The legal situation is more complex and nuanced than the headline implies, so the article is worth reading. This adds another ruling to the confusing case history regarding forced biometric unlocking.

  • refalo@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    I think this solution is way too impractical for most people, who tend to unlock their phone many times a day.

    • NauticalNoodle
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 months ago

      Yeah, that’s the cost of good security practices. You always sacrifice convenience.

      • HumanPerson@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        I wish I could have a fingerprint and a pin with a limited number of attempts. Plus a password after like three failed pin attempts. I think that would be a pretty good balance between security and convenience.

    • OneOrTheOtherDontAskMe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      I mean, it is annoying. But it’s security. Don’t want people having access to your device, remove all possibility someone CAN.

      But it is annoying, we shouldn’t HAVE to do this. Privacy should be baked right into our daily lives and not clawed out with tired hands every chance we get.

      • TaviRider@reddthat.comOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Yeah. The huge legal distinctions between different ways of unlocking a device seem absurd. Comprehensive privacy legislation would help.