I think its a safe bet to say that had other phones had a fingerprint reader before the iPhone, there wouldn't be quite so much discussion looking for all the Worst case Scenarios.
it balances risk vs convenience, like most security.
Chances are my phone will have been locked before someone finds it wherever I lost it (a more likely scenario than being mugged).
I agree with you on this and this is exactly why I don't bother with a lock code. Statistically, the person who finds it is almost certainly honest and will attempt to return it. It is easier to find a phone number to call on an unlocked phone. Even if they are not totally honest and just pocket the phone I think again that they are more likely to just turn a blind eye to "finding is theft" as opposed to positively defrauding me by delving into my financial information on the phone.
As an example of the above, I was in Florida a couple of years ago and my wife left her phone in the hotel room. A resourceful maid rang the first number in the address book - A for Amy our daughter in law and rang her in London. A couple of minutes later we had a call from Amy on my mobile. This wouldn't have happened if the phone had been locked.
I think its a safe bet to say that had other phones had a fingerprint reader before the iPhone, there wouldn't be quite so much discussion looking for all the Worst case Scenarios.
Yeah, there was for the motorola as well. I took part in some discussions on other forums about the same thing.
Please don't think this is just because its apple again. That line is becoming boring very fast.
I agree with you on this and this is exactly why I don't bother with a lock code. Statistically, the person who finds it is almost certainly honest and will attempt to return it. It is easier to find a phone number to call on an unlocked phone.
Apparently Apple have said that the fingerprint-thingy on the 5S will only work with fingers that have signs of life, so hopefully that will avoid any instances of stolen iPhones along with stolen fingers to use them.
I do feel that whilst the above policy is generally good, it is just another example of the widespread discrimination against zombies, who will be unable to use their fingers to unlock the 5S due to the lack of signs of life in them.
On a less serious note, a fingerprint without a passcode to access the phone and make purchases is a bad idea because it is all too easy for you to accidentally authorise something, or for someone else to do so on your behalf if you fall asleep after a few too many. A 4-digit code should still be required along with the fingerprint check.
On a less serious note, a fingerprint without a passcode to access the phone and make purchases is a bad idea because it is all too easy for you to accidentally authorise something, or for someone else to do so on your behalf if you fall asleep after a few too many. A 4-digit code should still be required along with the fingerprint check.
I think the second point is being overblown a bit on this thread, to be honest.
As for doing it accidentally, I can't see it. You'd have to press the purchase or download button on the screen, so you've already signalled your intention to buy it. Then it'll ask for fingerprint authorisation and you have to hold your finger or thumb on the home button. I can't see how you'd do that by accident.
I hate having to put my password in every time I buy music or download an app. And it's not a four-digit PIN either - it's the full Apple ID password. This is hopefully a quicker, more elegant solution.
I think its a safe bet to say that had other phones had a fingerprint reader before the iPhone, there wouldn't be quite so much discussion looking for all the Worst case Scenarios.
Nice try but nope. If this had 'debuted' on an Android phone I would have said exactly the same thing - it's a silly gimmick. As well as being potentially dangerous.
Nice try but nope. If this had 'debuted' on an Android phone I would have said exactly the same thing - it's a silly gimmick. As well as being potentially dangerous.
I think the second point is being overblown a bit on this thread, to be honest.
As for doing it accidentally, I can't see it. You'd have to press the purchase or download button on the screen, so you've already signalled your intention to buy it. Then it'll ask for fingerprint authorisation and you have to hold your finger or thumb on the home button. I can't see how you'd do that by accident.
I hate having to put my password in every time I buy music or download an app. And it's not a four-digit PIN either - it's the full Apple ID password. This is hopefully a quicker, more elegant solution.
Just wait until you awake in your mate's house worse for wear from the night before to discover that, somehow, your itunes music has apparently acquired Justin Bieber's full discography at great personal expense (both fiscal and emotional).
Just wait until you awake in your mate's house worse for wear from the night before to discover that, somehow, your itunes music has apparently acquired Justin Bieber's full discography at great personal expense (both fiscal and emotional).
Noooooooo!!!
But on a serious note, if you're the kind of person who falls asleep in public and/or in front of all your friends, just use the traditional passcode lock instead.
I agree with you on this and this is exactly why I don't bother with a lock code. Statistically, the person who finds it is almost certainly honest and will attempt to return it. It is easier to find a phone number to call on an unlocked phone. Even if they are not totally honest and just pocket the phone I think again that they are more likely to just turn a blind eye to "finding is theft" as opposed to positively defrauding me by delving into my financial information on the phone.
As an example of the above, I was in Florida a couple of years ago and my wife left her phone in the hotel room. A resourceful maid rang the first number in the address book - A for Amy our daughter in law and rang her in London. A couple of minutes later we had a call from Amy on my mobile. This wouuldn't have happened if the phone had been locked.
I never used to have a lock on my phone, until last year when I had my phone stolen on the tube. The thief then had access to everything on my phone.
An unconscious person who uses a pass code is useless to a fraudster. But an unconscious person who uses fingerprint security is a potential goldmine. Would you write your bank PIN number on a piece of paper and put it in your back pocket for instance? No normal person would carry that info around with them. Problem being a finger is hard to leave at home
An unconscious person who uses a pass code is useless to a fraudster. But an unconscious person who uses fingerprint security. Would you write your bank PIN number on a piece of paper and put it in your back pocket?
As I've said, I think this potential issue is being overblown to an absolutely insane degree. You can still use a passcode if you wish, and then you can fall asleep drunk to your heart's content.
As I've said, I think this potential issue is being overblown to an absolutely insane degree. You can still use a passcode if you wish, and then you can fall asleep drunk to your heart's content.
Of course it's an absolute worse case scenario but we already know that ALL manufacturers release stuff that isn't totally 100% tested under real life conditions by millions of users beforehand (hence the use of the word beta in software etc). Even if the incidences were miniscule it's still a crazy idea imo. Time will tell.
Of course it's an absolute worse case scenario but we already know that ALL manufacturers release stuff that isn't totally 100% tested under real life conditions by millions of users beforehand (hence the use of the word beta in software etc). Even if the incidences were miniscule it's still a crazy idea imo. Time will tell.
With a passcode lock, it's not difficult to look over someone's shoulder and watch them enter their PIN. And when pattern unlock was introduced, I remember something about the pattern being obvious based on marks left on the screen. All systems have their weaknesses.
An unconscious person who uses a pass code is useless to a fraudster. But an unconscious person who uses fingerprint security is a potential goldmine. Would you write your bank PIN number on a piece of paper and put it in your back pocket for instance? No normal person would carry that info around with them. Problem being a finger is hard to leave at home
That's a damn good point, and far more serious than the getting drunk at a mate's house scenario. Whilst a passcode or PIN number can only be stolen from you whilst you are concious and decide it is better to hand it over than be beaten up any more, a fingerprint scan can be automatically taken from you without your knowledge if they knock you unconcious, meaning you have suffered far worse injuries for the sake of saving a second or so to tap a code on the device in the conventional method (and I suspect the fingerprint scan probably takes as long to verify as a four-digit code anyway).
That's a damn good point, and far more serious than the getting drunk at a mate's house scenario. Whilst a passcode or PIN number can only be stolen from you whilst you are concious and decide it is better to hand it over than be beaten up any more, a fingerprint scan can be automatically taken from you without your knowledge if they knock you unconcious, meaning you have suffered far worse injuries for the sake of saving a second or so to tap a code on the device in the conventional method (and I suspect the fingerprint scan probably takes as long to verify as a four-digit code anyway).
Like I said much earlier, it's a silly gimmick and I would have said it no matter if Android, Windows or Apple had been the first to 'debut' it. It's sadly indicative of the current high end smartphone market where pretty much everything genuinely useful has been done already so manufacturers (whoever they are) have to come up with more and more bizarre gimmicks to try and stand out from the crowd. But this one is the worst in the sense of the potential danger (no matter how miniscule the actual risk may be) it introduces into the equation.
Apparently Apple have said that the fingerprint-thingy on the 5S will only work with fingers that have signs of life, so hopefully that will avoid any instances of stolen iPhones along with stolen fingers to use them.
I do feel that whilst the above policy is generally good, it is just another example of the widespread discrimination against zombies, who will be unable to use their fingers to unlock the 5S due to the lack of signs of life in them.
On a less serious note, a fingerprint without a passcode to access the phone and make purchases is a bad idea because it is all too easy for you to accidentally authorise something, or for someone else to do so on your behalf if you fall asleep after a few too many. A 4-digit code should still be required along with the fingerprint check.
It uses a capacitive sensor. Did you realise that capacitive touch screen pens do the same thing. They are slightly conductive just like a human finger funnily enough.
Like I said much earlier, it's a silly gimmick and I would have said it no matter if Android, Windows or Apple had been the first to 'debut' it. It's sadly indicative of the current high end smartphone market where pretty much everything genuinely useful has been done already so manufacturers (whoever they are) have to come up with more and more bizarre gimmicks to try and stand out from the crowd. But this one is the worst in the sense of the potential danger (no matter how miniscule the actual risk may be) it introduces into the equation.
I assume you had/have the same view regarding facial recognition unlock on android. Did you post when that was discussed showing your disapproval?
Imagine, someone could cut your head off:rolleyes:
Comments
You can easily purposely corrupt a phone's operating system to force it into recovering to factory condition.
Proven many times with passcoded iPhones, check YoutTube.
I agree with you on this and this is exactly why I don't bother with a lock code. Statistically, the person who finds it is almost certainly honest and will attempt to return it. It is easier to find a phone number to call on an unlocked phone. Even if they are not totally honest and just pocket the phone I think again that they are more likely to just turn a blind eye to "finding is theft" as opposed to positively defrauding me by delving into my financial information on the phone.
As an example of the above, I was in Florida a couple of years ago and my wife left her phone in the hotel room. A resourceful maid rang the first number in the address book - A for Amy our daughter in law and rang her in London. A couple of minutes later we had a call from Amy on my mobile. This wouldn't have happened if the phone had been locked.
Yeah, there was for the motorola as well. I took part in some discussions on other forums about the same thing.
Please don't think this is just because its apple again. That line is becoming boring very fast.
Ah but that`s what the owner info option is there for.
http://howto.cnet.com/8301-11310_39-57565765-285/set-android-owner-info-to-help-recover-a-lost-smartphone/
I do feel that whilst the above policy is generally good, it is just another example of the widespread discrimination against zombies, who will be unable to use their fingers to unlock the 5S due to the lack of signs of life in them.
On a less serious note, a fingerprint without a passcode to access the phone and make purchases is a bad idea because it is all too easy for you to accidentally authorise something, or for someone else to do so on your behalf if you fall asleep after a few too many. A 4-digit code should still be required along with the fingerprint check.
I think the second point is being overblown a bit on this thread, to be honest.
As for doing it accidentally, I can't see it. You'd have to press the purchase or download button on the screen, so you've already signalled your intention to buy it. Then it'll ask for fingerprint authorisation and you have to hold your finger or thumb on the home button. I can't see how you'd do that by accident.
I hate having to put my password in every time I buy music or download an app. And it's not a four-digit PIN either - it's the full Apple ID password. This is hopefully a quicker, more elegant solution.
Nice try but nope. If this had 'debuted' on an Android phone I would have said exactly the same thing - it's a silly gimmick. As well as being potentially dangerous.
Potentially dangerous?
Just wait until you awake in your mate's house worse for wear from the night before to discover that, somehow, your itunes music has apparently acquired Justin Bieber's full discography at great personal expense (both fiscal and emotional).
Noooooooo!!!
But on a serious note, if you're the kind of person who falls asleep in public and/or in front of all your friends, just use the traditional passcode lock instead.
I never used to have a lock on my phone, until last year when I had my phone stolen on the tube. The thief then had access to everything on my phone.
Yes. Do I really have to spell out why?
You're not talking about people having their fingers cut off, are you? Come on!
No. It's not as serious as that. Another try?
Ha, it's just that people were talking about that earlier.
Not sure exactly what you're referring to then, unless it's unauthorised access while you're sleeping.
As I've said, I think this potential issue is being overblown to an absolutely insane degree. You can still use a passcode if you wish, and then you can fall asleep drunk to your heart's content.
Of course it's an absolute worse case scenario but we already know that ALL manufacturers release stuff that isn't totally 100% tested under real life conditions by millions of users beforehand (hence the use of the word beta in software etc). Even if the incidences were miniscule it's still a crazy idea imo. Time will tell.
With a passcode lock, it's not difficult to look over someone's shoulder and watch them enter their PIN. And when pattern unlock was introduced, I remember something about the pattern being obvious based on marks left on the screen. All systems have their weaknesses.
That's a damn good point, and far more serious than the getting drunk at a mate's house scenario. Whilst a passcode or PIN number can only be stolen from you whilst you are concious and decide it is better to hand it over than be beaten up any more, a fingerprint scan can be automatically taken from you without your knowledge if they knock you unconcious, meaning you have suffered far worse injuries for the sake of saving a second or so to tap a code on the device in the conventional method (and I suspect the fingerprint scan probably takes as long to verify as a four-digit code anyway).
Like I said much earlier, it's a silly gimmick and I would have said it no matter if Android, Windows or Apple had been the first to 'debut' it. It's sadly indicative of the current high end smartphone market where pretty much everything genuinely useful has been done already so manufacturers (whoever they are) have to come up with more and more bizarre gimmicks to try and stand out from the crowd. But this one is the worst in the sense of the potential danger (no matter how miniscule the actual risk may be) it introduces into the equation.
It uses a capacitive sensor. Did you realise that capacitive touch screen pens do the same thing. They are slightly conductive just like a human finger funnily enough.
I assume you had/have the same view regarding facial recognition unlock on android. Did you post when that was discussed showing your disapproval?
Imagine, someone could cut your head off:rolleyes: