From: Howard Brazee on
On Mon, 05 May 2008 11:08:24 -0500, Lewis
<g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>> These two might be useful for security - but I'd rather have a
>> fingerprint detector on the keyboards - standard. Integrated with
>> keychain. Our current password system needs to be replaced by
>> something better, and this could be a first step.
>
>That would be silly. Fingerprint scanners are to security what twist
>ties are to locks. That is, they are completely worthless and can be
>circumvented in seconds. Why anyone would waste time on them is a
>mystery to me. Perhaps they 'feel' secure?

If you were in charge of your company's security would you feel good
about how they use passwords on the Internet? Hardly any effort is
being done to improve security with bio-metrics - mainly because the
readers are so rare.

The current system of trusting users to not behave like people does
not work.
From: Howard Brazee on
On Mon, 05 May 2008 11:19:11 -0500, Lewis
<g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>No no, the point of People CHow (though I prefer "Bachelor Chow") is
>that it provides all the needed nutrition. That is, a person could
>each just Bachelor Chow for all meals.

If one is interested in minimum requirements only, we don't need Macs,
nor even computers at all. We don't need two room domiciles,
entertainment nor any beverage other than water.

Some people eat - but others dine.
From: nospam on
In article <slrng1uc7o.15qa.g.kreme(a)cerebus.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> > These two might be useful for security - but I'd rather have a
> > fingerprint detector on the keyboards - standard. Integrated with
> > keychain. Our current password system needs to be replaced by
> > something better, and this could be a first step.
>
> That would be silly. Fingerprint scanners are to security what twist
> ties are to locks. That is, they are completely worthless and can be
> circumvented in seconds. Why anyone would waste time on them is a
> mystery to me. Perhaps they 'feel' secure?

i know someone who bought a usb stick that had a fingerprint scanner.
it did require a fingerprint to work, but it didn't mater *whose*
fingerprint, as long as it was a finger. absolutely useless.
From: Howard Brazee on
On Mon, 05 May 2008 13:43:57 -0400, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>> That would be silly. Fingerprint scanners are to security what twist
>> ties are to locks. That is, they are completely worthless and can be
>> circumvented in seconds. Why anyone would waste time on them is a
>> mystery to me. Perhaps they 'feel' secure?
>
>i know someone who bought a usb stick that had a fingerprint scanner.
>it did require a fingerprint to work, but it didn't mater *whose*
>fingerprint, as long as it was a finger. absolutely useless.

That is useless - but any tool which is not implemented can be
useless.

I would expect if Apple made a fingerprint reader standard, it would
do a better job of making it useful.
From: Claude V. Lucas on
In article <lgku14996umdg1f8kvalrfkmf61b5mjd29(a)4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 05 May 2008 13:43:57 -0400, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>> That would be silly. Fingerprint scanners are to security what twist
>>> ties are to locks. That is, they are completely worthless and can be
>>> circumvented in seconds. Why anyone would waste time on them is a
>>> mystery to me. Perhaps they 'feel' secure?
>>
>>i know someone who bought a usb stick that had a fingerprint scanner.
>>it did require a fingerprint to work, but it didn't mater *whose*
>>fingerprint, as long as it was a finger. absolutely useless.
>
>That is useless - but any tool which is not implemented can be
>useless.
>
>I would expect if Apple made a fingerprint reader standard, it would
>do a better job of making it useful.

I saw an interesting demo a while ago involving spoofing a
fingerprint reader by transferring a valid print to a gummi bear...