Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 u…
"...you hardly seem to be a person a government would be interested in..." "If you've got nothing to hide..." - right?
Feds Walk into a Building and Demand Everyone's Fingerprints to Open Phones
91–100 of 190 posts
Re: Feds Walk into a Building and Demand Everyone's Fingerprints to Open Phones
#92And this is why I don't use my fingerprint, passcode only for me.
So... how often are you actually in a situation like that? You know, police with a search warrant.
Or, do you feel that there is a reasonable possibility that will happen to you?
Re: Feds Walk into a Building and Demand Everyone's Fingerprints to Open Phones
#93This is one reason I've always wanted to have two separate authentication credentials for one user. Unfortunately, I've yet to find an acceptable or easy way to implement that on any device that would need it (your phone, your laptop, any device which you want to keep stuff private). For example: have one authentication method that unlocks the device to the typical desktop environment, command line, or whatever -- ju…
Re: Feds Walk into a Building and Demand Everyone's Fingerprints to Open Phones
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
My favorite fast response to disarm that is always: that's not up to you [whether or not you have something to hide]. I've found it instantly shakes the false comfort they're trying to derive from their premise and opens up a moment of rethink.
Not for me, I don't even understand your point. Of course it's up to me if I have something to hide. I have nothing on my phone that I wouldn't be perfectly OK with to have printed and displayed in a busy public place. How is it not up to me to decide what details of my life I have to hide?
Depending on who is in power in your area, that could change very quickly. If you're of the wrong race, someone like Donald Trump might use three-letter agency-collected data to move you out of the country. Foreign states might want to use your identity to get cheap health care for their citizens.
Immigration policies, substance legal statuses and acceptable social practices and attitudes change overnight. Someone could spam with you child pornography and border officials could find it in your phone at the border.
Furthermore, you don't know what you're going to do with the rest of your life and how the decisions you make now could be perceived in the future.
Maybe someone's watching your house, keeping track of when you're not home. Or maybe they're using your phone patterns to do the same: Checking your phone when you're in the gym, in the bathroom at a restaurant.
And any of these scenarios could be used to threaten you or someone you care about. Did a neighbor ask if you could babysit their children when they're away? Did your aunt admit she has a mental disorder that could get her fired? Did a friend reveal he has a substance abuse problem? Did your elderly parents send you copies of official financial documents to review? Ever looked for a "questionable" book on Amazon?
Furthermore, if you're not following proper safety practices, you could be a liability for future business partners. Who wants to risk sharing data with someone who's loosey-goosey about the info on their systems?
In conclusion, it's not just you, right now that bears thinking about. It's everyone in your social circle over the long-term future.
Re: Feds Walk into a Building and Demand Everyone's Fingerprints to Open Phones
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
One. Me.
Huh... why? I mean, burglars and hackers are usually very different people, and the former usually doesn't care about what's on your phone, just your phone. I grant however, that you could have a particular situation perhaps relating to your work which might alter that.
Re: Feds Walk into a Building and Demand Everyone's Fingerprints to Open Phones
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. It is a form of identification not authentication.
I heard fingerprints described as "Authentication, not authorisation", which I think is a better description of the role they play (on the iPhone, at least), and the role they should play. They authenticate who you are, they aren't trivial to fake. However, they shouldn't authorise access to a device on their own. Your fingerprint works as a somewhat more secure, medium term swipe-to-unlock for your phone.
I understand once you've authenticated who the user is, authorization is just a mask of what they are allowed to do. It is like saying "after you've given your username (GMail account) to Google, it should allow you to read your email. If you happen to be an administrator for Google Business account you can also see other accounts or settings etc".
So hopefully you meant that you just use your fingerprint in place of typing out your username not in place of typing your username _and_ password.
Re: Feds Walk into a Building and Demand Everyone's Fingerprints to Open Phones
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you travel ? In much if not all of Europe not giving your password, even to a random search when passing through (not entering the country), is a crime. Therefore legal advice is to provide custom agents and other police with access to any device upon request and then.
Right. So just don't keep anything sensitive on the phone. Whenever crossing borders or otherwise subject to search and seizure, carry blank devices. Access sensitive stuff from secure online repositories.
Re: Feds Walk into a Building and Demand Everyone's Fingerprints to Open Phones
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.xkcd.com/538/
That's the reality, for sure, but at least you're stripping away the air of respectability, law, and order. When you're whipping someone with a rubber hose, you've made a serious commitment.
Counterexample popped in my head was parents with a belt asking for iPhone unlocked. Still has respectability, law, and order in most places. I wonder if there are other counterexamples.
Re: Feds Walk into a Building and Demand Everyone's Fingerprints to Open Phones
#99Just 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…
Biometrics could be used as a username, but should not be used as a password...
Re: Feds Walk into a Building and Demand Everyone's Fingerprints to Open Phones
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
My favorite fast response to disarm that is always: that's not up to you [whether or not you have something to hide]. I've found it instantly shakes the false comfort they're trying to derive from their premise and opens up a moment of rethink.
Not for me, I don't even understand your point. Of course it's up to me if I have something to hide. I have nothing on my phone that I wouldn't be perfectly OK with to have printed and displayed in a busy public place. How is it not up to me to decide what details of my life I have to hide?
The police asks you to surrender you phone. Telling "you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't mind" and you respond with "It is not up to decide if I have something to hide"
Or, your friend is arguing for letting the police see their phone because your friend has nothing to hide. Your friend says "I have nothing to hide". But you respond with "It is not up to you if you have nothing to hide, so you shouldn't have that attitude".
Assuming you meant the second, what is the reasoning behind it?