it) and did all kinds of things they think best for the child.
I don't have proof of everything that's collected, but I can tell you that if the gub'ment wants it, they get it.
They didn't start requiring SSN's for children until the early 80's.
"that stuff" as you put it, that they put in the eyes of newborns was silver nitrate, and was done to prevent blindness in newborn babies from bacterial infection that may have been present in the birth canal. It was more or less standard practice, but has since been replaced with antibiotics.
The health risk of using the drops is minimal unless improperly dosed (or you or the baby are a vampire or werewolf , but the consequences of NOT doing it are catastrophic and the babies eyes get infected.
I think I made it pretty clear that although I wasn't consulted, I didn't mind that they put that stuff in my children's eyes when they were born. Even though I have always trusted my and my children's doctors, I have actively participated in my and their health care. And yes, I know what that stuff is and what its use was for.
Also, as I stated, my daughter (and her siblings) were born well before the early 80s, so they didn't get Social Security Numbers.
Ofc they are up to no good for their own nefarious end game .
My son was born in 1985 IIRC they took maybe palm or hand print and foot print (maybe finger prints also ) I got him SS # when he was 5 . I had to present a birth cert at that time .