Which slum do you live in where you feel you NEED a Face-ID gimmick?

[Andy Burnelli]

For those who use FaceID, I simply ask one obvious question:
*Which slum do you live in that you feel you _need_ FaceID anyway?*

Me?

I don't lock my doors or windows at night.
My driveway gate has a latch you can reach around to walk in.
The FedEx/UPS/Amazon guy has the gate code (the USPS won't use it though).
My kids' extra unused cars are parked outside, always unlocked.
My barn is left unlocked, as is the fence gate around the pool.

My smartphone can do ALL the PIN/LOCK/ENCRYPT methods; I use none of them.
Why not?

Because I'm not afraid of someone snatching my phone out of my hands.
That's why.

I feel sorry for those of you who live in the slums where you _do_ have to
worry about someone sneaking up behind you to snatch your phone away.

Which brings up the obvious question for all who use FaceID gimmickry...
*Which slum do you live in that you feel you _need_ FaceID anyway?*

[Ed Cryer]

Why not put a poster on the gate saying "Everything here is free for the
taking"?

Ed

[Andy Burns]

Andy Burnelli wrote:

> My smartphone can do ALL the PIN/LOCK/ENCRYPT methods; I use none of them.
> Why not?
>
> Because I'm not afraid of someone snatching my phone out of my hands.
> That's why.

And you're *so* sure of your ability to not drop it out your pocket or leave it
behind somewhere?

[Jim S]

In article <news:te7n7f$3kshe$1...@dont-email.me>, Ed Cryer
<e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> says...

> Why not put a poster on the gate saying "Everything here is free for the
> taking"?

That's what the cell phone Internet connection is supposed to do for you.
--
Jim S

[Andy Burnelli]

Hi Andy,

Thank you for understanding that the question is a _serous_ question.
It's about using gimmicks to protect yourself from the wrong threat.

Despite the humor inherent in the question, I'm sure you understood that my
commentary is that everyone is hoodwinked by the likes of Apple/Google that
the "*BIG THREAT*" is someone snatching your phone out of your back pocket.

Physical access, clearly, is NOT what the "*BIG THREAT*" is.
By any stretch of the imagination, whether educated or ignorant.

The *BIG THREAT* is far worse than simply close-contact physical access.
However, to your question, I could respond with a very simple question:
Q: If they snatch my phone... what do they get?
A: A phone.

That's it.
They get my phone.

They don't get anything else.
a. They get my phone (which I got for free from T-Mobile)
b. They get my sdcard (which cost me about twenty bucks)
c. They get my phone case (another twenty bucks)
d. They get the twenty bucks underneath my phone case too!

What else do they get that is _on_ the phone?
A. They get my few contacts (mostly friends & family)
B. They get all my apps (they're all free apps anyway)
C. They get a few encrypted files of personal data (like my vaccine card)
D. They can connect to my Wi-Fi when they're within range

What else do they get?
You tell me.

Now I know you're going to say banking and email but I don't do banking on
a phone but I do email which I don't worry if someone accesses that and
besides, I have a PIN set per app that I want to set a pin for (which is
just about only one or two apps which I rarely use and that's the point).

Why lock something you use ALL the time where you NEED some kind of gimmick
like FaceID to make that onerous lock less onerous when you can just lock
the one or two apps on your phone which you use once a month or so?

It's a perfectly reasonable valid question of:
Q: Why use pure gimmicks like FaceID when that's NOT the real threat?

PS: The slum is humor designed to make a point about the threat level.
--
HINT: Bear in mind I have _zero_ logins on my phone.

[Wade Garrett]

I stumbled across a study which found that Usenet posters with Obnoxious
Whiny Gadfly Personas were generally compensating for underdevelopment
of certain of their physical equipment.

Can't quite remember the exact cite or details...or I'd pass them on to
you ;-)

--
I fix stuff and I know things

[Andy Burnelli]

Wade Garrett wrote:

> underdevelopment of certain of their physical equipment.

The fact remains that face-id is a gimmick that appeals to people.
*The _adult_ question is why?*

It's a valid _adult_ question to ponder why people are so fearful that they
fear every single person around them - even their own spouse and children.

Why?

What are they so afraid of that they fear EVERYONE so viscerally that they
feel they must add a gimmick to their phone just to _feel_ safe about it?

Where do they live that everyone around them is a physical threat to them?

[Andy Burns]

Andy Burnelli wrote:

> Q: If they snatch my phone... what do they get?
> A: A phone.
> That's it.
> They get my phone.
>
> They don't get anything else.
> a. They get my phone (which I got for free from T-Mobile)
> b. They get my sdcard (which cost me about twenty bucks)
> c. They get my phone case (another twenty bucks)
> d. They get the twenty bucks underneath my phone case too!
>
> What else do they get that is _on_ the phone?
> A. They get my few contacts (mostly friends & family)
> B. They get all my apps (they're all free apps anyway)
> C. They get a few encrypted files of personal data (like my vaccine card)
> D. They can connect to my Wi-Fi when they're within range
>
> What else do they get?
> You tell me.

My phone itself is protected by fingerprint or swipe-pattern, but it is kept
unlocked when in proximity to certain bluetooth devices that don't leave my home.

Sensitive apps (online banking and my business accounting) are protected
individually by fingerprint, but that still leaves email which someone given
unlocked access to my phone could attempt to alter credentials of e.g. online
shopping accounts ... someone stealing a copy of my contacts could do a bit of
reputational damage, etc

So I do prefer to let the phone lock itself when it's away from home. No
inconvenience when at home, no worry when away from home ... what's not to like?

[nospam]

In article <te8b32$1qa9$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli

<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

> It's a valid _adult_ question to ponder why people are so fearful that they
> fear every single person around them - even their own spouse and children.

says the person who constantly nym-shifts, uses vpns and tor, spoofs
mac addresses and various other things.

>
> Where do they live that everyone around them is a physical threat to them?

santa cruz mountains, apparently.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

>> Where do they live that everyone around them is a physical threat to them?
>
> santa cruz mountains, apparently.

*The _adult_ question to ask is what is everyone so physically afraid of.*

The _adult_ valid point is that the screenlock is there _BECAUSE_ people
are told to be physically afraid of everyone around them... right?

The _adult_ observation is that the Face-ID gimmick is merely to make that
constant screenlocking to be easier and faster on the user... right?

The _adult_ question isn't so much why is everyone stooping to the level of
a mere childish marketing gimmick just to unlock their phone constantly...

The _adult_ question to ask is what is everyone so physically afraid of.

*Where do you live that everyone around you is a physical threat to you?*

[Andy Burnelli]

Andy Burns wrote:

> My phone itself is protected by fingerprint or swipe-pattern, but it is kept
> unlocked when in proximity to certain bluetooth devices that don't leave my home.

Hi Andy,

Thank you for taking the question seriously - as it is a very serious
problem that people are hoodwinked by MARKETING to do the wrong things.

As you are smart enough to comprehend, the question was asked in a way that
points out the utter absurdity of "needing" face-id just to make constant
locking/unlocking bearable for the average phone user such as you & I are.

While my phone will do them all, I don't use _any_ of them simply because a
physical threat to my phone by my family & friends is low on my threat
scale.

That you use a proximity geofence makes sense at least in terms of the
threat not being from your own spouse, kids, and visiting friends.

But what's the physical threat _outside_ the home?
Do you have a lock around your wallet for example?

What's different between your phone and your wallet in terms of threat?

My point is that physical threats are what MARKETING wants you to think are
the threat you're protecting against - when that's simply not true.

>
> Sensitive apps (online banking and my business accounting) are protected
> individually by fingerprint,

First off, if you have sensitive "stuff" on your phone, it's trivial to
protect that sensitive stuff with encryption - so I won't delve further.

As for the banking app itself, I'm pretty sure it requires some kind of
2FA/2SV such that a common thief wouldn't have _both_ verifications, right?

Hence banking and business accounting, as far as I can tell, should NOT be
a problem because they should _already_ be protected with their own
encryption.

For example, just store the data in a Truecrypt container and ALL the data
is safe & sound no matter who yanks your phone out of your hands, right?

> but that still leaves email which someone given
> unlocked access to my phone could attempt to alter credentials of e.g. online
> shopping accounts ...

As for email, there is an issue because many people sync automatically, in
which case it would be just opening the app itself which needs protection.

But if your phone were stolen, all you'd need to do is change your
verification credentials, and, as you're well aware, "most people" (not me,
but most people) are using 2FA/2SV anyway - so the thief has nothing,
right?

If email were really the problem, then all you'd need to do is protect that
email app (which is easily enough done) and not the entire phone, right?

My whole point is that marketing has hoodwinked people who stopped thinking
about what the real threat is - and it's not somone physically grabbing
your phone.

> someone stealing a copy of my contacts could do a bit of
> reputational damage, etc

As you are well aware, I don't keep _any_ contacts in the default sqlite
database location - so I'm well aware the biggest threat is OTHER PEOPLE
uploading my contacts to their login accounts (e.g., whatsapp, facebook,
whatever).

If contacts were so valuable, people would rebel against uploading them by
default (which is what the GMail app does on Android, for example).

And yet they don't.
So I don't really believe yet that people are "protecting" their contacts
by the constant locking/unlocking of their phone lock screen.

While I'm a scientist and an engineer so I am well aware that intuition is
often wrong, I'll believe almost anything if you give me a good reason.

Having said that, you'll need a convincing logical fact-based argument for
me to believe that people are putting up with constant lock/unlock of their
phone to protect their contacts when people seem to upload those same
contacts to many web sites without even blinking.

The point is that MARKETING wants you to believe physical access to your
contacts is the threat - when that's NOT the threat in the least.

>
> So I do prefer to let the phone lock itself when it's away from home. No
> inconvenience when at home, no worry when away from home ... what's not to like?

Do you know the moral of the emperor with no clothes story?
That's what's not to like about being told the threat is X when it's not.

When you're told by the phone maker that the threat is X and the phone
maker then provides solution Y - but both the threat and the solution are
fabricated by the phone maker's marketing team - that's what's not to like.

It's an adult viewpoint, is it not?
The main question is what are you protecting?

My point, which I brought up humorously, his that marketing has hoodwinked
people who stopped thinking. You and I need to think. What's the threat?

I propose that the only people who "should" need FaceID gimmickry,
are those people who literally live in the dank slums.

Otherwise, what are they so afraid of that every second they have to lock
their phone?

[Jolly Roger]

On 2022-08-25, Andy Burnelli <sp...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> The fact remains that face-id is a gimmick that appeals to people.

That's clearly not a fact - just an opinion. You *really* struggle with
the difference. : D

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[Andy Burnelli]

Jolly Roger wrote:

>> The fact remains that face-id is a gimmick that appeals to people.
>
> That's clearly not a fact - just an opinion. You *really* struggle with
> the difference. : D

If FaceID is not a gimmick, Jolly Roger, then answer the _adult_ question.
*Why?*

Specifically...

What is the _physical_ threat you are so fearful of that makes you feel so
desperate a need to protect your lockscreen from the people around you?

[Jolly Roger]

On 2022-08-25, Andy Burnelli <sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>>> The fact remains that face-id is a gimmick that appeals to people.
>>
>> That's clearly not a fact - just an opinion. You *really* struggle
>> with the difference. : D
>
> If FaceID is not a gimmick

Your opinion is not a fact, trollboi. : )

[Andy Burnelli]

Jolly Roger wrote:

>> If FaceID is not a gimmick
>
> Your opinion is not a fact, trollboi. : )

The fact is faceid exists, JR, for people living in abject physical fear.
*The _adult_ question is why*

Specifically...
*Where do FaceID proponents live that they feel such abject physical fear?*

[Jolly Roger]

On 2022-08-25, Andy Burnelli <sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>>> If FaceID is not a gimmick
>>
>> Your opinion is not a fact, trollboi. : )
>
> The fact is faceid exists

No shit, Sherlock.
Big Brain™ Andy over here... : D

[Andy Burnelli]

Jolly Roger wrote:

> No shit, Sherlock.

Think about it.
From an _adult_ perspective, Jolly Roger...

The marketing people _create_ this fear you feel about everyone around you.
Then, they create their _solution_ to that fear from all who surround you.

It's genius.

[Jeff Layman]

On 25/08/2022 19:54, Andy Burnelli wrote:

> As for the banking app itself, I'm pretty sure it requires some kind of
> 2FA/2SV such that a common thief wouldn't have _both_ verifications, right?

I don't use my cellphone for online banking. When I use my home computer
for that, the 2FA code is sent to my cellphone. Where is the 2FA code
sent to if the cellphone app is used for banking?

--

Jeff

[Andy Burnelli]

Jeff Layman wrote:

>> As for the banking app itself, I'm pretty sure it requires some kind of
>> 2FA/2SV such that a common thief wouldn't have _both_ verifications, right?
>
> I don't use my cellphone for online banking. When I use my home computer
> for that, the 2FA code is sent to my cellphone. Where is the 2FA code
> sent to if the cellphone app is used for banking?

Hi Jeff,

You bring up a good question about 2FA/2SV where my observation is that
a. The MARKETING teams manufactured a fake threat of "everyone" around you
b. Then MARKETING (conveniently) provided a bogus "solution" of FACE-ID

*If we live in the slums, then, of course, we _need_ the face-id gimmick*
(Otherwise constantly unlocking the phone becomes an onerous nuisance.)

The first problem we have to resolve is whether or not every single person
who surrounds you is so much of a dire physical threat that you need the
faceid gimmickry that the marketing teams are so desperate to claim you do.

I propose that if you live in the slums, so to speak, then yes.
If you live in the slums, then everyone around you is a physical threat.

If you live in slums, you _need_ something like faceid just to make the
locks on your door manageable since you live in constant physical fear.

But your question is different which is what happens when your spouse, your
kids, your friends, and your neigbors do _grab_ your phone out of your
hands.

I don't know.
Nobody ever stole my phone from me.

We need to ask the people with FaceID what happens when, presumably almost
daily they are getting the phone pulled out of their hands by passersby.

Seems to me if you have a banking app, you just call the bank and tell them
to _change_ the 2SV/2FV but I'll defer to people who actually use 2SV/2FA.

Since neither you nor I use banking apps on the phone, let's see what the
answer is for WHERE 2FV/2SV codes are sent if you use the phone to bank.
--
I ask questions that are those questions an adult would ask of smartphones.

[nospam]

In article <te9reu$3tqpe$1...@dont-email.me>, Jeff Layman

<Je...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>
> I don't use my cellphone for online banking. When I use my home computer
> for that, the 2FA code is sent to my cellphone. Where is the 2FA code
> sent to if the cellphone app is used for banking?

if it's an sms, it goes to the cellphone, the same as it normally does.

sms codes are not 2fa and is actually worse since sms is not secure.

totp codes can be generated on a computer or phone, eliminating sms
entirely. it's both more convenient *and* more secure, not the usual
combination.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

>> I don't use my cellphone for online banking. When I use my home computer
>> for that, the 2FA code is sent to my cellphone. Where is the 2FA code
>> sent to if the cellphone app is used for banking?
>
> if it's an sms, it goes to the cellphone, the same as it normally does.
>
> sms codes are not 2fa and is actually worse since sms is not secure.
>
> totp codes can be generated on a computer or phone, eliminating sms
> entirely. it's both more convenient *and* more secure, not the usual
> combination.

It's an adult question to ask...
*Why do you need ANY screen protection when each app can protect itself.*

Assuming nospam's answer is correct (he's usually correct when he's not
defending Apple's flaws to the death, by the way), then your banking app is
likely protected already from theft if/when people live in the slums.

The point is simple but it takes _adult_ cognitive skills to comprehend:
1. If you feel you _need_ FACE-ID - you have to ask yourself why.
2. The MARKETING of FACEID is, essentially, that you live in the slums.

If you truly do live in the slums, then by all means, you need all the
gimmicks you can get your hands on to protect yourself from all those
people who surround you that you fear will physically snatch your phone.

FACE-ID is a gimmick.
Face-Id is a gimmick for people who live in abject fear.
Face-iD is a gimmick for people who live in abject fear in the inner slums.

Why not just protect the one or two apps that you want protection on
instead of constantly needing to unlock your phone to protect yourself from
a dire physical threat that you may feel the desperate need for but which
doesn't actually exist...

MARKETING created that need.
It doesn't exist otherwise.

Unless, of course, you really do live in the slums.

[Carlos E.R.]

Dunno, but everybody in the USA wears a gun to defend from attackers
that may jump at them any instant.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Carlos E.R.]

To the app as well. Here it appears in a pop-up, and it automatically
fills up. Or you have to tap and drag the code from the pop up to the
prompt.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Andy Burnelli]

Carlos E.R. wrote:

>> *Where do you live that everyone around you is a physical threat to you?*
>
> Dunno, but everybody in the USA wears a gun to defend from attackers
> that may jump at them any instant.

I don't even own a gun but I don't begrudge those that do own a gun as it's
a right that is intended to keep government honest because we don't want to
happen what did happen in Spain, Germany, Italy, Austria, etc. in the past.

In the USA, the people should be stronger, as a whole, than the government.

Having said that, it's my _adult_ point of view that FACE-ID is:
a. A (an admittedly brilliant) gimmick _crafted_ purely by MARKETING
b. To make people _physically_ fearful of every single person around them
c. Such that they feel _desperate_ for the need to have a fast screenlock

The _adult_ question is simply whether or not you _need_ that gimmick.
Do you?
Why?
--
Note you can protect any given app with its own app pin which works fine.

[Tobiah]

> I stumbled across a study which found that Usenet posters with
> Obnoxious Whiny Gadfly Personas were generally compensating for
> underdevelopment of certain of their physical equipment.
>
> Can't quite remember the exact cite or details...or I'd pass them on
> to you ;-)

Perhaps the details escape you due to the insignificance of your own endowment.

[Chris]

When you set up your banking app the first time you get sent a
verification code to a known email address. That makes your mobile phone
a trusted device.

Once verified you don't need 2FA codes like any other trusted device.

[nospam]

In article <teanv3$ej0$3...@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> >
> > I don't use my cellphone for online banking. When I use my home computer
> > for that, the 2FA code is sent to my cellphone. Where is the 2FA code
> > sent to if the cellphone app is used for banking?
>
> When you set up your banking app the first time you get sent a
> verification code to a known email address. That makes your mobile phone
> a trusted device.
>
> Once verified you don't need 2FA codes like any other trusted device.

that depends on the bank (or other company). some always require a
code, even if trusted. some do so periodically (e.g., every 30 days).
some only once. it varies.

[Alan]

If you think it is a "gimmick" that's an ASSERTION; an OPINION.

You get to support that.

[Alan]

On 2022-08-25 15:14, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>>> If FaceID is not a gimmick
>>
>> Your opinion is not a fact, trollboi.  : )
>
> The fact is faceid exists, JR, for people living in abject physical fear.

That's an assertion, not a fact.

[Wade Garrett]

Your wife doesn't think so...

[Chris]

Not any banks here in the UK.

[Jeff Layman]

I'm in the UK too. I had a look at a few banks' apps and from what I can
see all of them require some additional checking. For example:

"Log in with your passnumber or, if your device allows, choose
fingerprint or face recognition." (Nationwide)

"Our Secure Key gives you added protection when you’re using mobile
banking because it generates a code which only you will have access to.
You must enter this code as well as your normal username and password.

This is known as two factor authentication." (HSBC)

Lloyds also appears to require 2FA in one way or another. They also
added that their banking app won't work with a jailbroken or rooted phone.

--

Jeff

[Jolly Roger]

Yep. She told me the same thing. Poor guy...

[Andy Burnelli]

Jeff Layman wrote:

> This is known as two factor authentication." (HSBC)
>
> Lloyds also appears to require 2FA in one way or another.

I think we've reliably established that the people who are deathly afraid
of someone snatching their phone out of their hands because they live in
the slums are NOT protecting the banking app or the email app since they
are already easily protected.

So what _are_ they protecting with FACE-ID then?
--
HINT: I know the answer, but people have to THINK before they can
comprehend that MARKETING pulled a fast one on them with "face id".

[Jeff Layman]

On 27/08/2022 01:22, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Jeff Layman wrote:
>
>> This is known as two factor authentication." (HSBC)
>>
>> Lloyds also appears to require 2FA in one way or another.
>
> I think we've reliably established that the people who are deathly afraid
> of someone snatching their phone out of their hands because they live in
> the slums are NOT protecting the banking app or the email app since they
> are already easily protected.
>
> So what _are_ they protecting with FACE-ID then?

I can only assume that it's for apps which don't have their own version
of 2FA, and are important to them. I guess that Face-ID etc for a phone
is a bit like a password manager for a PC - you only have to remember
one "password" to get into the system.

--

Jeff

[Chris]

Jeff Layman <Je...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 26/08/2022 19:40, Chris wrote:
>> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> In article <teanv3$ej0$3...@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't use my cellphone for online banking. When I use my home computer
>>>>> for that, the 2FA code is sent to my cellphone. Where is the 2FA code
>>>>> sent to if the cellphone app is used for banking?
>>>>
>>>> When you set up your banking app the first time you get sent a
>>>> verification code to a known email address. That makes your mobile phone
>>>> a trusted device.
>>>>
>>>> Once verified you don't need 2FA codes like any other trusted device.
>>>
>>> that depends on the bank (or other company). some always require a
>>> code, even if trusted. some do so periodically (e.g., every 30 days).
>>> some only once. it varies.
>>
>> Not any banks here in the UK.
>
> I'm in the UK too. I had a look at a few banks' apps and from what I can
> see all of them require some additional checking.

Have you actually used them with an account? I have.

> For example:
>
> "Log in with your passnumber or, if your device allows, choose
> fingerprint or face recognition." (Nationwide)

Yes. All the apps require you to set up a PIN or use TouchID/FaceID to open
the app once it's verified. This is not 2FA. It's just a login.

> "Our Secure Key gives you added protection when you’re using mobile
> banking because it generates a code which only you will have access to.
> You must enter this code as well as your normal username and password.
>
> This is known as two factor authentication." (HSBC)

Yes. This is for verifying certain transactions on their website via the
mobile app. It's a replacement for those home one-time passcode devices
that we had a few years ago.

It isn't required for simply checking your account or moving money.

> Lloyds also appears to require 2FA in one way or another. They also
> added that their banking app won't work with a jailbroken or rooted phone.

I've used pretty much all the main UK banks' apps for managing an accountor
two and they all work similarly to what I said originally. 2FA is only
required once or very rarely to use mobile apps.

[Ken Hart]

Don't know about iOS but Android has many apps which set a lock per app.
https://play.google.com/store/search?q=app%20lock%20password&c=apps


--
Ken Hart
kwh...@frontier.com

[Ken Hart]

On 8/27/2022 8:42 AM, Chris wrote:

>>> Not any banks here in the UK.
>>
>> I'm in the UK too. I had a look at a few banks' apps and from what I can
>> see all of them require some additional checking.
>
> Have you actually used them with an account? I have.

Can iOS set a lock method to prevent opening the app per each app?


--
Ken Hart
kwh...@frontier.com

[Chris]

Peter <occassional...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:

> Ken Hart <kwh...@frontier.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/27/2022 3:42 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>
>>> On 27/08/2022 01:22, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>>>> Jeff Layman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This is known as two factor authentication." (HSBC)
>>>>>
>>>>> Lloyds also appears to require 2FA in one way or another.
>>>>
>>>> I think we've reliably established that the people who are deathly afraid
>>>> of someone snatching their phone out of their hands because they live in
>>>> the slums are NOT protecting the banking app or the email app since they
>>>> are already easily protected.
>>>>
>>>> So what _are_ they protecting with FACE-ID then?
>>>
>>> I can only assume that it's for apps which don't have their own version
>>> of 2FA, and are important to them. I guess that Face-ID etc for a phone
>>> is a bit like a password manager for a PC - you only have to remember
>>> one "password" to get into the system.
>

> How often do PC owners have to re-enter their password to get into it?

Depends on how they set it up.

> Does it happen every time the screen goes blank in about thirty seconds?

There's always the possibility to increase the screensaver time delay. In
MacOS if you've enabled filevault you need to have a password enabled
screensaver.

> Do most people set up their PC with faceid if they use a 30 second lock?

FaceID is only available on iphones. Some laptops have the option of using
a fingerprint scanner to login. My mac does.

[nospam]

In article <tee21j$ctvm$1...@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > Do most people set up their PC with faceid if they use a 30 second lock?
>
> FaceID is only available on iphones. Some laptops have the option of using
> a fingerprint scanner to login. My mac does.

windows hello can do face recognition, as well as other options.

<https://www.computerworld.com/article/3244347/what-is-windows-hello-mic
rosofts-biometrics-security-system-explained.html>
Windows Hello gives Windows users an alternate way to log into
their devices and applications using a fingerprint, iris scan or
facial recognition. Here¹s what the technology does, who uses it
and the hardware required.

[Jeff Layman]

Xiaomi phones have had face identification for at least a couple of
years. My year-old Redmi Note 10 can can use PIN, password, draw
pattern, Face ID, or fingerprint to get past the lock screen.

My 10 years-old laptop has fingerprint ID if I want to use it.

--

Jeff

[nospam]

In article <tef6pl$ivfd$1...@dont-email.me>, Jeff Layman

<Je...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> >
> > FaceID is only available on iphones. Some laptops have the option of using
> > a fingerprint scanner to login. My mac does.
>
> Xiaomi phones have had face identification for at least a couple of
> years. My year-old Redmi Note 10 can can use PIN, password, draw
> pattern, Face ID, or fingerprint to get past the lock screen.

face unlock on android can easily be spoofed with a photo, with the
sole exception of the discontinued google pixel 4, which uses the same
technology as apple's face id. patterns are also not very secure.

> My 10 years-old laptop has fingerprint ID if I want to use it.

it's not as fast or as integrated as apple's touch id.

[Dean Hoffman]

On 8/28/2022 5:11:47 AM, nospam wrote:
>>> FaceID is only available on iphones. Some laptops have the option of using
>>> a fingerprint scanner to login. My mac does.
>>
>> Xiaomi phones have had face identification for at least a couple of
>> years. My year-old Redmi Note 10 can can use PIN, password, draw
>> pattern, Face ID, or fingerprint to get past the lock screen.
>
> face unlock on android can easily be spoofed with a photo, with the
> sole exception of the discontinued google pixel 4, which uses the same
> technology as apple's face id. patterns are also not very secure.
>
>> My 10 years-old laptop has fingerprint ID if I want to use it.
>
> it's not as fast or as integrated as apple's touch id.

Why is it that you always say everything is better on Apple products?

[Jolly Roger]

Biometric authentication is more private, more secure, and more reliable
on Apple's mobile devices than most Android devices. He's not lying.

[nospam]

In article <tefsqn$1o1g$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Dean Hoffman

i only say that when it's true.

there are some things that non-apple products do better. face id and
touch id are not among those, with the exception of the google pixel 4,
which was equivalent to apple's face id. i

as i said, face unlock on android can be spoofed with a photo. at a
recent product announcement (i think it was samsung), a tech journalist
spoofed it in the demo room minutes after it was announced on stage,
using a selfie on his existing phone. that's bad.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

>> Why is it that you always say everything is better on Apple products?
>
> i only say that when it's true.

I think it's funny you just said that considering you brazenly fabricate
completely imaginary iOS functionality as a matter of habit, nospam.

> there are some things that non-apple products do better. face id and
> touch id are not among those, with the exception of the google pixel 4,
> which was equivalent to apple's face id.

It's no longer shocking how little you know about iOS, nospam even as you
have the highest substandard IQ of all the uneducated iKooks, nospam.

Hell, the only things I know about iOS are what I've learned from owning a
a half dozen iOS devices - but that alone is more than you'll _ever_ know.

It's no longer shocking, actually, how infantile your iOS knowledge level
is as you brazenly fabricate imaginary functionality that you "think"
exists all the time, nospam.

> as i said, face unlock on android can be spoofed with a photo. at a
> recent product announcement (i think it was samsung), a tech journalist
> spoofed it in the demo room minutes after it was announced on stage,
> using a selfie on his existing phone. that's bad.

Whether or not a silly marketing gimmick is better on one platform than
another is a moot point for adults since the only people who need it are
those who live in the slums.

*The _adult_ observation* here is the _only_ way Apple can (desperately!)
attempt to _differentiate_ itself against a _modern_ smartphone is to claim
that Apple's marketing gimmicks are the best marketing gimmicks around.

So be it.
*What nospam claims is Apple's marketing gimmicks are the best gimmicks*

Being eminently reasonable and logical, I'll grant him that fact.
--
Apple spends almost nothing in R&D so they have to promote marketing
gimmicks instead of actually developing a competetive modern product.

[Andy Burnelli]

Jolly Roger wrote:

>> Why is it that you always say everything is better on Apple products?
>
> Biometric authentication is more private, more secure, and more reliable
> on Apple's mobile devices than most Android devices. He's not lying.

*The _adult_ observation* here is the _only_ way Apple can (desperately!)
attempt to _differentiate_ itself against a _modern_ smartphone is to claim
that Apple's marketing gimmicks are the best marketing gimmicks around.

So be it.

*What JR claims is Apple's marketing gimmicks are the best gimmicks*

It's interesting the adult observation of how well propaganda works in that
Apple has convinced people like Jolly Roger that they live in the slums.

[Andy Burnelli]

Jeff Layman wrote:

>> So what _are_ they protecting with FACE-ID then?
>
> I can only assume that it's for apps which don't have their own version
> of 2FA, and are important to them. I guess that Face-ID etc for a phone
> is a bit like a password manager for a PC - you only have to remember
> one "password" to get into the system.

Hi Jeff,

The most important question for this thread is this...
*Why is MARKETING desperate for us to believe in their Face-ID gimmick?*

What I'm asking is a valid question to ponder because all too often people
succumb to propaganda without even realizing that, for example, "Techron"
isn't anything that _every_ gasoline (in the USA) has (polyetheramines).

Yet there are people who pay fifty cents to a dollar more per gallon for
propaganda labeled "Techron" (in the USA) than for "Top Tier" Costco gas.

Why?
Specifically, don't they think before they buy?

That's what I'm asking people to do here.
Think.

Just as I know what Techron is, I can clearly see what Face-ID is.
Propaganda.

Why is MARKETING desperate for us to believe in their version of Face-ID?

As for your comment that it's "one entry method", that's true, but it's an
entry method that is _required_ for _every_ single interaction, which,
clearly, is unnecessary.

It's like having to unlock your car to get in, and then when you want to
use the radio you have to unlock your car again, and then whenever you want
to set the air conditioning you have to unlock your car yet again, and when
you need to open the glovebox you have to unlock your car again, and when
you want to step on the brake pedal you have to unlock your car again, and
when you use the accelerator you have to unlock your car again, and when
you move your seat back you have to unlock your car again, and when you
adjust your mirrors you have to unlock your car again, and when...

The point being that if you keep private papers in the glovebox, then you
should only have to unlock the glovebox when you use the glovebox, right?

That's what it's like with _all_ apps.
I don't know of a single app that can't get its own app password.

Do you?
(see sig for caveat)
--
NOTE: Plenty of app password apps exist so if you claim that any given app
doesn't have an app password, that app has to pass two tests on Android:
1. Does the app _need_ a password, and,
2. If so, then why can't it use an app-password app to get it?

[Andy Burnelli]

Jeff Layman wrote:

> Xiaomi phones have had face identification for at least a couple of
> years. My year-old Redmi Note 10 can can use PIN, password, draw
> pattern, Face ID, or fingerprint to get past the lock screen.

Hi Jeff,

The point of this thread is to make people think at higher levels.

Despite overblown claims of one gimmick better than another...
it's still a marketing created fear & a marketing created solution.

Besides, as you noted, almost all phones have this marketing gimmick,
where mine, which is a _free_ low-end Android, BTW, has them all too.

> My 10 years-old laptop has fingerprint ID if I want to use it.

While face id is a marketing gimmick, it's more importantly a brilliant
marketing gimmick, where, if it was necessary, laptops would have it too.

Since I'm trying to make people think, the reason I brought up laptops is
people do the _same_ things on a laptop that they do on a phone, right?

Banking...
Email...
Photos...
etc.

The question is if someone feels they _need_ faceid on a smartphone,
then by those same measures they should feel the same need for a laptop.

Right?

[Chris]

My point was replying to the use of 'faceid' on a PC, which isn't
possible as it's Apple proprietary tech which is only available on
iPhones (and iPad Pros). If they meant more general facial recognition
then that's moot.

[Chris]

If you mean independently of the app's developer, then I'm pretty sure
it's not possible.

However, app developers do have access to TouchID/FaceID to be able to
secure their app using the phone's hardware.

So all bank apps (in the UK) ask you to set up a PIN but also provide
the capability to use the phone's security mechanisms as well.

[nospam]

In article <teio2n$15r8c$2...@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > Can iOS set a lock method to prevent opening the app per each app?
>
> If you mean independently of the app's developer, then I'm pretty sure
> it's not possible.

it's not, and for very good reason. intercepting app launch is a
glaring security hole. the mere fact anyone would consider it an
desirable feature, let alone actually implement it, is disturbing.

[Ken Hart]

On 8/29/2022 10:58 AM, nospam wrote:

>>> Can iOS set a lock method to prevent opening the app per each app?
>>
>> If you mean independently of the app's developer, then I'm pretty sure
>> it's not possible.
>
> it's not, and for very good reason. intercepting app launch is a
> glaring security hole. the mere fact anyone would consider it an
> desirable feature, let alone actually implement it, is disturbing.

Is this inability of iOS apps to secure themselves at the users discretion
in the differences between Android and iOS google doc that was published?
--
Ken Hart
kwh...@frontier.com

[nospam]

In article <teisb0$1ho6$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Ken Hart

<kwh...@frontier.com> wrote:

>
> >>> Can iOS set a lock method to prevent opening the app per each app?
> >>
> >> If you mean independently of the app's developer, then I'm pretty sure
> >> it's not possible.
> >
> > it's not, and for very good reason. intercepting app launch is a
> > glaring security hole. the mere fact anyone would consider it an
> > desirable feature, let alone actually implement it, is disturbing.
>
> Is this inability of iOS apps to secure themselves at the users discretion

that's a spin.

intercepting app launch is a security hole. very simple.

> in the differences between Android and iOS google doc that was published?

if it is, it's another ignorant 'feature'.

the entire document is propaganda that's easily debunked (and has been).

[Alan]

On 2022-08-28 21:16, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Jeff Layman wrote:
>
>>> So what _are_ they protecting with FACE-ID then?
>>
>> I can only assume that it's for apps which don't have their own
>> version of 2FA, and are important to them. I guess that Face-ID etc
>> for a phone is a bit like a password manager for a PC - you only have
>> to remember one "password" to get into the system.
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
> The most important question for this thread is this... *Why is MARKETING
> desperate for us to believe in their Face-ID gimmick?*

Assumes facts not in evidence.

<snip>

[Ken Hart]

On 8/29/2022 6:28 PM, nospam wrote:

>> Is this inability of iOS apps to secure themselves at the users discretion
>
> that's a spin.

No it's not. You said it yourself that this ability doesn't exist on iOS
for a user to define which apps THEY want to secure themselves with a pin.

> intercepting app launch is a security hole. very simple.

Says you without bothering to back that naked excuse up with anything real.

>> in the differences between Android and iOS google doc that was published?
>
> if it is, it's another ignorant 'feature'.

You said yourself that iOS lacks the ability to secure user apps at will.
That's a valid DIFFERENCE between what a user can do on iOS versus Android.

> the entire document is propaganda that's easily debunked (and has been).

Is this inability of iOS apps to secure themselves at the users discretion

in the differences between Android and iOS google doc that he published?
--
Ken Hart
kwh...@frontier.com

[nospam]

In article <teitr2$916$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Ken Hart

<kwh...@frontier.com> wrote:

>
> >> Is this inability of iOS apps to secure themselves at the users discretion
> >
> > that's a spin.
>
> No it's not.

it is. you're trying to spin a reduction in security as a good thing.

> You said it yourself that this ability doesn't exist on iOS
> for a user to define which apps THEY want to secure themselves with a pin.

it doesn't exist because it's a security hole. it's that simple.

if someone prefers a less secure device, then they might want this
'feature'.

> > intercepting app launch is a security hole. very simple.
>
> Says you without bothering to back that naked excuse up with anything real.

go learn about ios and android, device security and app lifecycles.

there's also the issue that the app providing a passcode is trivially
bypassed, giving the user a false sense of security.

> >> in the differences between Android and iOS google doc that was published?
> >
> > if it is, it's another ignorant 'feature'.
>
> You said yourself that iOS lacks the ability to secure user apps at will.
> That's a valid DIFFERENCE between what a user can do on iOS versus Android.

yep, it is indeed a difference, making android less secure because of
this 'feature'.

the fact that anyone would try to rationalize it as desirable is
bizarre.

it's also pointless because apps that require security, such as banking
apps, already have their own security, usually far better than anything
a third party app could possibly provide (sometimes overly so, some
banks are a bit too aggressive).

[Ken Hart]

On 8/29/2022 1:57 PM, nospam wrote:

> it is. you're trying to spin a reduction in security as a good thing.

No. It's a DIFFERENCE that you are trying to spin as something it's not.

>
>> You said it yourself that this ability doesn't exist on iOS
>> for a user to define which apps THEY want to secure themselves with a pin.
>
> it doesn't exist because it's a security hole. it's that simple.

It's a difference that should be in the document if people want to be able
to set a pin on ANY app that they want to set that pin on.

> if someone prefers a less secure device, then they might want this
> 'feature'.

You said yourself that iOS doesn't have it while Android does have it.
It's a difference which should be in the document of differences then.

>
>>> intercepting app launch is a security hole. very simple.
>>
>> Says you without bothering to back that naked excuse up with anything real.
>
> go learn about ios and android, device security and app lifecycles.

Why don't you provide real data instead of making up why iOS can't do it?

> there's also the issue that the app providing a passcode is trivially
> bypassed, giving the user a false sense of security.

Says you again without bothering to back that excuse up with anything real.

>>>> in the differences between Android and iOS google doc that was published?
>>>
>>> if it is, it's another ignorant 'feature'.
>>
>> You said yourself that iOS lacks the ability to secure user apps at will.
>> That's a valid DIFFERENCE between what a user can do on iOS versus Android.
>
> yep, it is indeed a difference, making android less secure because of
> this 'feature'.

If the user wants to set an app pin on a per app basis on iOS they can't.
If they want to set an app pin on a per app basis on Android, they can.

That's a difference which should be in the document from the maintainer.

> the fact that anyone would try to rationalize it as desirable is
> bizarre.

Says you again without bothering to back that excuse up with anything real.

> it's also pointless because apps that require security, such as banking
> apps, already have their own security, usually far better than anything
> a third party app could possibly provide (sometimes overly so, some
> banks are a bit too aggressive).

Why do you bother to make an excuse nobody wants it because you can't do
it? That it exists on Android means people want it even as you can't do it.

You haven't substantiated one claim of your excuses where the guy who
maintains that document could double its size by listing all your excuses
for why iOS can't lock an app with a pin on a per app basis & Android can.

Whoever is the maintainer of that document, are you listening?
What do you think of these many unsubstantiated excuses from this fellow?

Is the inability of iOS to set a user pin per app in that differences doc?
--
Ken Hart
kwh...@frontier.com

[Joe Beanfish]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 04:27:32 +0100, Andy Burnelli wrote:

> For those who use FaceID, I simply ask one obvious question:
> *Which slum do you live in that you feel you _need_ FaceID anyway?*
>
> My smartphone can do ALL the PIN/LOCK/ENCRYPT methods; I use none of them.
> Why not?
>
> Because I'm not afraid of someone snatching my phone out of my hands.
> That's why.

Maybe not start by using snide derisive statements if you want
genuine answers. But anyhow, I use fingerprint/pin to keep random
people out.

I don't want people
* swiping away my important notifications/unread email flags
* installing random crap
* rearranging my desktop
* watching lewd stuff on my youtube or other media accounts
* sending "joke" texts as me

It also protects me from accidentally doing some of those things by
touching the screen randomly while handling it. Even with the lock
I've managed to activate the emergency call screen with the phone
in my pocket. I shudder to think the mess I'd find with no lock.

Also, if I lose the phone, I don't want random strangers rooting thru
my personal business nor contacts. I have an emergency contact on the
lock screen and the phone has an "emergency call" feature that lets
anyone call a few pre-selected contacts without unlocking.

[Andy Burnelli]

Joe Beanfish wrote:

> Maybe not start by using snide derisive statements if you want
> genuine answers.

The underlying adult understanding is marketing has _fabricated_ a need you
are supposed to be _desperate_ to feel - which is called *abject fear*.

Hence... due to this unreasonable abject fear you're "supposed" to feel
that you actually _need_ some kind of gimmick so that you feel safe again.

Hence...

It's actually a valid way to ask because it makes the point that a person
who lives in the dangerous dark recesses of the slums would _need_ FaceID.

You don't seem to understand that is the underlying reason for the use of
the word "slums" because, from reading below, you actually _do_ feel that
abject fear of every single person who surrounds you in your daily life.

Logically... in effect... based on what you said below...
a. *You _do_ live in the slums*...
b. So you _do_ feel (rightly) afraid of every single person around you...
c. Hence... for you, the face-id gimmick actually makes a lot of sense.

And that's ok.

> But anyhow, I use fingerprint/pin to keep random people out.

Well, that's obvious because you do live in the slums.
Remember... the question was asking _which_ slums you live in.

You answered that question by saying everyone around you is a threat.

That's EXACTLY how MARKETING (who created this gimmick) want you to feel.

> I don't want people
> * swiping away my important notifications/unread email flags
> * installing random crap
> * rearranging my desktop
> * watching lewd stuff on my youtube or other media accounts
> * sending "joke" texts as me

I think your opening showed you completely missed the point of why the word
"slums" was added to the question since you're describing _exactly_ the
people who live in slums - when you describe where you live yourself.

So you _do_ live in the slums.

Hence... for you... this faceid gimmick makes a lot of sense.
That's fine.

But most people are not like you.
Most people do NOT live in the slums.

For them, face-id is just a marketing gimmick.

> It also protects me from accidentally doing some of those things by
> touching the screen randomly while handling it.

Um... er... No it doesn't. Not even close.
It has _nothing_ to do with it, in fact. Nothing.
That you even think that means you haven't thought this through one bit.

> Even with the lock
> I've managed to activate the emergency call screen with the phone
> in my pocket. I shudder to think the mess I'd find with no lock.

If you "shudder to think" of what you, yourself, would do if it you didn't
have face-id gimmicks on your own phone, well, then, um, er, we're not
talking about someone operating at the adult level of logical sense.

Are we?

I mean that is an absolutely ridiculous fear. For a whole bunch of reasons.
Not the least of which is face-id does _nothing_ to alleviate the fear.

It's sad actually that you attribute to Face-ID some kind of magical
completely imaginary fabricated functionality - much like nospam does.

I hate to tell this to you, but I don't have face ID and my phone isn't
calling 911 by accident, nor is it doing _anything_ else by accident.

It's just not.

> Also, if I lose the phone, I don't want random strangers rooting thru
> my personal business nor contacts. I have an emergency contact on the
> lock screen and the phone has an "emergency call" feature that lets
> anyone call a few pre-selected contacts without unlocking.

We've already determined you live in fear of everyone around you.
Hence, losing your phone to them (they can steal it for example) is valid.

Losing your phone is something that happens, I admit completely, so face-id
gimmicks may be useful if you fear you will lose your phone in the future.

Me?

If I lose the phone, I lose nothing but the phone.
Well, the case. And the twenty bucks inside the case.

But that's it.
They can have all my free apps.
--
It's a valid question because people don't stop to think why marketing is
so desperate for you to feel so afraid of everyone around you taking your
phone out of your hands.

[Andy Burnelli]

Joe Beanfish wrote:

> Not even close. I live in a nice part of a nice suburb.
> Plonk the rest of your ignorant bs. Thanks for making me regret
> responding to you. I'll not make that mistake again.

I said, from the very start... this is an _adult_ conversation, didn't I?

It's a valid observation that marketing propaganda has not only made you
fear every single person who surrounds you (which is bad enough)...

But that marketing has tailor-made the "exact" solution to your problem!
*FACE ID*

Voila!
Marketing in action.

1. First, create an unnatural abject fear of an artificial threat...
2. And then provide a trademarked solution to that artificial threat!

It's genius.

You may hear me tell the truth about marketing where I never say they're
stupid (even as I will say the customer who believes them, isn't so smart).
--
PS: Take a class in marketing where their goal is to create a need and then
they fulfill that artificial need that they indoctrinate into your brain.

[Andy Burnelli]

Ant wrote:

>>> Also, is there a way to password protect specific albums (not the
>>> default hidden album)?
>
>> only with a third party app.
>
> Thank you for the quick answers.

Hi Ant,

This free FOSS third-party app creates an encrypted container which you can
then put any files or directories into (the type of file doesn't matter).
Veracrypt <https://veracrypt.eu/en/Downloads.html>
Windows, macOS, Linux, FreeBSD & RasberryPi

Most people I know who use it generally maintain a few encrypted containers
on each platform, where they store personal information such as tax records
or medical records or, depending on your level of security, photos & docs.

On Windows, for example, the encrypted container becomes a simple disk
drive, which you can have automatically "eject" after x minutes of non use.

The advantage of container encryption is there is never a need for storing
your data onto the Internet, and no need for a phone pin or password or to
store face data or any other data on a phone just to be able to use it.
*Which slum do you live in where you feel you NEED a Face-ID gimmick?*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/LfcV3fpA45Q/m/eFfN02qkAgAJ>

Here is VeraCrypt page for equivalent container software on mobile devices.
<https://veracrypt.eu/en/Android%20%26%20iOS%20Support.html>

*Android*
EDS <http://sovworks.com/eds/>

*iOS*
Disk Decipher: <http://disk-decipher.hekkihek.nl/>
Crypto Disks: <https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/crypto-disks-store-private/id889549308>

As you're well aware, I check all links before I post them, where
I'm not sure why the Disk Decipher link above comes up blank for me.

A search on the Apple iOS App Store shows apps of the same name apparently.
<https://apps.apple.com/az/app/disk-decipher/id516538625>
But I don't know if they're the same app recommended by Veracrypt.
<https://disk-decipher.app/>

The Android app is free while the iOS apps are not free.
This is unfortunate as you then need to protect your privacy when you
purchase the iOS apps (which isn't needed on any other platform).

Worse, as you're likely aware, Apple has been sued for tracking an immense
amount of your usage data because you are forced to use their mothership
account to obtain apps (which no other mobile platform requires but Apple).
*apple sued for deceitful privacy settings* by badgolferman
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/-hMMpRS2saA>

Nonetheless, the use model people I know who never put their personal data
on the Internet is to store sensitive data in an encrypted file container.

That sensitive data is then available to you on your mobile device without
the onus of the FaceID gimmicks and other onerous whole-phone protection
schemes (which, I would agree you need if you do indeed live in the slums).
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information
which, in this case, is to provide Ant encrypted file container software.

[Andy Burnelli]

Andy Burnelli wrote:

> Nonetheless, the use model people I know who never put their personal data
> on the Internet is to store sensitive data in an encrypted file container.

By way of example, this thread posted on the _adult_ operating system
newsgroups was fruitful in developing a general solution for storing your
private data in platform portable encrypted file containers, at no cost.
*Cross platform compatibility of portable encrypted file containers*
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.os.linux/c/j8qxaT8g-1A>

Here are some of the screenshots which resulted from that informative
thread, where you'll note the huge difference in attitude between any
technical thread on the adult OS newsgroups versus an Apple OS newsgroup.
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.os.linux>

exFAT formatted encrypted container file between desktop & mobile.
<https://i.postimg.cc/xjgzJCh0/eds01.jpg> EDS Lite exFAT module installed
<https://i.postimg.cc/ZqkBtyBL/eds02.jpg> EDS opens Veracrypt container
<https://i.postimg.cc/vBhcVqPP/eds03.jpg> Desktop & mobile portability
<https://i.postimg.cc/QthFVGq9/eds04.jpg> It's a general purpose solution
<https://i.postimg.cc/bwSDBRJJ/eds05.jpg> Closing the container on Android

FAT formatted encrypted container file between desktop & mobile over Wi-Fi.
<https://i.postimg.cc/26c2nPhj/eds06.jpg> Opening encrypted container file
<https://i.postimg.cc/Ghsqsg2r/eds07.jpg> Editing container contents
<https://i.postimg.cc/N0yMgXDN/eds08.jpg> Copying back to the desktop

Linux natively treats the entire iOS device as a read _and_ write filesys!
<https://i.postimg.cc/NFkXsJ0X/files01.jpg> iOS/Win DCIM is 1-way only
<https://i.postimg.cc/L8b18Zmx/files02.jpg> iOS "Files" does nothing
<https://i.postimg.cc/d3SGkdgr/files03.jpg> Android is two way, everything
<https://i.postimg.cc/QMk7tvZW/files04.jpg> Ubuntu is two way, everything
<https://i.postimg.cc/qqg61Rh8/files05.jpg> Ubuntu, movies _to_ iOS on USB
<https://i.postimg.cc/Jhmy9KH7/files06.jpg> Ubuntu uses iFuse for magic
<https://i.postimg.cc/KjK4nHwf/files07.jpg> Ubuntu is two-way, everything
<https://i.postimg.cc/3xcCBngd/files08.jpg> iOS is just a dumb brick
<https://i.postimg.cc/mDx3xkp4/files09.jpg> iOS only DCIM & only 1-way
<https://i.postimg.cc/9MGdc2s7/files10.jpg> Android is 2-way fast over USB
<https://i.postimg.cc/cChf8mx1/files11.jpg> iOS requires hacks
<https://i.postimg.cc/pVJf72fN/files12.jpg> iOS hacks very often will fail
<https://i.postimg.cc/g269S8rT/files13.jpg> How does macOS work with iOS?
<https://i.postimg.cc/s2x0f9Js/files14.jpg> linux, win10 & iOS at last!

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

>> sms wrote:
>>> The big issue with phones is with NFC payments. Once your phone is
>>> unlocked, the fraud potential, if the phone is lost or stolen, is very
>>> high if there's no security.
>
> that is very definitely false.
>
> payments will require authentication, even if the phone has been
> unlocked.
>
> the more you post, the more it's clear you don't actually use a
> smartphone.

Whether or not you like Steve's use model isn't really the point here.
I'm just asking educated intelligent adults to think about biometrics.

There is a reason the MARKETING organizations at both Apple and the others
(Google, Samsung, etc.) pitch their face-id and other biometrick gimmicks.

There's even a reason these marketing gimmicks are perceived to be needed.
All I'm trying to do is to get intelligent educated people to think.

Think. Think. Think. Think.
Think.

Why do people _feel_ desperate to use these biometric lock/unlock gimmicks?

What Steve said, which I completely understand, is he uses an insecure
payment system which _requires_ the _entire_ phone to be locked.

OK. But that's an absurd use model, is it not?

What AJL said was that he has "google stuff" which he wants to keep secure.
That's reasonable but then I ask why not secure the "google stuff" instead?

When I ask people "what slum do you live in", I ask it that way to point
out the absurdity of them feeling desperate to lock/unlock the entire phone
just to use one or a few apps which they wish to secure from prying eyes.

The whole biometric lock/unlocking is a gimmick foisted by MARKETING.
I'm just asking educated intelligent adults to think about biometrics.

Do you have any idea why MARKETING spends millions promoting biometrics?
I do.

--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information

which, in this case, is to THINK about why MARKETING promotes biometrics.