3 ms·
You are missing the point. The point is that reader has those preserved and stored somewhere, while fingerprints that a person just leaves about by going about
by A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
You are missing the point.
The point is that reader has those preserved and stored somewhere, while fingerprints that a person just leaves about by going about their day are not. Just the fact that they are stored is an issue. Note, this is a response to the original question of 'pfft, a person leaves fingerprints all the time anyway'.
Again, the comparison is just not apt.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- astrange 4y agoA fingerprint reader doesn't need to store your fingerprint, it needs to store a hash sufficient to distinguish it from other people who are likely to try to unlock it. nb iPhone Face ID has additional protections, like each scanner using a different random physical pattern so hashes can't even be transferred across devices.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y agoDistinction without a difference. My argument is that fingerprint is digitally preserved; not that it is an exact replica of a fingerprint. If it only compares a hash, it is still a biometric record and that hash has to be somewhere to be compared against ( which itself opens an interesting can of worms depending on the implementation although I do have some level expectation from Apple engineers that it was not botched ). You seem to be too focused on technical implementation and relative security of a given solution. In other words, I am willing to buy an argument that Apple's implementation is better than some other implementations out there, but it does not apply to this case, because it was not Apple's Face ID that we are discussing.
- astrange 4y agoAnyone else is free to implement the same thing. Even extracting the hash doesn't matter if it can't be compared across individual devices.