[braincoke]

I believe it's - Something you have (key, device,...) - Something you know - Something you are (biometry)

In Europe there is a regulation (PSD2) that defines a strong authentication as 2 of the 3 listed above.

[amalcon]

I've always disliked this breakdown. My body is something I have -- it's just potentially (not always practically -- see the article) more difficult to clone or otherwise use without my consent than a key fob or something.

Edit: To be clear, I don't think this is an argument for biometrics, but rather an argument against them. They can't complement something I have in a two factor scheme, because my biometrics are something I have.

[jagged-chisel]

But it's the parts that are easily forgeable (fingerprints, retinas, etc) that are being relied upon. By "forgeable" I mean "things that someone else can also have by creating copies."

I don't think we have yet good metrics on how to detect specific individuals using a full-body scan. Not to mention the invasiveness of creating your personal initial dataset. Most folks won't stand for it. So right back to parts that are forgeable...

[avianlyric]

Your body isn’t very easy to replace. Passwords and devices are.

[SEJeff]

This is precisely why he is a poor “password” / secret replacement.

Whelp, your fingerprints have been cloned. Time to go get them burned off and get some new ones. Yeah, that’s not gonna work.

[folkrav]

I'd tend to describe one's body as a state more than a possession. You are your body, it's not something you can get rid of.