I’m not responding the post. I’m responding specifically to your comment (where you did not give context but made a definitive statement). That’s on you.
Which is part of a thread with context.
OP IS USING A GOOGLE ACCOUNT WITH GOOGLES BIOMETRICS BEING SUGGESTED TO THEM.
The police will bypass you to get that data and Google will likely give it to them without a subpoena.
Still requires way more than making you look toward a screen or holding your finger onto part of one.
Also takes a lot more time than grabbing you and forcing it.
Also requires google to provide it without a subpoena.
You really think thats somehow easier than biometrics for them?
See the OP.
It does not.
I really dont understand how you can come to that conclusion that for “biometrics make it less secure given what we know is protected and what is not”.
You keep saying that word but I don’t think you know what it means.
Quite confidently, I do. And its clearer and clearer that you just aren’t thinking this through.
If you had said using biometrics is like using a TSA approved luggage lock I might be inclined to agree with you. But what you said was that "you can be compelled to give up biometrics to unlock your device) and what I said was, a weak password is not better.
And again, no password is in no way better than a weak password.
What are you having trouble with here?
You can continue to argue but you seem to keep missing context here.
Clearly, thats not an issue for me. You seem confused about the most basic part of this.
A weak password is what most people use. That’s why there’s a top 1000 passwords in use news article every couple of years.
Do you really think the idiots stopping you on a sidewalk or at an airport or in your car are aware for the most common passwords? Or that being brought to a police station and put under a full investigation is the only way this can happen?
[Spoiler]
Its not.
Your birthday or anniversary is not better than biometrics. Say whatever else you want here.
See previous comment. In every way, shape, and form it requires more time, effort, and knowledge than immediately forcing you to unlock your phone by showing it at your face or restraining you and grabbing your finger.
In what possible way could it not?
You haven’t actually proven a point but I’m over it.
Repeatedly. I’d recommend reading again, because you are missing the incredibly obvious and I don’t understand how you could be missing any of it.
Which is part of a thread with context.
Still requires way more than making you look toward a screen or holding your finger onto part of one.
Also takes a lot more time than grabbing you and forcing it.
Also requires google to provide it without a subpoena.
You really think thats somehow easier than biometrics for them?
I really dont understand how you can come to that conclusion that for “biometrics make it less secure given what we know is protected and what is not”.
Quite confidently, I do. And its clearer and clearer that you just aren’t thinking this through.
And again, no password is in no way better than a weak password.
What are you having trouble with here?
Clearly, thats not an issue for me. You seem confused about the most basic part of this.
Do you really think the idiots stopping you on a sidewalk or at an airport or in your car are aware for the most common passwords? Or that being brought to a police station and put under a full investigation is the only way this can happen?
[Spoiler]
Its not.
See previous comment. In every way, shape, and form it requires more time, effort, and knowledge than immediately forcing you to unlock your phone by showing it at your face or restraining you and grabbing your finger.
In what possible way could it not?
Repeatedly. I’d recommend reading again, because you are missing the incredibly obvious and I don’t understand how you could be missing any of it.