[nanna]

One thing I like about passwords is that they give me the choice to not unlock something, should I wish that, which isn't the case with biometrics. Say I'm a journalist who gets stopped at the border of a country and am asked to open up my computer. If I want to, I can refuse - and face the consequences but still, i can make that choice. With biometrics all they'd have to do is force my finger onto the scanner, or put the computer in front of me and scan my iris or face. That's a big downside.

Also, after everything we know about Microsoft and and the security services, there's absolutely no way I'd give them my biometric data.

[linkregister]

Followed you and agreed up until the last paragraph. Can you elaborate?

[nanna]

Just the usual post-Snowden concerns about MS... http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-c...

[MichaelGG]

Just an FYI, but that was the least useful bit of the Snowden leaks and is more speculation and insinuation than anything. It's literally based on the reading of a PowerPoint slide. AFAIK, there's been no actual evidence of "direct access", whatever that's supposed to mean. An automatic subpoena-serving could easily be written down as " direct access " on a ppt to management.

It's probably a good idea to not store critical data with any third parties, but I'd be far more worried about Google than MS.

[nanna]

We'd be ignoring a lot of the Snowden revelations if we discounted the parts only 'based on the reading of a PowerPoint slide', wouldn't we?

As for why you trust Google less than Microsoft, how comes? (genuinely interested in your reasoning)

[MichaelGG]

Eh, some parts are clearer than others. A ppt that says "direct access" and everyone coming up with their own interpretation of what "direct" means is silly. Especially when high level engineers have directly contradicted those statements.

I trust Google less than MS because MS seems less likely to go use my data or even get their act together. They seem more legally scared and bureaucratic due to their past legal problems. Google seems intent on making us give up privacy (didn't Schmidt say something to that effect)? My interaction with Google services includes them constantly and repeatedly asking me to turn on history or other tracking systems. Even when I constantly decline, they keep returning. Google's main goal is to datamine to sell advertising, so that's sort of fundamentally in conflict with my personal values. Android permissions is another shining example (and now, at version 5, what exactly is the excuse?).

If Bing ever took off and replaced MS's real revenue, then I suppose I might feel the same way about MS. But that whole division, the MSN/Live/Bing/whatever, seems mired with idiotic managers that can't get anything straight (hence them losing to Skype, not turning MSN messenger into a real social network, repeatedly rebranding and offering random services then discontinuing them, etc.). They did have some great engineering though. But even if they were intent on malice, I'm not sure they'd be capable of pulling it off due to the legal/management part getting in the way for good or bad.

Overall, I give MS money, so I'm their customer, for the most part. Not true for Google, at all.

[linkregister]

Yeah it looks like it'd be vulnerable to an NSL or Prism req. Thanks for the link.

[LLWM]

That's not a downside. Why should you be allowed to smuggle contraband into the country?

[nanna]

I had the linked image in mind when I wrote that, of a journalist whose laptop was shot by Israeli border police whilst she was being interrogated.

http://lilyasussman.com/2009/11/30/im-sorry-but-we-blew-up-y...

Actually the reference doesn't totally work in hindsight because she was never asked for her password, but it seems as though it was encrypted and hence they just destroyed her laptop instead of asking her for the pw. If it had biometrics they might have just forced her to open it. So actually, the example might work after all.

[LLWM]

If you are unwilling to allow border guards to inspect something you are attempting to bring into their country, then you should be prepared for them to tell you to leave it outside at best or punish you for attempted smuggling at worst. I am skeptical of the story you linked as it's entirely from the perspective of the smuggler, but I don't see any reason to believe anything wrong happened there.

[pedalpete]

Nanna isn't suggesting smuggling contraband. As a journalist, they have a responsibility to maintain the privacy of their sources. They shouldn't be letting customs officials go through their emails and identifying people they have contact with, or photos or whatever.

No matter what is on the device, border security shouldn't be able to access it without probable cause for a search, and knowing what they are looking for.

[LLWM]

If the legitimate border guards of a country are unable to inspect something to their satisfaction, they are well within their rights to force you to leave it outside their country, or to keep you yourself out.

Sometimes they will make decisions that are bad either for the people of the country or the greater global community, but smuggling is not the right way to protest.