>>512034588 (OP)It's kinda crazy anyone even tries to do any security or forensics with digital information, it's impossible to get a biometric match digitally.
I will call this a biometric chain of authority. If my fingerprints (dna, handwriting, signature ect) are on something, you can be 99.99% sure I did it, those are all analog signals that are incredibly hard to fake. The world operates on this sort of legal responsibility and accountability, these "biometric chains of authority" if I fuckup, or cheat, you can find me and hold me accountable.
Sure I can use a fingerprint or my face to log into a phone, but the phone creates a digital record of my analog identifiers. Then it sends these records to a third party, who fires it through a maze of other third parties before it arrives as the destination to "verify me" which comparing the digital record they receive to the digital record they associate with me.
Any record of anything I do, as well as the credentials I could provide, could easily have been spoofed by my phone, the internet/phone provider, the receiving party, or any number of third parties that may have inferred or handled the data in the past.
Mac and IP addresses just confirm how implausible the "proof" could be. Someone could "trace my IP" but that only means that someone found a location from which an action attributed to me was sent. It could easily be incorrect in assuming I did anything, (for instance some goblin connects to my wifi and does something or my ISP decides I have a new IP for no apparent reason)
You could go further and track MAC addresses which identify specific hardware. You could say "this specific phone did these specific actions" if you had good mac address data. But you could likely never say for certain who's fat fingers touched the screen. Even if you try, any data that tried to render my analog fingerprints or face in the camera could be fabricated with relative ease as it's all digital.