Your bio-metrics - your face, your voice, your fingerprints are your login, not your password.
You cannot change them, you leave this data everywhere and this data can be snooped and replayed easily.
Moreover, this data is singular for a person - its hard to assign yourself multiple roles or have multiple sets of credentials with different permissions or for different services.
We collectively should stop revolutionizing the access control sphere and use boring scheme with passwords, pins and tokens.
Something you are is the perfect form of authentication.
If you had a guard sitting at a door with only biometric information about the people they’re supposed to let in: faces, fingerprints, DNA samples, voice samples, etc. you could not fool them. Why? Because they can authenticate that the reading is coming from the actual person.
This is the revolution. If your phone can with good enough accuracy determine that it’s looking at a real alive attentive human face or a real finger then it’s game over. It’s an auth cred that can literally only be used by you, it can’t be copied, stolen, hacked, phished, and can be totally public while being useless to an attacker because they can’t mint a live human with real matching fingerprint.
If you think of biometric auth as “present a picture of your fingerprint” and not “present your actual finger” then of course you arrive at the conclusion that they’re useless as a credential.
The issue with Biometrics, atleast for those in the US, is that they are not protected by the 5th amendment. Court cases have reaffirmed this, meaning you can be forced to provide your Biometrics for law enforcement to gain access to your devices.
Some may feel this is acceptable with the thought if your not guilty then you should have nothing to hide, but this is a fallacy as it tramples over our 4th amendment rights. With passwords locked in your head, you cannot be forced to give that information as that is protected by the 5th amendment. Accessing the device or any information protected by a password must then be done with other means or not admissible as longer delays violates due process.
Android for a while has a feature called "lockdown" where you can force a password entry instead of a fingerprint for the next unlock. Takes a little forethought but it's easy enough to remember when going through customs or being pulled over.
You’re assuming that law enforcement doesn’t routinely force suspects to give up their PINs and lie and say it was voluntary.
On the other hand, it was reported in the UK (?) that law enforcement follows around suspects, wait for them to unlock their phone in public and tackle them before they re lock it.
> But at 3:15 p.m., the quiet was broken when, out of nowhere, a young woman in street clothes charged toward Ulbricht yelling, "I'm so sick of you!" and grabbed his laptop. Ulbricht leapt from his seat to grab it back, when the half dozen other readers at nearby tables suddenly lunged for him, pushing him up against a window.
> Undercover surveillance officers trailed Yew and waited for him to unlock his phone to make a call - thereby disabling the encryption. One officer then rushed in to seize the phone from Yew's hand
What about this cases is "forcing suspects to give up their PINs and lying to say it was voluntary."? Both of these was swiftly executing an arrest warrant before the suspect had an opportunity to lock or destroy their device.... seems reasonable. Definitely no lying to say they handed it over voluntarily.
You really haven’t heard about the multitude of cases where DA’s and law enforcement were complicit in convicting innocent people? Do you think that a justice system where DA’s actually put a “B” by Black potential jurors to find a reason to keep them off the jury (the case went to the Supreme Court), or the case where an eye witness didn’t say anything about facial tattoos, the police wanted to convict someone, so they used Photoshop to remove tattoos from the person they wanted to convict so they would “fit the description” would be above forcing a suspect to unlock their phone?
If the government will condone torture to get information out of people because of the “War on Terror”, why wouldn’t they do the same for the “War on Drugs”?
I think your point is moot. Is torture legal? Is any evidence gained through torture admissable? Are any law enforcement allowed to use torture to gain access to information?
You should be able to answer those yourself. Legal rights are not trumpt by illegal tactics, no matter what information is recovered.
Is any evidence gained through torture admissable?
If the police lie and say the person wasn’t tortured or do you believe that police don’t lie?
Are any law enforcement allowed to use torture to gain access to information?
Yes and police never lie and district attorneys never illegally withhold evidence from the defense....
You’re making a lot of assumptions that police, judges, and district attorneys play by the rules and that overworked public defenders have the time or the will to be great advocates for defenders.
Should an authentication system be expected to reliably determine the motive of the user in addition to their identity? Various anti-fraud systems address this to varying extents, but a bank manager sitting at their laptop, tying in their password and TOTP with a gun to their head isn’t materially different to them providing biometric authentication with a gun to their head.
Identity != authentication. The bank manager is, from the identification POV, still the bank manager. The bank manager may not be intending to authenticate, though.
How is this any different of a scenario than having the bank manager memorize a password? They can still force the bank manager to give up the password by threatening to blow their brains out.
> How is this any different of a scenario than having the bank manager memorize a password?
Because in the other scenario the bank manager can be killed and the murderer can still use the "key" (the bank manager's lifeless face). Dead or alive the bank manager is still that same person.
With a password there's more security for the bank manager. If the robber kills the manager then the robber can't get in.
A second password could delay opening the vault (with a pretty animation), alert cops/security, and even lock the front door from the inside. The bank manager is unlikely to have a second face for doing the same.
Biometric auth needs an "under duress" mechanism to be at all comparable.
In general, I'm on board with what you're saying, but there's a thing with security credentials: it's important for me to allow me to give them away to the guy with a knife.
If knife guy comes for me and says "Your phone and password or your life" I can give it to him. It's kind of important that I can or else he'll take my bloody finger with him and body integrity is way more important to me than any amount of my data.
Literally, I prefer my fingers attached and you can clear my bank account rather than the alternative.
I disagree, I don't think there is any need for proof of identity to not be voluntarily relinquishable.
I think relinquishable credentials are quite useful for a number of delegation related uses - but if they are relinquishable then they need to be expirable as well.
If a guy with a knife wants my password I'm going to give it up and walk away alive, then try and recoup the loss of whatever I gave up... maybe I get the debit against an account reversed or purge recent account activity from social media.
There currently is nothing secret like that that I'd give up my life to protect, and I can't conceive of anything of such import existing... for those cases where the item is truly dangerous (like the nuclear football) then a guy with a knife being a threat is already a failure of security.
Oh, I was unaware of that - so I'm not certain I want to rely on the knowledge of someone in a position to cut off my finger... additionally, they don't currently work, but I'm sure there could be developed ways to spoof them by artificially circulating warmed blood or some such.
Just... biometrics are such a terrible idea - let's not even open that door.
the problem isnt weather or not its true, the problem is how likely someone is to try using a severed part any way, because it just might be FUD and a dead finger is just as good as attached. aside from that, a severed finger continues to live for a while afterward, it doesnt instantly perish. it has to metabolize its oxygen reserves.
The most popular and high priced phone has had fingerprint authentication since 2013. If there was going to be a rash of people cutting off fingers, wouldn’t it have happened by now?
If it happened would any PR department admit it?
so far the tactic of waiting for someone to unlock a phone then robbing them has been effective.
as soon as it becomes required behaviour it will happen.
so far there are methods of hijacking a phone from its original owner, even without the phone in hand [simjacking]
and as such tactics are stymied, other more brutal force methods would be required.
You really don’t think that would make the news? Why would you have to depend on the PR department? It sounds like another panic without any basis in reality.
And now, that phones are moving toward face recognition isn’t kind of a moot point?
That spokespersons claim is plainly a lie though, refutable both in theory -- the given explanation is gobbledygook -- and in practice -- Chaos Computer Club has YouTube videos showing that fingerprint cloning works.
And that “proof” is of a first generation Touch ID, and unless you can find a reliable citation showing where a dead finger would work, how do you know it’s “gobbledygook”?
From a practical standpoint, if someone was willing to cut off your finger, wouldn’t it be easier to just force you a gunpoint to unlock your phone? Someone who really wanted what’s on your phone bad enough to try the “unreliable” hack, would just force you to unlock your phone or give up the password.
I remember hearing the idea years ago that reasonable security needs these 3 somethings:
1. you know - password
2. you have - device/usb/etc
3. you are - bio-metrics
Is this still a thing? It sounds decent to me. Most auth usually uses 1 or 2 from the list but rarely all 3.
> Authentication using two or more different factors to achieve authentication. Factors include: (i) something you know (e.g., password/PIN); (ii) something you have (e.g., cryptographic identification device, token); or (iii) something you are (e.g., biometric). See Authenticator.
> Source(s):
> NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 4 under Multifactor Authentication
bio-metrics is really just not a good security measure, it is an extension of number 2 (You have fingerprints, your face, etc).
You'd be in just about the same place if instead of saying "you need biometrics" you said "You need 2 devices".
Even number 2 can be done wrong. 2 Doesn't work if the thing you have is a knowledge based thing. 2 only works if in the case that it responds correctly to a stimulus. Think things like RSA.
You really are categorizing authentication factors by their weaknesses:
- Knowledge factors can be discovered/guessed and duplicated
- Possession factors should protect against guessing and duplication, but can be physically stolen
- Inherence factors should protect against guessing, duplication and physical theft, but cannot be replaced
Writing down a password doesn't make it an effective physical factor, just like embedding an NFC chip in your arm doesn't make it an effective biometric.
Face print and fingerprint are definitely #2, something you have. Both can be easily copied. #3 would be your DNA sequence perhaps.
Similarly, SMS authentication is not #2. The mapping of your phone number to your phone is not something you possess, it is sitting in some phone company system somewhere and it can be changed.
Biometrics are not a password, as they are not 'something you know'. Neither are they like a username, as the implementations for challenging biometrics often cannot guarantee either uniqueness or lookup capability.
They are rather one of the three classes of authentication factors, all of which have fundamental drawbacks. This is why you should always require more than a single class of factor as part of your authentication. For example, mobile devices typically require both physical possession as well as a knowledge or biometric challenge.
Leaving fingerprints on your device is why fingerprints aren't the best factor for mobile devices. Captured biometric data being snooped and replayed is why remote biometrics are weaker than biometrics done locally.
You can have a Web Authentication authenticator (e.g. FIDO 2 key) act as multiple different credentials, all unlocked with the same biometric. Biometrics being tied to a single account (or an account being tied to a single biometric) is an implementation detail, same as having only a single account per email address on a site is today.
A good portion of the revolutionizing is trying to optimize the UX, not authentication. The core fundamentals of authentication have been known for a while, to the point we have government standards such as NIST 800-63b. Of course, some of the revolutionary UX turns out to not implement the fundamentals correctly, because it's the tech industry.
Like "secret" questions, it's going to take a decade or two before big companies have this sink in and they realize how stupid they are being using them as logins.
And before that we’ll have people grimacing or laughing into their phones to make “secret expressions”
Actually that’d be a cool idea for an auto wipe feature! If you blink a Morris code SOS it should send out a 911 alert with your location and then permanently lock the phone.
Gesture controls are tricky, only a few applications of them make sense (like hand-to-fist for camera). Something like this would be the modern version of butt dialing 911, back when users would speed dial 911 unintentionally from sitting on their phone.
In terms of security vs convenience though, I'm not going to enter a decent passphrase into my phone many times per day. A short passcode can trivially be shoulder-surfed, so FaceID is still better security than what I otherwise would be using, even if it's not perfect. The convenience also lets me have more apps individually locked, meaning I can hand an unlocked device to someone knowing they still have somewhat limited access.
I know this issue is going to be 'solved' with the next software update...
..but can't help but feel if you're trying to hide access to your phone from somebody who:
1) Can pick up your phone
2) Wants to access your phone
3) Has access to you and your phone as you sleep
4) You don't want to have access to your phone
Bluntly - awaiting an Android update is the least of your problems if you hit the criteria above.
It's presumably a bit more accessible to use face unlock on a sleeping person since it involves no physical contact. Pressing someone's finger on the reader has a higher (probably still small) chance of waking that person up.
Well... yeah. There are definitely people with big problems in this world. They can’t trust the people around them. They are trapped in bad situations.
Those people will literally be able to rest easier when this problem is solved.
How do you know this issue is going to be 'solved' in a future software update?
Google never actually promised this. From The Verge:
> When reached by The Verge, Google didn’t say one way or the other whether this added layer of security is definitely coming. “We don’t have anything specific to announce regarding future features or timing, but like most of our products, this feature is designed to get better over time with future software updates,” a spokesperson said by email.
Doesn’t this describe most students with roommates, or teens with siblings, or parents with children, or people who doze off on public transport, or...? The plausible scenarios seem pretty much endless.
Maybe I had a heavy lunch and dozed off at my desk? Or fell asleep at the beach/pool/park, or any number of plausible scenarios that don't involve living with a crazy person.
These aren't super common situations but they do happen, and a security flaw like this can be the difference between someone stealing an electronic brick and someone making off with corporate secrets and customer PII (if it's a work phone).
>somebody who:1) Can pick up your phone 2) Wants to access your phone 3) Has access to you and your phone as you sleep 4) You don't want to have access to your phone
>awaiting Android update is the least of your problems if you hit the criteria above.
I am waiting for that Android update, because I have teenage kids
I don't know why anyone would want a face unlock instead of a simple fingerprint sensor. My phone is unlocked and ready for me before it even leaves my pocket.
The lack of it is one of the major reasons I'm not upgrading my Pixel 2.
"Remember, according to the manufacturer says this lock has never been broken...."
Watch the whole video --- even the photocopy of the fingerprint was sufficient, which was the third (of three) attempted methods.... all of which worked.
That was from the 2006 season. Fingerprint scanners have improved significantly since then. This is of course, not a blanket statement (see Samsung headlines yesterday)
Can you use your phone with gloves? I snowboard a lot, and if I need to use my phone I take a break and go into the lodge - the mitts I need to keep my hands warm don't provide the dexterity to use a phone.
Snowboarding is basically the reason I assign unique ringtones to different contacts - typically there aren't many contacts that require an urgent response, so if I hear anything other than those urgent contact notification tones from my jacket, I can ignore and continue riding.
I've got thin inner gloves that have metallic threads in the fingertips so I can use a touchscreen. Enough to protect bare flesh from frigid cold while remaining dexterous.
I use a ski tracking app, and communicate with my wife and kids while on the hill (we often go on different runs).
I'm upgrading to Pixel 4 and excited about face unlock. Supposedly it's incredibly fast, to the point where it's no different from using your fingerprint on a Pixel 2/3 while pulling it from your pocket, except you don't have to do that.
Since I live in Chicago and winter is approaching, I think it'll be pretty handy. I'm hoping their radar gesture thing will eventually allow triggering the Google Assistant, and then I can unlock and use most of my phone via voice without taking my gloves off.
Does pixel 4 have squeeze-for-assistant? Quick google doesn't give me a definite answer.
I've got that combined with smart lock on the Pixel 3 - it goes a really long way, especially now that I have a smartwatch. (Which admittedly makes the phone assistant a touch redundant, but...)
I ordered a pixel 4 , almost only because my pixel 2 is busted, Google will still trade it in while Apple won't trade Android phones unless maybe if I go ask in a store (well, among other reasons but I am already verging off topic) .
None of the locking mechanisms I know protect you against all "threat vectors".
In particular, in case a shitty partner wants to access your phone while you are asleep, both fingerprint and google face unlock fail.
I do like the fingerprint sensor on pixel 2.
It could be even better if there was one on the screen for when the phone is on a flat surface, but it does the job well otherwise.
Nevertheless, an easy to use secure enough solution should work well enough against the threat most people worry about : somebody stealing their phone / forgetting it somewhere.
>In particular, in case a shitty partner wants to access your phone while you are asleep, both fingerprint and google face unlock fail.
I get face unlock (because closed eyes and your muscles will be more relaxed), but why does the fingerprint sensor fail while you're asleep? Does it measure heart rate?
How much are you getting for your broken pixel 2 trade in? I have a broken pixel 2 as well. The glass was so fragile and can't be replaced alone which is a huge disappoinment.
Which is fine. The value of a perfect condition pixel 2 is around 150 $ IIRC
Which is not very high .. BUT you can get a pretty nice first hand phone at this price. So I can understand why its value is way below what I bought it for and tbh I am kind of amazed at the technological marvel that even the shittiest smartphone on earth is.
I have marked the phone as "turns on, screen cracked". Which is accurate. The screen is VERY cracked but if you repair it, you have a perfectly working phone.
Repairing this screen would indeed cost me 150-200 $ .. So far I have decided that it is not worth it.
I don't have a phone with a face sensor, but I use my phone in the kitchen quite a lot, for recipes, timers etc and there have been many times with wet or floury hands, I've fancied FaceID. Similarly when carrying out outdoor activities wearing gloves.
I have cystic fibrosis - it can cause varying o2 sat levels, finger clubbing, and varying levels of salt/dryness in the fingers not typical for most. When I had an iPhone with Touch ID, eventually my prints would stop working, and I'd have to delete and reenroll them every couple of months (not exactly sure why, and CF may have nothing to do with it, but it seems like the most likely culprit)
Not that Face ID is perfect. When I go to the doctor, they make us wear masks, and I do breathing treatments a few times a day - all of which breaks Face ID.
Not that it's ideal, but if it's the same type of mask each time, you might consider enrolling your face with the mask on as an alternate appearance (you can record 2, I believe) in FaceID.
I assume that the mask covers only a portion of your face; if it's a full-face mask, then obviously this would greatly degrade your device's security by allowing anyone wearing that mask to unlock it. However, I've found that Face ID can do a pretty good job of recognizing you from the nose up.
Someone at work has it and constantly complains about it because while using his phone for payments he has to look down at the phone for a while so it unlocks.
When face unlock first came out, my boss bought a phone with it and was showing it off at the office. I took a picture of him and held it up to the camera, and was able to unlock his phone.
He was a little less excited about the feature after that...
Is such a thing possible? My understanding is that IR emission from ordinary objects is primarily determined by their temperature. To imitate the IR signature of a human face, one would need a special-purpose, actively-powered device.
Yeah right. Forgot "Night Sight" by Google which is only now copied by Apple as "Night Mode". What is apple working on these days ? This phone also has Soli in the phone. Apple is set to copy it for it's next phone.
I bet this half-assed implementation is only there so that potential shoppers with a checklist in hand will be able to mark the feature as present. I wonder how many reviewers fell for it.
I imagine that it's more nuanced - people expect biometric security from their phone today.
The Pixel 4 removed the fingerprint sensor, relying on the face recognition. I imagine that what happened is that the full functionality wasn't ready for launch, and they had to decide between shipping a partial implementation or postponing the phone's launch date.
If they had reason to believe it wouldn't be ready, why did they choose to remove the fingerprint scanner? If both options were available there'd be an order of magnitude fewer complaints.
Because the hardware for the fingerprint scanner was removed long before it was obvious that they weren't "done" with the face scanning software. Its likely that they decided to trim back the functionality of the face scan well after the drop dead date for getting the hardware on time.
That's kind of my point. It was probably poor planning, although it's possible something very unlikely went wrong. But it's not really that cutting edge of technology anymore so either the engineering team was underwhelming (a little hard to believe at Google) or the project was poorly managed (very easy to believe at Google).
I see your point, but I don't agree. It wasn't poor planning, it was a calculated risk. Their options as I see it:
1) Delay - yet another year where the pixel doesn't have good facial recognition. During this period all of the OEMs will probably implement some crappy FaceID knock off which will damage Androids image.
2) Bank on in-development facial recognition - Google has lots of talent, they can probably get it done. Risk, they don't get it done.
3) Include both - hardware costs go up, internal size goes up, and people will expect both the next year.
4) Skip facial recognition entirely - Get "left behind". AFAICT people expect facial recognition for unknown reasons. Further, there are several applications of facial scanning that enable non-biometric-security features (anti-features?).
Its easy to see how they chose option two. Sucks it didn't work out.
I'm looking at option 3 as the logical choice. I admit I don't know, but you really think the added cost of the fingerprint sensor is significant on an $800 phone that's really meant as a flagship device to help keep Android relevant against iOS? Also while HN is certainly not the market at large, there's been more pushback for thicker phones with larger batteries, so the added thickness could be seen as a benefit.
I don't know how Google weighed it or how they chose their priorities so I can't say whether or not they made the right call at the time (hindsight is 20/20). But based on your list, option 3 is the obvious choice to me.
There's also the question of how long they had from the hardware cutoff date to the software cutoff date - I'd guess many months. Why not allocate more resources to help with the facial recognition software? That project by itself for a company at Google's scale should not take that long. Like I said, this is no longer cutting-edge tech.
I guess we have to agree to disagree, but I think Google really fucked up the Pixel 4 and I bet it was a Product Manager who is responsible.
I worked in consumer electronics before. Your release date is set in stone as you have millions or even billions of € tied in marketing, ads and promotion prepared months in advance to go live on that one date.
You already booked air time on TV and rented billboards worldwide months in advance, you can't delay it on a short notice as airtime would be fully booked and you can't have ads for a product the consumers can't immediately buy.
If the marketing material prepared months in advance onto which you have preorders made from consumers to retail chains, specified product would have said flawed function then you have no choice than to put in the overtime and try to get it working till the release date, even if it's half baked, otherwise you're in trouble as your product doesn't match the ads.
That's why I left this industry.
Everything was run by marketing people who had no idea of engineering resources and would just promise clients everything to get the sale done and once the ink was dry on the sales contract they'd get a bonus and we'd get the overtime hours to try to implement whatever magical features they promised.
> Everything was run by marketing people who had no idea of engineering resources and would just promise clients everything to get the sale done and once the ink was dry on the sales contract they'd get a bonus and we'd get the overtime hours to try to implement whatever magical features they promised.
it’s not just electronics, consumer software is like this too…
At first reading this I thought "My iphone recognizes me right when I wake up so I'm sure someone could use unlock it while I was asleep or unconscious" but I tried it a few times while making a 'passed out' face and it turns out, nope. At least I couldn't get it to. Even tried using my hands to hold open my eyelids and it didn't unlock. That's pretty impressive.
There’s a setting “Require Attention for Face ID” that controls this. It’s enabled by default, but if you’re unable or find it difficult to look directly at the sensor (or wearing sunglasses that block IR) you can turn it off and make it behave like the Pixel.
You can even point it at your face while looking away, and it won’t unlock until you make eye contact.
It's surprisingly sensitive as well. I've just try tried focusing on a spot 5cm to the side/above my iPhone 11, and it reliably wouldn't unlock until I glanced at the camera.
The iPhone uses the blaster IR + the camera to tell if you're looking at the phone to avoid this. Android should be able to implement this though because it really just looks for the IR reflecting off the back of your eyes which only happens when you're looking right at the light source. It's the same thing that causes(ed) red eye in photos.
Totally agree but moving the dot a little further down the line towards security is never a bad thing. Perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good, etc etc.
Face Unlock is indeed for convenience, but that doesn't mean it can't be used as a secure method of authentication. So when it is implemented as such, it should be as secure as possible.
Apple claims its Touch ID is 5x more secure than a 4 digit passcode[1], based the probability of two fingerprints being the same. They claim that its Face ID is 20x more secure than Touch ID[2], or 1 in 1,000,000, which is similar to the probability of guessing a 6 digit password.
In my opinion, part of a secure implementation is requiring that the user is aware and looking at the device. So the fact that Pixel doesn't take this into account is a huge security flaw.
I find myself perplexed by many conventions, maybe I'm a lout. A tidy slice of tape unconventionally covers my phone's frontal camera, which to me is a functional and valued liberty, while the option lasts. I uneagerly anticipated the paradigm of soft switches, unserviceable batteries and blackbox gadgetry and have partially succumbed, slightly ashamed. Similarly I've feared the eventual ever vigilant indelible Eye squirming onto my required work surface. Will this be yet another lockstep along the one-way whizbang march of the techno enamored... or will future devices continue to serve and forgive their users of modifications and personal choices? Abridged keyboards, zombie MACs, unremovable apps, fastidious needy cameras, walled shrubberies, presidential alert suppositories, registered devices, opaque source, mutant laptops, ubiquitous Ring, very clever speakers (microphones)... and I hope I'm just a cantankerous luddite who doesn't appreciate the finer attributes of an autonomous device designed by insatiable gormandizers of data and sweathearts of authoritah. I use fingerprint auth, as a convenience, not for security. It seems among the options best left alone (you know, useful), but I suspect this will become a precedent for future models in general. Not against it as an option though.
I just attempted to unlock my work-issued laptop with Windows Hello with my eyes shut. Worked perfectly, recognized me without issue. Guess I'll have to disable that now. :(
thats a zero day worth looking into.
A latex mask would be harder to do without consent, but we do have 3d printers and image analysis of high quality.
beyond someone cloning your face in latex and gluing it on thiers, there is facial excision, and it would be nasty to need caution about someone using your actual face.
working hack or not just the attempt is disasterous to the victim
If someone is going to rise to the level of creating a mask in your image to unlock your phone then you have already failed by using this feature to secure it. MI6 is coming after you and you're relying on something like this? C'mon.
It feels like this whole wave of "face unlock" is just a dumb side effect of Apple not being able to get the in-display TouchID to work well enough for the iPhone X.
Maybe it's slightly better than a fingerprint unlock. Maybe it's slightly worse. Who cares. It feels like smartphones have moved firmly into the realm of silly marketing features (at the cost of security, apparently) and we've left behind any kind of substantial, interesting advancements. I mean, we now have a radar that let's us skip a song by waving (sometimes, if it works)? The future of smartphones is increasingly dumb.
You cannot change them, you leave this data everywhere and this data can be snooped and replayed easily.
Moreover, this data is singular for a person - its hard to assign yourself multiple roles or have multiple sets of credentials with different permissions or for different services.
We collectively should stop revolutionizing the access control sphere and use boring scheme with passwords, pins and tokens.