Functionally, biometrics are closer to a username than a password.
replyFingerprints, DNA, iris scans, gait patterns, etc. are all something you can't change (much like a permanent account ID) and are constantly being presented to the world (much like an email address). In addition under US law, police can compel presentation of fingerprints, but passwords are protected under the 5th amendment.
That's fair. Though, thinking about it this way, I'd argue they're even more like a permanent API key. Again, messaging completely lost on people who don't spend time worrying these things.
replythe "it's easier" people operate on a fundamentally different way than you or I. they thrive in the world of plausible deniability and social trust. They almost dont care what happens to them as long as it isnt their fault. And they do not consider putting themselves at risk to be the same as being at fault
replyin a certain light, it's kind of admirable. they live like the world is the way it should be
That’s HN users towards politics and the environment. Sitting smugly with their yubikey and encrypted laptop while the world around them crumbles.
reply[dead]
replyOne of the problems is that "forever passwords" is a term used positively when I worked in banking, as it was a password that the customer could not forget and would not need support using.
replySo I could easily see a lot of people viewing this as a positive.
That's a really good point. It lays bare some of my biases when it comes to thinking about and communicating with "normal people" about this sort of thing.
replyPeople having a bad memory is it enormous cost to institutions, which is why biometrics is so appealing in the first place.
replyThem being forever passwords is the value prop. The risk scene has changed, but that was essentially always the pitch.
Biometrics are fine. My dog has an ID chip in injected under his skin.
replyYour dog has nothing worth stealing and is not responsible for anything.
reply