3 ms·

Anonymity is weakened if we tie authentication to biometrics. Something you know (as in password) is always theoretically more secure than something you are (yo

Anonymity is weakened if we tie authentication to biometrics. Something you know (as in password) is always theoretically more secure than something you are (your physical characteristics).

dustinmoris 7y ago
Anonymity is of course weakened, but that is a different debate. Currently there is no anonymity at all if your account is linked to your email address, which you've also used to register your online banking account, your credit card verification, your PayPal account, etc. and when you have your mobile phone number confirmed, etc. A password gives you 0 extra anonymity in this case. All it is used if for "identifycation" and in this regard it sucks in comparison to true biologial identification.
- cuu508 7y ago
  You are mixing up terminology. When logging in a website, your username identifies you, and your password authenticates you.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
scient 7y ago
I think the statement you make about "something you know" always being more secure is not nearly as clear cut as you present it. A combination of "something you know" and "something you have" is always going to be a very strong authentication scenario, and making "something you have" a non-hackable thing that truly only you can have (i.e not a USB key or a TOTP seed etc.) is a good choice. The catch here is that when you mention biometrics, you make the assumption of static biometrics (rightfully so, as most methods like Touch ID and Face ID are static), but if you combine lets say face biometrics with liveness checks, you are getting into a territory where faking them becomes much much more difficult (there are various mechanisms out there, the good ones rely on completely random interactions and light-bouncing detection methods as an example). The real challenge is how do you make these very strong biometric methods frictionless and cheap? Or how do you introduce similar controls - like liveness - for easier methods like fingerprints? And using any of these (ideally) has absolutely nothing to do with anonymity. You are not anonymous online regardless of what you use for authentication - and you are frankly not smart if you assume thats the case. A company offering a service with biometrics is no different from a company doing the same based on email/username and a password, if they do privacy and security right. I could actually get into a much longer rant about this last part, as it blows my mind how many netizens are all about privacy and whatnot, yet are willing to expose every single detail about them when its convenient from them...
- Santosh83 7y ago
  > And using any of these (ideally) has absolutely nothing to do with anonymity. You are not anonymous online regardless of what you use for authentication - and you are frankly not smart if you assume thats the case. A company offering a service with biometrics is no different from a company doing the same based on email/username and a password, if they do privacy and security right. Why should I use unchangeable, personally identifiable details when logging into some random joe's website? The mechanics of it are also tied to specific devices if I'm not wrong. I can't just login anywhere without risking leaking secrets. When did fingerprints, iris patterns and DNA go from necessary tools in law enforcement and biology (and for highly secure installations) into casual usage all over the place?
  - dustinmoris 7y ago
    You don't have to identify yourself with a "random Joe's website". You can read the comments here without identification, you can seach for flights without identifying yourself, you can search for hotels without giving away who you are, you can read the news, watch YouTube, etc. But when you want to access something that should only belong to you, e.g. your bank account, your Google Drive files, your private emails, etc. then you must find a way of identifying yourself with given website. Username/password is one way, biometrics is another way. Only my family has permission to enter my house. When someone enters my house who doesn't look like my family, then they can throw around all secrets, passwords and usernames they want, I'll kick them out, because in my eyes they don't pass the ultimate test of verification, namely biometrics. So far we were unable to provide the same level of identificaiton via the web, but technology is changing rapidly, so I don't see why username/password are always going to be more secure. On a theoretical basis it doesn't make sense. Because inforation can be easily shared, spread and copied. My physical composition not.
    - paulryanrogers 7y ago
      Biometrics are digital interpretations, which can be copied. The biological sources cannot be easily changed. So _when_ the digital copies leak they become a liability. Passwords can be easily changed. And until reliable, remote, mind reading technology becomes available they'll continue to be better than biometrics.
enriquepablo 7y ago
> Anonymity is weakened if we tie authentication to biometrics. I think you mean pseudonimity. There should be no authentication in anonimity. > Something you know (as in password) is always theoretically more secure than something you are (your physical characteristics). If you authenticate, you can use methods that are more or less secure. If you use a password method, and use a secret as password, it will be more secure than if you use a biometric as password. But the security of the authentication method will bear no weight on the "pseudonimization" - meaning on the difficulty of linking the authenticated identity with your real, legal identity.
- Santosh83 7y ago
  It's effectively like using one password for every app/site authentication. What if the hashes/keys leak out? Then how easy would it be to change your keys for other sites while still using the same biometrics?

Anonymity is weakened if we tie authentication to biometrics. Something you know (as in password) is always theoretically more secure than something you are (your physical characteristics).

dustinmoris 7y ago

Anonymity is of course weakened, but that is a different debate. Currently there is no anonymity at all if your account is linked to your email address, which you've also used to register your online banking account, your credit card verification, your PayPal account, etc. and when you have your mobile phone number confirmed, etc. A password gives you 0 extra anonymity in this case. All it is used if for "identifycation" and in this regard it sucks in comparison to true biologial identification.

cuu508 7y ago
You are mixing up terminology. When logging in a website, your username identifies you, and your password authenticates you.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

scient 7y ago

I think the statement you make about "something you know" always being more secure is not nearly as clear cut as you present it. A combination of "something you know" and "something you have" is always going to be a very strong authentication scenario, and making "something you have" a non-hackable thing that truly only you can have (i.e not a USB key or a TOTP seed etc.) is a good choice. The catch here is that when you mention biometrics, you make the assumption of static biometrics (rightfully so, as most methods like Touch ID and Face ID are static), but if you combine lets say face biometrics with liveness checks, you are getting into a territory where faking them becomes much much more difficult (there are various mechanisms out there, the good ones rely on completely random interactions and light-bouncing detection methods as an example). The real challenge is how do you make these very strong biometric methods frictionless and cheap? Or how do you introduce similar controls - like liveness - for easier methods like fingerprints? And using any of these (ideally) has absolutely nothing to do with anonymity. You are not anonymous online regardless of what you use for authentication - and you are frankly not smart if you assume thats the case. A company offering a service with biometrics is no different from a company doing the same based on email/username and a password, if they do privacy and security right. I could actually get into a much longer rant about this last part, as it blows my mind how many netizens are all about privacy and whatnot, yet are willing to expose every single detail about them when its convenient from them...

Santosh83 7y ago
> And using any of these (ideally) has absolutely nothing to do with anonymity. You are not anonymous online regardless of what you use for authentication - and you are frankly not smart if you assume thats the case. A company offering a service with biometrics is no different from a company doing the same based on email/username and a password, if they do privacy and security right. Why should I use unchangeable, personally identifiable details when logging into some random joe's website? The mechanics of it are also tied to specific devices if I'm not wrong. I can't just login anywhere without risking leaking secrets. When did fingerprints, iris patterns and DNA go from necessary tools in law enforcement and biology (and for highly secure installations) into casual usage all over the place?
- dustinmoris 7y ago
  You don't have to identify yourself with a "random Joe's website". You can read the comments here without identification, you can seach for flights without identifying yourself, you can search for hotels without giving away who you are, you can read the news, watch YouTube, etc. But when you want to access something that should only belong to you, e.g. your bank account, your Google Drive files, your private emails, etc. then you must find a way of identifying yourself with given website. Username/password is one way, biometrics is another way. Only my family has permission to enter my house. When someone enters my house who doesn't look like my family, then they can throw around all secrets, passwords and usernames they want, I'll kick them out, because in my eyes they don't pass the ultimate test of verification, namely biometrics. So far we were unable to provide the same level of identificaiton via the web, but technology is changing rapidly, so I don't see why username/password are always going to be more secure. On a theoretical basis it doesn't make sense. Because inforation can be easily shared, spread and copied. My physical composition not.
  - paulryanrogers 7y ago
    Biometrics are digital interpretations, which can be copied. The biological sources cannot be easily changed. So _when_ the digital copies leak they become a liability. Passwords can be easily changed. And until reliable, remote, mind reading technology becomes available they'll continue to be better than biometrics.

enriquepablo 7y ago

> Anonymity is weakened if we tie authentication to biometrics. I think you mean pseudonimity. There should be no authentication in anonimity. > Something you know (as in password) is always theoretically more secure than something you are (your physical characteristics). If you authenticate, you can use methods that are more or less secure. If you use a password method, and use a secret as password, it will be more secure than if you use a biometric as password. But the security of the authentication method will bear no weight on the "pseudonimization" - meaning on the difficulty of linking the authenticated identity with your real, legal identity.

Santosh83 7y ago
It's effectively like using one password for every app/site authentication. What if the hashes/keys leak out? Then how easy would it be to change your keys for other sites while still using the same biometrics?