Quote:
Originally Posted by holymadness
Yes, it is quite puzzling that someone would assume [...]
|
Assume that the whore thing is considered, but it is getting too long to quote it all.
1. I'm not arguing that the NSA, evil genius masterminds or random thieves will go through the trouble of hacking your phone to get the fingerprint data that is stored there. If someone stole your phone they get more fingerprints and ear prints from the surface of the phone than they can from the internal data.
What I'm arguing about is that the fingerprint data that is stored on the phone is complete on the one fingerprint that is used to unlock the phone.
2. You can use a touch screen if you are wearing thin gloves but you would have to remove them to scan the fingerprint.
3. The bank analogy is wrong in this case because you were arguing that the reason is for this security measure was that 50% of people weren't using a passcode, and there are no banks with no security.
A better analogy would be like this: let's say that most people choose not to have locks on the entrance to the apartment building because they don't want to have to open those doors with a code every time. So an alternative security measure is presented: you can have a face scanner. But for security reasons you have to have a passcode if the apartment building has this feature. And the passcode will have to be used whenever the face scanner isn't capable to recognize your face, or if you haven't been to your apartment in a couple of days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Munch
No, as the scanner never reads the entire fingerprint, it only encodes specific markers, not the entire print. (Just to be sure that it is clear - We might be nitpicking here!  ) |
What makes you say this?