4 ms·
While fingerprints might work as a proof of identity, they should not be a replacement for passwords. Identity is who you are, passwords are authentication, and
by raldu 13y ago
While fingerprints might work as a proof of identity, they should not be a replacement for passwords. Identity is who you are, passwords are authentication, and they are better when kept separate. Besides I cannot look at this issue without being paranoid: Apple is one of the companies that comply with the PRISM program. By putting your fingerprints in their products, you are just giving away more data for survelliance and creating a security "issue" rather than solution. Do we really need this?
- hnriot 13y agobut authentication is identity. a password does nothing more than identify you by something supposedly only you would know. and yes, we need this. convenience is the antithesis of security, so anything that builds a bridge for more users is welcome.
- raldu 13y agoIdentity is something that can be seen public. Authentication is a way of proving that you are "the" person who is supposed to get the access to the system. When your identity is stolen in a system where identity is equated with authentication, you are the one who is responsible for "thefts" actions. Users can be held responsible for their actions only when identity and authentication are kept separate. An article that explains this point in more detail: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc512578.aspx http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc512578.aspx