3 ms·
Except on hundreds of millions of iPhones around the world. Apple has shown that the distinction is more nuanced. There are cases where biometric use is legitim
by acchow 4y ago
Except on hundreds of millions of iPhones around the world. Apple has shown that the distinction is more nuanced. There are cases where biometric use is legitimate.
Signing into an account on a remote server? Probably not. To access the secure enclave on a device that is with you for 100% of your life? Probably fine.
- TacticalCoder 4y ago> To access the secure enclave on a device that is with you for 100% of your life? Probably fine. The notion, however, that a device shall be with you for 100% of your life is not fine at all. It's totally dystopian.
- a_subsystem 4y agoI think op means with you, rather than someone else.
- tinus_hn 4y agoIn a sense it’s two factor authentication with the other factor being the phone itself
- joe_the_user 4y agoThe only "nuance" here is that weak security is "probably fine" in many situations. It should still be acknowledged as weak security. Most houses don't have locks appropriate for bank. Many people do get by with weak passwords in many situations. But acknowledging the weakness of this sort of security is still important because a given person has to consider the threat they face (activists who may face repressive state should what good and what bad security is still) and because new exploit method can appear.
- hansvm 4y agoMost banks don't have locks appropriate for banks.
- jbverschoor 4y agoIt doesn’t work like that.. you always need your password