this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2026
380 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
85644 readers
2826 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
~~Security~~ Privacy. They are distinct concepts.
For example, tokenised and biometrically authenticated transactions are more secure and more convenient than cash payments which are comparatively riskier, easier to forge, easier to steal etc.
However, this allows banks and payment providers to keep tabs on your transaction data, which cash does not.
Convenience and privacy are usually at opposite ends, security can come at either end depending on the medium.
Cash is only "less convenient" for the banks and businesses that would prefer to track you. A cashless society is a society fully stripped of privacy, a society where poor people are guaranteed to stay poor, and where only the rich can afford privacy and security.
That's my point.
Regularly going to ATMs / banks is demonstrably less convenient for both consumers and businesses and safeguarding the cash presents a security risk, especially for small businesses.
But the alternative of digital payments comes at a huge cost to privacy.
I wasn't contradicting you, I was agreeing with you.
Biometrics are not more secure, because you can be forced to give it against your will.
Fingerprint? They can force your finger onto the scanner.
Eye scan/Face Scan? They can put you in a headlock and hold the phone infront of you.
Biometic security is convenience, not security.
It is more secure.
It's much easier to steal cash than to force someone to unlock a device and make a payment, so yes it is more secure.
I didn't say 100% unbeatable.
and with biometics, its not hard at all, you just force their finger onto the scanner/hold their camera infront of their face.. and hell they probably dont even have to be alive to do it, and you've got full access to do everything on their phone. instead of stealing 5 bucks out of their wallet, you've now got access to any and all banking shit on their phone.
Ok mate, I disagree but accept I'm not gonna convince you
I mean, you are disagreeing with facts.
Cause not only is if factually real, it has factually happened,
FBI kinda screwed up the case against one of the Jan6ers by forcing them to unlock their phone by forcing their thumb onto their phone. . Granted, it was appealed and the court declared it a violation of 5th amendment (which is great in general, even if it unfortunately helps a Jan6er).
and there have been numerous other instances of police and authorities have done the same thing, it was not an uncommon practice before that court ruling.. and to be honest, with how power abusive police are, its probably still not that uncommon.
So you can disagree all you want. but its happening every day. Biometrics are security theater, not actual security.
edit This isnt conservative media, downvoting doesnt make facts become unfacts, lol.
This is why the up/downvote systems are so toxic and ruin human interaction. It allows people to carve out their own imaginary realities/echochambers, by "punishing" things they don't like and pushing them down, so they don't have to see them anymore.. And once you hit a critical mass, people just stop even reading and thinking and just join in on the group think with blind downvotes.
This gamification is ruining human social ability and creating people who don't have the basic means of self control to deal with being wrong, or with contrary opinions, or anything.
I reflexively downvote any comment that begins with "I mean".
Of course, because reading is hard and why read when you can have the gamified systems tell you good from bad, to save those pesky brain meats from all the thinky hurts.
There is more than one attack vector.
Is it advisable to use biometrics to lock your phone if you are part of an at-risk demographic? no
Are biometric second factor an improvement over people only setting shitty passwords? yes
Do phishing attacks occur orders of magnitude more frequently than biometric factors being gathered by force? Absolutely.
I like that you have to justify biometrics by coupling them with a shitty password, When just having a decent password solves both issues.
and honestly I dont even want to discuss bad passwords. thats a topic thats 30+ years old at this point, a topic so old that entire generations of people have grown up from infancy with the warnings of using proper passwords..And they get reminded about it every time they make a password. If they still cant be bothered to use something other than 1234 or password1, then they deserve what they get, and shouldnt be counted amongst actual security problems.
Secure, convenient, private. Pick two.
Yep, which is also why paper ballots are still the de facto standard for democratic elections. Digital voting which is verifiable and yet anonymous is very difficult to get right, especially when it needs to be accessible enough for every citizen to understand.