Alright, but then passwords are on the table again in my opinion. There is no need for a system to identify me in the vast majority of cases that would not be sufficiently proved by my secret knowledge, which is harder to replicate than any biometric marker.
> All encryption will eventually be broken therefore what’s the point is a pretty bad security posture.
When a given crypto scheme is broken, you can change to one that isn't. When your physicality is compromised, you can't change to a new body.
All encryption will eventually be broken therefore what’s the point is a pretty bad security posture. But like no it won’t. Even if you can fake every other metric (good luck with eyes) a fresh blood sample taken by a guard with hypothetical futuristic instant DNA sequencing will never be broken. If your threat model is someone cloning you, the you have bigger problems and they still can’t clone your fingerprints!
You’ve got revocation completely ass-backwards. If someone successfully tricks a biometric system you don’t need to revoke someone’s fingerprint, you revoke the reader! That’s the thing that actually provides all the security.
The point of the guard is that a human has absolutely no trouble determining whether they’re taking a reading of a real hand, scanning a real eyeball, to taking a real blood sample. Maybe in mission impossible movies but you’re really really overstating the resources required to make a convincing hand to someone specifically looking for fakes. Yes social engineering is a problem which is why an autonomous system with the detection quality of a human would be nigh unbeatable.