„But biometric authentication does not fulfill the advertised security promises“
This is completely out of context. For the average smartphone user Iris-Recognition on a phone (just like touch-ID) VS pin-disabled on the phone is a huge step forward.
This is completely out of context. For the average smartphone user Iris-Recognition on a phone (just like touch-ID) VS pin-disabled on the phone is a huge step forward.
The patterns in your irises are unique to you and are
virtually impossible to replicate, meaning iris
authentication is one of the safest ways to keep your
phone locked and the contents private.
I think the quote is fair.
Also your pin disabled argument doesn't make a lot of sense. That's like saying 123456 is a good password because many people disable the password prompt at login.
Additionally, you cannot change your iris once it's compromised. This is an absolute no-no for secure systems! Changing your pin is easy.
This is definitely not a huge step forward. And, as already mentioned, the average user gets misguided by exaggerated marketing promises.
Side note: The CCC even recovered the fingerprint of the Germany's defense minister from a photo: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/dec/30/hacker-fa...
1. 50% of your users won't have their needs met - that's a large proportion assuming a uniform distribution
2. We can't be sure a uniform distribution in the first place is appropriate
3. If we're going to assume an average user then why don't we assume an average phone too: If the average user gets by without something today then why bother building it as a new feature?
In the end a product should not be designed for an average user. It should be designed for a well defined audience who's needs will met well by the product. If you're going to bother with fancy biometric tech as a feature and selling point then you're clearly NOT aiming at the average user who couldn't care less...
Oh come on. You know what's meant: no nerds. That's 99% of users who'll have their needs met, not 50%.