this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2026
431 points (99.5% liked)
Technology
85602 readers
3660 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Convenience is how they get you. I have also been telling people for years that security and convenience are opposite ends of the same line. The closer you are to one the farther you are from the other.
~~Security~~ Privacy. They are distinct concepts.
For example, tokenised and biometrically authenticated transactions are more secure and more convenient than cash payments which are comparatively riskier, easier to forge, easier to steal etc.
However, this allows banks and payment providers to keep tabs on your transaction data, which cash does not.
Convenience and privacy are usually at opposite ends, security can come at either end depending on the medium.
Biometrics are not more secure, because you can be forced to give it against your will.
Fingerprint? They can force your finger onto the scanner.
Eye scan/Face Scan? They can put you in a headlock and hold the phone infront of you.
You cant be manhandled into typing a password.
Biometic security is convenience, not security.
It is more secure.
It's much easier to steal cash than to force someone to unlock a device and make a payment, so yes it is more secure.
I didn't say 100% unbeatable.
and with biometics, its not hard at all, you just force their finger onto the scanner/hold their camera infront of their face.. and hell they probably dont even have to be alive to do it, and you've got full access to do everything on their phone. instead of stealing 5 bucks out of their wallet, you've now got access to any and all banking shit on their phone.
Ok mate, I disagree but accept I'm not gonna convince you
I mean, you are disagreeing with facts.
Cause not only is if factually real, it has factually happened,
FBI kinda screwed up the case against one of the Jan6ers by forcing them to unlock their phone by forcing their thumb onto their phone. . Granted, it was appealed and the court declared it a violation of 5th amendment (which is great in general, even if it unfortunately helps a Jan6er).
and there have been numerous other instances of police and authorities have done the same thing, it was not an uncommon practice before that court ruling.. and to be honest, with how power abusive police are, its probably still not that uncommon.
So you can disagree all you want. but its happening every day. Biometrics are security theater, not actual security.
edit This isnt conservative media, downvoting doesnt make facts become unfacts, lol.
Secure, convenient, private. Pick two.
Yep, which is also why paper ballots are still the de facto standard for democratic elections. Digital voting which is verifiable and yet anonymous is very difficult to get right, especially when it needs to be accessible enough for every citizen to understand.