Point/Counterpoint - Biometrics and the future of Advanced Authentication

Throughout Part 1, the term authorization is used in multiple places and on first glance, appears to be a misuse of the term. I fundamentally don't understand how biometrics could ever be considered authorization unless you are intermixing security and financial services terms. For example, authorization of a transaction is still and authentication process whereby I provide my identity for the purposes of non-repudiation/acknowledgement of the action. Further proof of identity through increased interaction (e.g. password and then biometrics) is still authentication. As the separation of authn and authz is integral to the article, could you please define the terms as you use them through? They seem to run counter to traditional definitions.

Thanks John - as always. My daydream prediction is that we will have a huge breakthrough if and when we can find a "biometric trap door algorithm". In other words something biometric that can be shared like a public key and used to encrypt things in a way that only the "donor" can decrypt using a different biological attribute. Right now, everything is symmetric and just silly from a cryptographic perspective. Securing things with your retina or fingerprint means you have to expose that "symmetric key" directly to every new fly-by-night vendor you want to work with. If, on the other hand, you could speak a sentence and have your vocal pattern used to encrypt something that could only be decrypted by your unique sense of hearing, we would be onto something big.