This is absolutely false. There is a high cost for copying a fingerprint and it is time consuming to perform, conspicuous and difficult to deploy the copy. Th

This is absolutely false. There is a high cost for copying a fingerprint and it is time consuming to perform, conspicuous and difficult to deploy the copy. Therefore fingerprints are not a good tool when there is a lot of time for the attack, and the value is very high. However when the attack value is low, and the time available is short, they are currently a useful check. One day, we will probably have a portable fingerprint cloner that changes the economics of this, but until we do, fingerprints are useful. Since you dismiss biometrics as 'useless', what alternative would you suggest?