What's stopping you to make a special locked-down profile for it in selinux, apparmor or whatever favorite RBAC system you have and then check for access violations? THEN you'll know if it messes up with the system.[*] Or are you trying to argue that the client is bidding its time now, playing it safe and will do the nasty things only when Skynet becomes operational?

[*] Of course, 'demonstrate' is not what this would be doing. One can't demonstrate absolute safety on a system that can update itself any more than one can predict the future. However, one can obtain a reasonable system lockdown with judicious use of RBAC and if that is not enough for you then maybe you shouldn't be contemplating gaming on such a high-security-requirements machine in the first place.

Mate, your opinions on yourself are your own business and those on myself are lighter than a feather, so please consider not wasting page space next time. As they say, stones and sticks may break my bones and all that jazz.

Now as to your question. A picture of your face is in the majority of cases not a definitive means of identification - especially the limited type in photo IDs. Maybe you've heard of people looking alike. Perhaps that's one reason why some places (like banks) would ask you for 2 photo IDs for identification? OTOH a fingerprint is supposed to be a unique means of identifying a person. Try proving your innocence in court if the prosecution has only a picture of someone looking like you, versus them having found your fingerprint at the scene.

So you're unknown to the government if they don't have your prints now? I guess before this breakthrough invention a census was a meaningless exercise. And IDs and passports a joke. And paper trail for taxes, properties and so on just something to kindle fire. Oh, how silly of so many other countries.

Yeah, whoever heard of things that you either have or don't. Also, you're a little pregnant, you know?

Right. Of course. And whoever does not fully trust that bunch of selfish bureaucrats is a traitor. Or a terrorist. Or something. Mussolini would be proud of you, son.

Huh? Encrypted bits are asthmatic and can't run as fast as unencrypted ones? Coming from someone at Google this statement is quite the WTF. Is it too technical now to say that encrypting data requires extra calculations which introduce delays so gmail will respond somewhat slower?

I think it's a neat calculation. We've all lost track of what fast actually means for a modern CPU.