The way the non-technical press deals with the subject of biometrics for identity management is very uneven, not as uneven as it used to be (thank goodness), but still a bit hit and miss.
So, how is a non-technical reader curious about the emerging technology of biometrics supposed to tell the difference?
If the author mentions Minority Report or retinal scans, watch out.
"Minority Report" probably reveals bias against the technology; "Retinal scans" may indicate a lack of familiarity (or outdated familiarity) with the subject matter.
I say "may" in the case of retina scans because they do exist but they have largely given way to iris scans when the application calls for an eye biometric. This blog post from infosecurity.com gives a flavor of what I mean.
So with either a high likelihood of anti-biometrics bias or a potential lack of familiarity with the subject matter, critical reading is in order.
Neither of these are 100% but they're rules of thumb I use every day.
