Live data from Hacker News

Feds Walk into a Building and Demand Everyone's Fingerprints to Open Phones

forbes.com

61–70 of 190 posts

Re: Feds Walk into a Building and Demand Everyone's Fingerprints to Open Phones

#61
post #37
post #2

Just another reason to forgo the convenience of biometrics in favor of a password/phrase that exists only in your mind. At least for now, that's something you can't be compelled to produce. Really though, this descent into a police state is such a pathetic outcome for this country. Dangerous, scary, and tragic, but also... pathetic. This is what happens when a sizeable majority don't even participate in the electoral…

No, it's what happens when large numbers of people decide they care about safety and security more than they care about freedom. That doesn't necessarily make it any better, but to attribute this outcome to mindlessness is to badly miss the point. The first step to solving a problem is to understand what the problem actually is .

Let's put this in its political context. We are citizens of a constitutional republic. A republic, as far as I understand it, implies that a (thoughtful, responsible, .., elected) minority is afforded the delegated power to legislate, judge, and administer.

The 'actual problem' seems to be in the selection/delegation process. The minority that is currently in charge has framed the question as that of "safety and security" vs liberties ("freedoms"). The corporate media (aka "journalists" and "free press") is more than happy to support this thesis. The "people", lets be frank here, were never expected to be a nation of Jeffersons. And it is unreasonable to expect them to be astute techno-political scientists carefully weighing various implications of technology and policy.

Other unelected minorities -- corporations such as Apple, Google, Facebook, ... -- could by fiat choose to only offer goods that preserve our liberties. They chose not to do so and arguably they are not under an obligation to do so. (Note arguably.)

Other unelected minorities -- technologists that work for the above -- have also elected to lend their talents to produce these systems, platforms, and devices that erode our liberties. Again, arguably they don't really have much choice in the matter, as we all must pay the proverbial rent.

So, imho, beyond the cliche that 'a people deserve their government' (which is a congenital defect of a political body), there remains the framework that was intended to select the best and brightest minority that would be entrusted with carefully considering various options. It is this framework that is currently broken. I accuse our so called "free press" for a playing a substantial role in the dysfunction of our political system.

There are other responsible parties for sure, but the press and media play a critical role in knowingly confusing and frightening the majority -- a role known as agitprop in the USSR.

[edit: noop cleanup]

Re: Feds Walk into a Building and Demand Everyone's Fingerprints to Open Phones

#62
A good reason to have a timer on the fingerprint authentication mode, so after eg half an hour you have to type your pin too.

This would also help them remember their pin which people can forget amazingly easily... It can be weeks between using it on iOS.

Re: Feds Walk into a Building and Demand Everyone's Fingerprints to Open Phones

#63
post #48
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's what happens when large numbers of people decide they care about safety and security more than they care about freedom. That doesn't necessarily make it any better, but to attribute this outcome to mindlessness is to badly miss the point. The first step to solving a problem is to understand what the problem actually is .

The problem is that we're not exchanging freedom for security, we're exchanging freedom for the empty promise of security and the reality of a police state. I'm still calling "mindless".

A locked phone is a lot less interesting to a burglar. If the convenience of touch ID means more people lock their phones, that's not an empty promise.

Re: Feds Walk into a Building and Demand Everyone's Fingerprints to Open Phones

#64
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that we're not exchanging freedom for security, we're exchanging freedom for the empty promise of security and the reality of a police state. I'm still calling "mindless".

A locked phone is a lot less interesting to a burglar. If the convenience of touch ID means more people lock their phones, that's not an empty promise.

How many people lock their phones against burglary?

Re: Feds Walk into a Building and Demand Everyone's Fingerprints to Open Phones

#65
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A locked phone is a lot less interesting to a burglar. If the convenience of touch ID means more people lock their phones, that's not an empty promise.

How many people lock their phones against burglary?

One. Me.

Re: Feds Walk into a Building and Demand Everyone's Fingerprints to Open Phones

#67
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's what happens when large numbers of people decide they care about safety and security more than they care about freedom. That doesn't necessarily make it any better, but to attribute this outcome to mindlessness is to badly miss the point. The first step to solving a problem is to understand what the problem actually is .

Let's put this in its political context. We are citizens of a constitutional republic . A republic, as far as I understand it, implies that a (thoughtful, responsible, .., elected) minority is afforded the delegated power to legislate, judge, and administer. The 'actual problem' seems to be in the selection/delegation process. The minority that is currently in charge has framed the question as that of "safety and sec…

The current voting system doesn't help. A national popular vote for president under IRV and proportional representation for Congress are necessary parts of the solution.

Re: Feds Walk into a Building and Demand Everyone's Fingerprints to Open Phones

#68
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's what happens when large numbers of people decide they care about safety and security more than they care about freedom. That doesn't necessarily make it any better, but to attribute this outcome to mindlessness is to badly miss the point. The first step to solving a problem is to understand what the problem actually is .

Let's put this in its political context. We are citizens of a constitutional republic . A republic, as far as I understand it, implies that a (thoughtful, responsible, .., elected) minority is afforded the delegated power to legislate, judge, and administer. The 'actual problem' seems to be in the selection/delegation process. The minority that is currently in charge has framed the question as that of "safety and sec…

This.

The free press is not objective, or benevolent, or ethical. Yes, parts of it may have started that way, but today's free press is merely free, in that it can and will say anything, within legal bounds. It ends up saying whatever gets the most eyeballs.

We need a better way to disseminate factual information to the public. Sadly, I have no idea how to do that.

Re: Feds Walk into a Building and Demand Everyone's Fingerprints to Open Phones

#70
post #10

This is why my unlock is not tied to biometrics. Once I realized the government can compel you to unlock your phone without a warrant using your fingerprint it became a much less compelling feature. The same for facial recognition.

From a glance at your profile, you hardly seem to be a person a government would be interested in (maybe you're a drug king pin in your off hours, don't tell me if you are). What is your threat profile? If you loose your phone and some kid racks up a few hundreds $ in whatever one can buy through a phone nowadays, is that threat worth less to you than the convenience of fingerprint phone locking? Why would you give up that convenience out of fear for something that is much less likely to happen than other, realistic threats?

I know it's a snarky question because there is no way to phrase it without being so; but I honestly don't understand the reasoning behind 'convenience features are worthless/I turn them off because they're not 100% secure against [some powerful actor] that might hypothetically want to look at my phone'. I mean, they can get comms metadata from carriers; speech comms content from wiretaps; email content through subpoenas (minus those you encrypt with client-side tools, a major pain to do on a phone anyway). If you're going to run a coke line from South America or plan to overthrow the government or conspire to bomb immigrants, you're better off not using any such obvious electronic communication tools in the first place. So what's your reasoning?

Post reply on HN