1. 31
  1.  

    1. 1

      Not the threat model this functionality is addressing.

      1. 2

        What does it address though? I mean seriously, do you really think you can resist in really dangerous situations?

        1. 1

          It’s protecting you against the police, who operate under a legal framework which prevents them from beating you with a rubber hose but not from obtaining your fingerprints.

          1. 2

            I am too cynic to comment on that. I just wish the world was this easy.

            1. 1

              I left the caveat out for the sake of brevity, but like I said the threat model this functionality is addressing is not one where the attacker can utilize any means necessary. Is there any practical system which can address that scenario?

        2. 1

          This brings up a good point though, is it true that, let’s say TSA agents, can force you to unlock your phone with your fingerprint but not with a passcode? Honest question.

          1. 3

            I don’t know about TSA, but it’s true that cops can.

            As far as I know, fingerprints aren’t protected under the fifth amendment but passwords are: http://mashable.com/2014/10/30/cops-can-force-you-to-unlock-phone-with-fingerprint-ruling/#g3MF5oyDTOqN

      2. 1

        I suppose it’s a sad commentary on modern society that this actually somewhat reassures me, but it does.

        1. 1

          Reassures you in what situation?