5 ms·
> The solution is to be proactive. If you are going to walk down the street in an at risk area, you hit the power button five times. If you are about to go thro
by chimeracoder 9y ago
> The solution is to be proactive. If you are going to walk down the street in an at risk area, you hit the power button five times. If you are about to go through a CBP checkpoint, then do the same.
You and I have incredibly different experiences of policing and detention if, for you, "be proactive when you're at-risk" is appreciably different from saying "don't use FaceID ever".
- jsjohnst 9y agoOr I guess our detection of risk differs. I have never been detained when I didn't have a "hair on my neck raise" with enough time to disable my phone. If you are in such high risk situations continuously that "be proactive when you're at-risk" is appreciably the same as "don't use FaceID ever", then I say you are doing something very wrong and not just incidentally being stopped for a suspicion of possibly doing something wrong. Either way, your experience is definitely not in the 99.9999% of the population which FaceID would be sufficiently safe if it proves to be as secure as Apple implies. For you, let's hope you aren't using a numeric pin code either!
- AdamJacobMuller 9y agoEven for long alphanumeric passcodes, a pipe wrench has a 99.99% effectiveness in passcode discovery, given sufficiently bad actors. https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/
- bradknowles 9y agoHowever, if police are willing and legally able to do that, then I think basically all phone security goes out the window anyway. The biometric attacks being discussed here are ones that could quite plausibly be used against you in many/most districts in the US, and be totally legal for the police to use.
- jsjohnst 9y agoPlease don’t link to XKCD, especially when it’s been already done multiple times in this thread. It is pretty much the lowest effort comment you can make besides maybe “+1”.