4 ms·

A fingerprint can be a personal password or it can be a government ID, but it can’t be both. Since the U.S. government already has something like 200 million fi

A fingerprint can be a personal password or it can be a government ID, but it can’t be both. Since the U.S. government already has something like 200 million fingerprints on file, and many foreign governments collect fingerprints whenever you travel, these fingerprints are sometimes leaked en masse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Personnel_Management_data_breach#Theft_of_fingerprints https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Personnel_Management...), and because they can never be changed, biometrics aren't my personal choice for a secure method of authentication.

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
But I think you missed the point about the second factor, because there are really 2 factors here: 1. Something you have (e.g. your phone, in this case the Secure Enclave that stores the private key). 2. Something you 'know', e.g. your fingerprint. Just having the fingerprint itself is not sufficient.
- the_svd_doctor 6y ago
  This is key. I just hope this never changes and we never end up in a situation where the fingerprint is all that is used. Because for most non technical user, my bank app asking my fingerprint to unlock the app is exactly that. They don't really get the difference.
- aarongray 6y ago
  That's a good point that it is more nuanced. The issue I think is that organized crime and unscrupulous governments are getting better at connecting these things so they are not as cleanly separated as they have been in the past. Just look at China. Essentially spyware and viruses are installed at checkpoints on people's phones and biometric tracking is becoming very commonplace. I don't think it will be long before organized crime begins to get better at this too. As such, being able to change that "something you know" is a very powerful countermeasure.
someguyorother 6y ago
In addition, fingerprints and faces are particularly bad biometrics for keeping secrets, because attackers can get hold of them without you noticing. E.g. anyone can take a picture of you in a crowd, or lift your fingerprints if they can get to somewhere you've been. But they can't do a surreptitious retinal scan on you.

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago

But I think you missed the point about the second factor, because there are really 2 factors here: 1. Something you have (e.g. your phone, in this case the Secure Enclave that stores the private key). 2. Something you 'know', e.g. your fingerprint. Just having the fingerprint itself is not sufficient.

the_svd_doctor 6y ago
This is key. I just hope this never changes and we never end up in a situation where the fingerprint is all that is used. Because for most non technical user, my bank app asking my fingerprint to unlock the app is exactly that. They don't really get the difference.
aarongray 6y ago
That's a good point that it is more nuanced. The issue I think is that organized crime and unscrupulous governments are getting better at connecting these things so they are not as cleanly separated as they have been in the past. Just look at China. Essentially spyware and viruses are installed at checkpoints on people's phones and biometric tracking is becoming very commonplace. I don't think it will be long before organized crime begins to get better at this too. As such, being able to change that "something you know" is a very powerful countermeasure.

someguyorother 6y ago

In addition, fingerprints and faces are particularly bad biometrics for keeping secrets, because attackers can get hold of them without you noticing. E.g. anyone can take a picture of you in a crowd, or lift your fingerprints if they can get to somewhere you've been. But they can't do a surreptitious retinal scan on you.