5 ms·

Why is harvesting fingerprints such a catastrophic possibility? The government already has your fingerprints if you've ever left or entered the country, and the

Why is harvesting fingerprints such a catastrophic possibility? The government already has your fingerprints if you've ever left or entered the country, and they've likely been taken during other periods in your life as well. Hell, even the Cambodian government decided to scan my fingers when I passed through. DrCube's counter-argument [1] is logical: that with these existing databases, the government can now access your phone. But really, is this feature being touted as a impenetrably secure way to unlock your phone? It seems to be positioned as "a way to make accessing your phone convenient for you and non-trivial for others," and I think this feature does exactly that. If you can't trust the phone vendor, why are you not more paranoid about entering your username/password on the device? What about location data? I really can't fathom why decrying fingerprint technology is the nexus of your argument here. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6364725 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6364725

maxerickson 13y ago
As a U.S. citizen, I've visited Canada and other places a few times. Any fingerprint collection that happened was incredibly subtle. I tend to look at tyranny as the problem, not whichever mechanism it is utilizing, but you are making quite the assertion there.
zevyoura 13y ago
Not to mention it would be fairly trivial for a dedicated opponent to obtain fingerprints for most people, as long as they don't wear gloves everywhere.
- nly 13y ago
  Dusting and lifting all the prints to be found in public spaces is infeasible and the results can't be correlated with identities. The move to mobile phone scanning opens the door for more cheap, mass digital data harvesting. In effect, you're making the same argument that claims it's OK if the government track every car in the country by optical plate recognition, across a vast camera network, because "Hey! you're out in public already!" The difference in both cases is only a matter of difficulty.
  - zevyoura 13y ago
    I'm not saying OK, I'm saying modern tech makes it trivial compared to the past.
kyro 13y ago
Because the implication is that your identity can eventually be physically tied to every action you take. If everyone were to adopt fingerprint scanners as their method of transaction, there would be no way to uncouple who we are from what we do. It's an implication that may not be soon realized, or even ever, but to me that's the component of this that's a bit worrying.
nly 13y ago
> The government already has your fingerprints if you've ever left or entered the country, and they've likely been taken during other periods in your life as well. So, because it's pervasive, it's absolutely fine to allow it to become more pervasive? Fyi, I'm approaching 30, have travelled widely, and to my knowledge have never had my finger imprints taken. I see no reason to find this acceptable. Not all countries are as fucked as the US in wanting your biometrics. > is this feature being touted as a impenetrably secure way to unlock your phone? That's not the issue, it's the fingerprints themselves that the FSF and many of us are concerned with. Sure, you do leave your fingerprints everywhere you go... but I really can't see a team of spooks dusting down the counters in McDonalds or the handrails in the subway to establish a national database. On the other hand, I can totally see the Facebook mobile app using fingerprints for remote authentication and then the authorities gaining access to that data store. > If you can't trust the phone vendor, why are you not more paranoid about entering your username/password on the device? What about location data? 1) I can use a password that's unique to the device, my account, my app, or the the colour of my underwear. My fingerprints don't change. 2) Location data is less avoidable because it tends to be a by-product of optimal operation of a mobile device. Even excluded GPS, cell towers can be used to triangulate your position well enough to be useful to advertisers, for example, but that same raw data is totally needed for hand-off between cells and managing network coverage. 3) Again, existing concerns don't make new concerns OK.
- jemeshsu 13y ago
  > Not all countries are as fucked as the US in wanting your biometrics. Malaysia is another country that will scan your fingerprint when you enter the country.

maxerickson 13y ago

As a U.S. citizen, I've visited Canada and other places a few times. Any fingerprint collection that happened was incredibly subtle. I tend to look at tyranny as the problem, not whichever mechanism it is utilizing, but you are making quite the assertion there.

zevyoura 13y ago

Not to mention it would be fairly trivial for a dedicated opponent to obtain fingerprints for most people, as long as they don't wear gloves everywhere.

nly 13y ago
Dusting and lifting all the prints to be found in public spaces is infeasible and the results can't be correlated with identities. The move to mobile phone scanning opens the door for more cheap, mass digital data harvesting. In effect, you're making the same argument that claims it's OK if the government track every car in the country by optical plate recognition, across a vast camera network, because "Hey! you're out in public already!" The difference in both cases is only a matter of difficulty.
- zevyoura 13y ago
  I'm not saying OK, I'm saying modern tech makes it trivial compared to the past.

kyro 13y ago

Because the implication is that your identity can eventually be physically tied to every action you take. If everyone were to adopt fingerprint scanners as their method of transaction, there would be no way to uncouple who we are from what we do. It's an implication that may not be soon realized, or even ever, but to me that's the component of this that's a bit worrying.

nly 13y ago

> The government already has your fingerprints if you've ever left or entered the country, and they've likely been taken during other periods in your life as well. So, because it's pervasive, it's absolutely fine to allow it to become more pervasive? Fyi, I'm approaching 30, have travelled widely, and to my knowledge have never had my finger imprints taken. I see no reason to find this acceptable. Not all countries are as fucked as the US in wanting your biometrics. > is this feature being touted as a impenetrably secure way to unlock your phone? That's not the issue, it's the fingerprints themselves that the FSF and many of us are concerned with. Sure, you do leave your fingerprints everywhere you go... but I really can't see a team of spooks dusting down the counters in McDonalds or the handrails in the subway to establish a national database. On the other hand, I can totally see the Facebook mobile app using fingerprints for remote authentication and then the authorities gaining access to that data store. > If you can't trust the phone vendor, why are you not more paranoid about entering your username/password on the device? What about location data? 1) I can use a password that's unique to the device, my account, my app, or the the colour of my underwear. My fingerprints don't change. 2) Location data is less avoidable because it tends to be a by-product of optimal operation of a mobile device. Even excluded GPS, cell towers can be used to triangulate your position well enough to be useful to advertisers, for example, but that same raw data is totally needed for hand-off between cells and managing network coverage. 3) Again, existing concerns don't make new concerns OK.

jemeshsu 13y ago
> Not all countries are as fucked as the US in wanting your biometrics. Malaysia is another country that will scan your fingerprint when you enter the country.