4 ms·

This is completely counterintuitive to me. How are you going to remotely copy my fingerprint or iris? Isn't the fact that scanned fingerprints are still used

This is completely counterintuitive to me. How are you going to remotely copy my fingerprint or iris? Isn't the fact that scanned fingerprints are still used by immigration control and criminal investigators evidence against this?

Djehngo 15y ago
Lets say someone took your fingerprints off a glass or a light-switch or your car, is there any reasonable way to prevent this? Lets also say that you somehow become aware of them having a copy of your fingerprints and you remember that your phone requires your fingerprints to unlock; what do you do? It's the fact that you can't permanently change your fingerprints nor restrict access to them which make them bad for authentication. Those two qualities also make them good for forensics.
- sunchild 15y ago
  Isn't that assuming that the system will accept a copy of a fingerprint? Are you telling me that I could easily spoof the fingerprint readers in immigration control simply by applying some kind of copies of another person's fingerprints over my own? Anyway, if copying fingerprints is possible, then they are useless for forensics, contrary to your final point.
  - ars 15y ago
    > Are you telling me that I could easily spoof the fingerprint readers in immigration control simply by applying some kind of copies of another person's fingerprints over my own? Yes, it's pretty easy. However the immigration officer might notice. > Anyway, if copying fingerprints is possible, then they are useless for forensics, contrary to your final point. Well, it is possible to copy them, and they are not useless, therefor your conclusion has an error. And that error is that forensics does not require certainty, they require evidence. Evidence is probabilistic, and accumulating various forms of it can eventually be convincing, but each piece on its own is insufficient.
ars 15y ago
> Isn't the fact that scanned fingerprints are still used by immigration control and criminal investigators evidence against this? Not at all - they use it for identification not authentication. It's a completely different application.
- sunchild 15y ago
  Forgive me if this seems ignorant, but how is verifying a person's identity at immigration control different from verifying their identity when logging into their phone?
  - ars 15y ago
    The main difference is automated vs human checked. The next difference is that for authentication it's important to be able to change the password (as it were), and with biometrics that's impossible. Once copied an attacker has access forever. But I do see your point, and there are a lot of things in common. But going back to your earlier post, just because immigration control does it that way doesn't mean it's best - it just means they don't have a better way.

Djehngo 15y ago

Lets say someone took your fingerprints off a glass or a light-switch or your car, is there any reasonable way to prevent this? Lets also say that you somehow become aware of them having a copy of your fingerprints and you remember that your phone requires your fingerprints to unlock; what do you do? It's the fact that you can't permanently change your fingerprints nor restrict access to them which make them bad for authentication. Those two qualities also make them good for forensics.

sunchild 15y ago
Isn't that assuming that the system will accept a copy of a fingerprint? Are you telling me that I could easily spoof the fingerprint readers in immigration control simply by applying some kind of copies of another person's fingerprints over my own? Anyway, if copying fingerprints is possible, then they are useless for forensics, contrary to your final point.
- ars 15y ago
  > Are you telling me that I could easily spoof the fingerprint readers in immigration control simply by applying some kind of copies of another person's fingerprints over my own? Yes, it's pretty easy. However the immigration officer might notice. > Anyway, if copying fingerprints is possible, then they are useless for forensics, contrary to your final point. Well, it is possible to copy them, and they are not useless, therefor your conclusion has an error. And that error is that forensics does not require certainty, they require evidence. Evidence is probabilistic, and accumulating various forms of it can eventually be convincing, but each piece on its own is insufficient.

ars 15y ago

> Isn't the fact that scanned fingerprints are still used by immigration control and criminal investigators evidence against this? Not at all - they use it for identification not authentication. It's a completely different application.

sunchild 15y ago
Forgive me if this seems ignorant, but how is verifying a person's identity at immigration control different from verifying their identity when logging into their phone?
- ars 15y ago
  The main difference is automated vs human checked. The next difference is that for authentication it's important to be able to change the password (as it were), and with biometrics that's impossible. Once copied an attacker has access forever. But I do see your point, and there are a lot of things in common. But going back to your earlier post, just because immigration control does it that way doesn't mean it's best - it just means they don't have a better way.