Comparable to a social security number, but a SSN which you rubber stamp upon literally everything you touch. I make this analogy to illustrate the ridiculousness of both.
I think it's a good comparison, even if it may not seem quite like it yet because we still don't have that many things for which to use our fingerprints.
But soon we will have. All the banks are considering some form of biometric authentication for ATMs, and so on, and this could expand to many other types of services. That means you'll have to scan and store your fingerprint on a range of devices with highly variable security. Eventually your fingerprint will be sold on the black market, just like your SSN is.
There is a market for it because the average Joe and Jane are pretty lazy and would rather touch something to unlock it than having to go through the hassle of typing and remembering (forgetting) a password. They probably don't understand the secrutiy implications of it either.
We at startup xyz take security seriously. We regret to inform you that on the night of 1st December 2016 our database was compromised. The database contained your name, address and fingerprint data.
Please see a plastic surgeon about resetting your fingerprints at as soon as possible.
Obviously fingerprints can't be used in that situation, buy think about something like your front door lock. You don't need paranoia-level security (you probably have breakable windows anyway) but you want to stop random people who aren't motivated enough to steal your fingerprint from walking in.
Or think about locking your phone. Most people only want to stop their friends and family - they're not going to copy you fingerprint. Even FBI nearly defeated by TouchID. (You're probably thinking that they could have easily bypassed it, but they only had 48 hours to do so.)
There's a little bit of a difference between breaking a window (noise, glass everywhere), and discretely walking in through your front door and out with your jewellery.
I don't understand the qualifier "in that situation": the user cannot determine what the "situation" may be at some point in the future.
I do use the fingerprint reader on my iPhone, and I believe that the fingerprint data is never sent to another device. Ever.
There are real problems to using the iPhone fingerprint with apps, in that the apps tells me it needs to store an encrypted version of my password on iCloud in order to enable fingerprint unlock. The Bad Guys could get my encrypted password and I might never know.
But I wouldn't have to change my fingerprint in that case.
Genuinely surprised to not see this happen yet. I guess it's a good thing Apple and Google are the ones who typically store Fingerprints and not third party apps.
Thankfully, nobody stores full fingerprints, just derivations (sort of like a hash). And, when those are stored, they are so far always stored in secure hardware elements. The data is never accessible from within the OS, and never uploaded anywhere.
"The proposed system stores alphanumeric and biometric data (a combination of four fingerprints and the facial image). [...] The System is composed of a central database connected to national entry points."
If/when this comes to be, that database will probably be both well-protected and an incredibly tempting attack target.
Governments have been storing biometric data for decades. I was asking which private company has been doing so - as that is what was being alluded to.
*more to the point, the only way I see a government who stores biometric data being an issue WRT security: the government is after you (in which case they're likely getting what they want anyway), or it's a targeted attack from a foreign government (in which case biometric theft is the least of your concerns).
Who is this mythical fellow who's not going to give up his password in such a situation anyway? No one's going to protect their accounts at the cost of their finger. Certainly not me.
I mean, I agree with not using fingerprints as passwords but not because I want to protect myself from the fingermen.
I think you have missed the point. In poorer areas of the world where life is cheaper than cheap, I'm not going to bother negotiating with you, so that you to come to the ATM with me because I need you to place your finger on the scanner. I'm just going to take my machete and remove your whole hand and leave you to bleed out in the dirt.
Placing any security value on human body parts is a stupid idea, whether as a password or as a automated proof of identity.
I mean that it doesn't matter. If I had a password, you're not suddenly going to leave me alone. You're probably going to extract it from me and then kill me anyway.
I think it's quite clear we shouldn't use biometrics as passwords but I don't think this is a strong argument.