Hey guys I got touchid on my new macbook what do you think?

>leaving your password on every object you touch

why do companies keep pushing this?

>>57275138
Not secure at all, stupid even. All someone has to do is drug you (or kill you) and they can hold your finger to the laptop to access it.

>>57275185
because it's easier than typing things in and for the proportion of people that will use "password" as their password, the fingerprint is more secure.

the amount of effort that would need to go into spoofing a biometric sensor or the like generally precludes normies from needing to worry about that shit. and in this context, neckbeards are normies.

>>57275205
listen to yourself, sounds pretty secure if you'd have to kill someone to get into their devices.

>>57275205
nah mate fingerprint sensors arent nearly as sensitive as that
all they have to do is find an object you touched to get your fingerprint, then paint it on a thin plastic

>>57275205
if you're worried about someone killing you to get access to your laptop you're probably not buying off the shelf laptops in the first place.

like i agree that fingerprint sensors are a bad idea, but this paranoid schizo act doesn't help

>>57275138
it's not a "touch ID" you cocksucking faggot, that's Apple's term for their brand of fingerprint readers.

That's a plain ol' fingerprint reader, not a touch ID. It's like referring to every smartphone as an "iphone".

>>57275229
Or drug them, (wannabe) smartass.

>>57275230
doesn't touch ID check to see if there's a pulse behind the fingerprint?

there are ways to prevent casual attackers from getting into your laptop, but honestly if you're worried about an organization breaking the law to get through your fingerprint sensor then you should consider yourself fucked anyway. any group willing to kill you to get your thumbprint is probably willing to torture you to get you to tell them the password you used.

the threat is in law enforcement agencies being able to compel you to unlock your device with your fingerprint. courts have ruled that law enforcement *can* compel you to unlock your device if it's locked by thumbprint, but that they can't compel you to unlock a phone that's locked by a passcode.

>>57275230
What exactly is your point? My point is that all someone has to do is hold your finger to the laptop.

>>57275270
>doesn't touch ID check to see if there's a pulse behind the fingerprint?
you put thin plastic on your finger, think like those latex gloves, and youve got a pulse

>>57275275
getting hold of someones finger is a lot harder than getting hold of their fingerprint

>>57275229
>>57275230
>>57275239
A computer is only as secure as the owner makes it. If all you have to do is hack the human with a few pills, it's not secure at all.

Imagine if you died unexpectedly and didn't forget to delete your porn collection or whatever the fuck else you have on your computer- one swipe with your dead finger and anyone can access it.

THINK, man THINK

File: TheLittleDutchBoy.jpg (24KB, 271x230px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 271x230px

>>57275229
>>57275230
>>57275239
>forgot pic

>>57275316
That's why you use a timeout and a secondary authentication method.

>>57275316
>A computer is only as secure as the owner makes it. If all you have to do is hack the human with a few pills, it's not secure at all.
here's a wacky idea: don't eat unfamiliar pills

if you're worried that someone is going to slip pills into your drink or food or something, you're clearly at more risk than the average person. you shouldn't be using default security settings in the first place.

stop "pretending" to be retarded.

>>57275362
So the secondary authentication is the security so there's no point in having a finger reader. Right? Right.

>>57275410
I use both, Android can detect when you put your phone down i.e. not carrying it on you, and will timeout where fingerprint authentication will also require additional authentication like a password.

It makes using a fingerprint a bit more secure.