A recently severed finger could likely be used. The tissue in the finger doesn't die immediately, as is evidenced by the ability to surgically reattach severed fingers and even limbs.
Another good point.
I'm all for the additional level of authentication that Authentec is offering but not for this unrealistic level of reverence we're giving to just another stage in biometric evolution.
This is nonsense. You can use a frozen sausage link on a capacitive touchscreen, and that, nor none of the styluses available have, "blood in the capillaries and live tissue under the skin."
We're talking specifically about fingers and their electrical characteristics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I'm all for the additional level of authentication that Authentec is offering but not for this unrealistic level of reverence we're giving to just another stage in biometric evolution.
Good point. Fingerprint recognition is not totally secure by itself. Most advise also using a PIN.
In this case, it's more about convenience, rather than securing top secrets.
One worry is that false rejections would turn users off from the sensor pretty quickly, and then they'd have to fall back on a PIN anyway.
Good point. Fingerprint recognition is not totally secure by itself. Most advise also using a PIN.
In this case, it's more about convenience, rather than securing top secrets.
The bigger worry is that false rejections would turn users off from the sensor pretty quickly, and then they'd have to fall back on a PIN anyway.
I certainly won't rely on it for security. I'd rather just use my PIN. There are only 10,000 possibilities but after 10 tries my phone will erase itself. I bet you can try as many fingerprint scans as you wish. Also, how quickly can you input your PIN compared to how quickly it will be to place your finger on the scanner without moving it and have it read all the necessary data and determine if it's a match or not? Is this really a time saver?
For myself, I'd much rather see fingerprint verification be used for an unsecured function. For example, you pick up your Apple HDTV's remote control and it will auto-adjust the UI, the services, favorites, saved content, etc. for whomever last held the remote control. To me this takes away the deficient security of biometrics and add a real value that has eluded how we watch television conveniently for decades.
We have personalized desktops for a family "PC" but we still use the exact same, shared setup for our HEC content. Of course, it would be a pain to use a standard remote control to get into some settings area to switch users every time a different person wants to control the TV so this customization has been blocked by a lack of convenience. This is what my biometric solution paired wth a BT (nor IR) remote control would achieve.
I certainly won't rely on it for security. I'd rather just use my PIN.
There are certainly known ways to make fingerprint recognition more secure, such as adding a heat sensor, watching for a heartbeat, and even scanning underneath for veins, but nothing is perfect.
A common thief isn't going to spend time creating a wonderfully fake finger with all those characteristics, and a more sophisticated intruder (such as a government) would just bypass the whole thing and grab data straight from frozen RAM or something.
So it's probably good enough for common use, but I, like you, prefer a dependable PIN.
Quote:
For myself, I'd much rather see fingerprint verification be used for an unsecured function. For example, you pick up your Apple HDTV's remote control and it will auto-adjust the UI, the services, favorites, saved content, etc. for whomever last held the remote control. To me this takes away the deficient security of biometrics and add a real value that has eluded how we watch television conveniently for decades.
I think that's a great idea, using the sensor for other, non-secure purposes.
Reminds me of that 2007 WinMo phone with a fingerprint sensor. You could assign different apps or settings to be launched by different fingers.
We're talking specifically about fingers and their electrical characteristics.
We are, but you weren't in that instance, you were simply BSing about the requirements for a capacitive touchscreen to work:
Quote:
You might recall that I once explained that capacitive touchscreens work because of the blood in the capillaries and live tissue under the skin. [emphasis mine]
I understand you wanting to weasel your way out of being dead wrong, but you were talking complete nonsense, making stuff up as you go along, as you usually do.
I'm all for the additional level of authentication that Authentec is offering but not for this unrealistic level of reverence we're giving to just another stage in biometric evolution.
Well, on the other hand (no pun intended), if someone has your phone and your finger, whether they can break into it with said finger is probably the least of your worries.
Well, on the other hand (no pun intended), if someone has your phone and your finger, whether they can break into it with said finger is probably the least of your worries.
That's the thing, I don't want to use any biometrics that can be harvested from my body.
PS: That scene in Minority Report where Tom Cruise puts his removed eye up to the scanner to let himself into his old office bothers me because the first thing you do is cut all access.
Comments
Another good point.
I'm all for the additional level of authentication that Authentec is offering but not for this unrealistic level of reverence we're giving to just another stage in biometric evolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
This is nonsense. You can use a frozen sausage link on a capacitive touchscreen, and that, nor none of the styluses available have, "blood in the capillaries and live tissue under the skin."
We're talking specifically about fingers and their electrical characteristics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I'm all for the additional level of authentication that Authentec is offering but not for this unrealistic level of reverence we're giving to just another stage in biometric evolution.
Good point. Fingerprint recognition is not totally secure by itself. Most advise also using a PIN.
In this case, it's more about convenience, rather than securing top secrets.
One worry is that false rejections would turn users off from the sensor pretty quickly, and then they'd have to fall back on a PIN anyway.
I certainly won't rely on it for security. I'd rather just use my PIN. There are only 10,000 possibilities but after 10 tries my phone will erase itself. I bet you can try as many fingerprint scans as you wish. Also, how quickly can you input your PIN compared to how quickly it will be to place your finger on the scanner without moving it and have it read all the necessary data and determine if it's a match or not? Is this really a time saver?
For myself, I'd much rather see fingerprint verification be used for an unsecured function. For example, you pick up your Apple HDTV's remote control and it will auto-adjust the UI, the services, favorites, saved content, etc. for whomever last held the remote control. To me this takes away the deficient security of biometrics and add a real value that has eluded how we watch television conveniently for decades.
We have personalized desktops for a family "PC" but we still use the exact same, shared setup for our HEC content. Of course, it would be a pain to use a standard remote control to get into some settings area to switch users every time a different person wants to control the TV so this customization has been blocked by a lack of convenience. This is what my biometric solution paired wth a BT (nor IR) remote control would achieve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I certainly won't rely on it for security. I'd rather just use my PIN.
There are certainly known ways to make fingerprint recognition more secure, such as adding a heat sensor, watching for a heartbeat, and even scanning underneath for veins, but nothing is perfect.
A common thief isn't going to spend time creating a wonderfully fake finger with all those characteristics, and a more sophisticated intruder (such as a government) would just bypass the whole thing and grab data straight from frozen RAM or something.
So it's probably good enough for common use, but I, like you, prefer a dependable PIN.
Quote:
For myself, I'd much rather see fingerprint verification be used for an unsecured function. For example, you pick up your Apple HDTV's remote control and it will auto-adjust the UI, the services, favorites, saved content, etc. for whomever last held the remote control. To me this takes away the deficient security of biometrics and add a real value that has eluded how we watch television conveniently for decades.
I think that's a great idea, using the sensor for other, non-secure purposes.
Reminds me of that 2007 WinMo phone with a fingerprint sensor. You could assign different apps or settings to be launched by different fingers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagMan1979
OMG, every time I read "rumour" in the article / title I want to scream, every time I read "
analyst" in the article I want to find so-called scumbag analyst and beat the crap out of him!
These people are paid ridiculous sums of money to talk out of their asses, makes me sick.
Are you not posting on the wrong type of forum. Its not even like these are anti-Apple rumors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity
Even if it had a flux capacitor they would still find ways to spin it negatively.
Such as: "This will be obsolete in 2015 when they release 'Mr. Fusion' technology that runs on trash and beer."
God I love that movie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
We're talking specifically about fingers and their electrical characteristics.
We are, but you weren't in that instance, you were simply BSing about the requirements for a capacitive touchscreen to work:
Quote:
You might recall that I once explained that capacitive touchscreens work because of the blood in the capillaries and live tissue under the skin. [emphasis mine]
I understand you wanting to weasel your way out of being dead wrong, but you were talking complete nonsense, making stuff up as you go along, as you usually do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Another good point.
I'm all for the additional level of authentication that Authentec is offering but not for this unrealistic level of reverence we're giving to just another stage in biometric evolution.
Well, on the other hand (no pun intended), if someone has your phone and your finger, whether they can break into it with said finger is probably the least of your worries.
http://gadgets.ndtv.com/mobiles/news/samsung-galaxy-s-iv-featured-in-hands-on-video-341530?pfrom=home-editorpick
have fun guys
That's the thing, I don't want to use any biometrics that can be harvested from my body.
PS: That scene in Minority Report where Tom Cruise puts his removed eye up to the scanner to let himself into his old office bothers me because the first thing you do is cut all access.