> In addition to the church, the greens, and the romantics, the state opposes it
> because cloning would complicate the business of ruling citizens, who may
> accomplish some interesting tricks via impersonating each other. If
> fingerprints can be swapped with synthetic grafts molded from imprints of
> another's fingers, this would remove the last obstacle to replicating
> identities that unique fingerprints comprise. A clone could then assume the
> legal and professional identity of its parent, either as a twin, or as a
Given that identical twins exist and have basically the same relationship
to each other that clones do (except that twins are the same age), I
don't see that these other complications would arise. If fingerprint
swapping becomes commonplace then fingerprints will no longer be used
as proof of identity. In the interim there are probably other biometric
measures which can be used as substitutes and not so easily changed.
In the long run it is interesting to consider how you could prove your
identity in a world where your physical structure can be changed at will.
Perhaps at that point you can have a tamper-proof implant which uses a
cryptographic protocol to prove your identity.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:22 MDT