I also have to admit my skepticism. Skimming through the paper, I don't think they emulated "real-world conditions" as claimed in the conclusion. They had parti

I also have to admit my skepticism. Skimming through the paper, I don't think they emulated "real-world conditions" as claimed in the conclusion. They had participants swipe the screen 25 times in a row. Real-world conditions would be giving them 12 hours of recording throughout the day, or something like that, because knowing when and where to look is probably a major challenge on its own. I'll also add that even if true, it's probably not a huge practical issue. Fingerprints are mostly used to secure personal devices: phones, sometimes computers. If I were to have your full fingerprints then that would be mostly useless because I don't have access to your physical device. Even things like "purchase on App Store with fingerprints" usually works by having the fingerprint only secure a key on the device itself (rather than sending the fingerprint data over the network). And if you have access to your physical devices, then I almost certainly also have access to your fingerprints via the good ol' "dust for prints" technique. There was a "fingerprints for everything!" push a decade or so ago, and that was harshly criticized because you leave fingerprints everywhere, and you can even lift them from photographs. Certainly the "enormous economic and personnel losses, and even a potential compromise of national security" claim at the start of the paper seems rather exaggerated, even hysterical.