India’s vanishing fingerprints put UID in question (FIRSTPOST)
No good work whatever can be perfect, and the demand for perfection is always a sign of a misunderstanding of the ends of art.
Everybody knows that there's nothing perfect in this world, yet plenty that is imperfect also happens to be very useful.
Identity management is conducted by people to account for people. With human beings on both sides of that equation, what rational creature would expect, require, or even dare to hope for perfection?
Is using a name to identify a person perfect?
Some people can't speak. Some people can't hear. Some people can't read. Some can't write. Many people share the same name.
Maybe a photo then?
Some people can't see.
Forget the article above, some people don't have hands, at all.
Some people don't have eyes.
No system is perfect.
In this context, a proper understanding of Ruskin's "ends of art" is Return on Investment, not perfection.
The value of a biometric system does not lie in its perfection. It lies in its ability to help improve lives by a measure exceeding the sum of its costs.
People cope with imperfection in all aspects of their lives including identity management. Planning for exceptions to the routine ID management transaction is something all existing ID management systems already do. Biometrically enabled ID management systems are no different.