> I stumbled across a study which found that Usenet posters with
> Obnoxious Whiny Gadfly Personas were generally compensating for
> underdevelopment of certain of their physical equipment.
>
> Can't quite remember the exact cite or details...or I'd pass them on
> to you ;-)

Perhaps the details escape you due to the insignificance of your own endowment.

On 2022-08-25 12:43, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>>> The fact remains that face-id is a gimmick that appeals to people.
>>
>> That's clearly not a fact - just an opinion. You *really* struggle with
>> the difference. : D
>
> If FaceID is not a gimmick, Jolly Roger, then answer the _adult_ question.
>                           *Why?*
>
> Specifically...
> What is the _physical_ threat you are so fearful of that makes you feel so
> desperate a need to protect your lockscreen from the people around you?

If you think it is a "gimmick" that's an ASSERTION; an OPINION.

You get to support that.

On 2022-08-25 15:14, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>>> If FaceID is not a gimmick
>>
>> Your opinion is not a fact, trollboi.  : )
>
> The fact is faceid exists, JR, for people living in abject physical fear.

That's an assertion, not a fact.

On 8/26/22 10:16 AM, Tobiah wrote:
>> I stumbled across a study which found that Usenet posters with
>> Obnoxious Whiny Gadfly Personas were generally compensating for
>> underdevelopment of certain of their physical equipment.
>>
>> Can't quite remember the exact cite or details...or I'd pass them on
>> to you ;-)
>
> Perhaps the details escape you due to the insignificance of your own
> endowment.
>
Your wife doesn't think so...

On 2022-08-26, Wade Garrett <wade@cooler.net> wrote:
> On 8/26/22 10:16 AM, Tobiah wrote:
>>> I stumbled across a study which found that Usenet posters with
>>> Obnoxious Whiny Gadfly Personas were generally compensating for
>>> underdevelopment of certain of their physical equipment.
>>>
>>> Can't quite remember the exact cite or details...or I'd pass them on
>>> to you ;-)
>>
>> Perhaps the details escape you due to the insignificance of your own
>> endowment.
>>
> Your wife doesn't think so...

Yep. She told me the same thing. Poor guy...

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 11:27:05 PM UTC-4, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> For those who use FaceID, I simply ask one obvious question:
> *Which slum do you live in that you feel you _need_ FaceID anyway?*
>
> Me?
>
> I don't lock my doors or windows at night.
> My driveway gate has a latch you can reach around to walk in.
> The FedEx/UPS/Amazon guy has the gate code (the USPS won't use it though)..
> My kids' extra unused cars are parked outside, always unlocked.
> My barn is left unlocked, as is the fence gate around the pool.
>
> My smartphone can do ALL the PIN/LOCK/ENCRYPT methods; I use none of them..
> Why not?
>
> Because I'm not afraid of someone snatching my phone out of my hands.
> That's why.
>
> I feel sorry for those of you who live in the slums where you _do_ have to
> worry about someone sneaking up behind you to snatch your phone away.
>
> Which brings up the obvious question for all who use FaceID gimmickry...
> *Which slum do you live in that you feel you _need_ FaceID anyway?*

I live in a neighborhood of $400,000-$500,00 homes in a reasonably priced city. Our crime rate is one of the lowest in the country. But, what if I leave my phone somewhere and it's not protected? Unlocked it has easy access to financial records to almost $3 million in liquid assets. I use a PIN + fingerprint security. My iPhone does not have Face ID. I'd be really stupid to leave it totally unprotected. Either you are stupid, or poor, or both.

nospam wrote:

>> Why is it that you always say everything is better on Apple products?
>
> i only say that when it's true.

I think it's funny you just said that considering you brazenly fabricate
completely imaginary iOS functionality as a matter of habit, nospam.

> there are some things that non-apple products do better. face id and
> touch id are not among those, with the exception of the google pixel 4,
> which was equivalent to apple's face id.

It's no longer shocking how little you know about iOS, nospam even as you
have the highest substandard IQ of all the uneducated iKooks, nospam.

Hell, the only things I know about iOS are what I've learned from owning a
a half dozen iOS devices - but that alone is more than you'll _ever_ know.

It's no longer shocking, actually, how infantile your iOS knowledge level
is as you brazenly fabricate imaginary functionality that you "think"
exists all the time, nospam.

> as i said, face unlock on android can be spoofed with a photo. at a
> recent product announcement (i think it was samsung), a tech journalist
> spoofed it in the demo room minutes after it was announced on stage,
> using a selfie on his existing phone. that's bad.

Whether or not a silly marketing gimmick is better on one platform than
another is a moot point for adults since the only people who need it are
those who live in the slums.

*The _adult_ observation* here is the _only_ way Apple can (desperately!)
attempt to _differentiate_ itself against a _modern_ smartphone is to claim
that Apple's marketing gimmicks are the best marketing gimmicks around.

So be it.
*What nospam claims is Apple's marketing gimmicks are the best gimmicks*

Being eminently reasonable and logical, I'll grant him that fact.
--
Apple spends almost nothing in R&D so they have to promote marketing
gimmicks instead of actually developing a competetive modern product.

Jeff Layman wrote:

>> So what _are_ they protecting with FACE-ID then?
>
> I can only assume that it's for apps which don't have their own version
> of 2FA, and are important to them. I guess that Face-ID etc for a phone
> is a bit like a password manager for a PC - you only have to remember
> one "password" to get into the system.

Hi Jeff,

The most important question for this thread is this...
*Why is MARKETING desperate for us to believe in their Face-ID gimmick?*

What I'm asking is a valid question to ponder because all too often people
succumb to propaganda without even realizing that, for example, "Techron"
isn't anything that _every_ gasoline (in the USA) has (polyetheramines).

Yet there are people who pay fifty cents to a dollar more per gallon for
propaganda labeled "Techron" (in the USA) than for "Top Tier" Costco gas.

Why?
Specifically, don't they think before they buy?

That's what I'm asking people to do here.
Think.

Just as I know what Techron is, I can clearly see what Face-ID is.
Propaganda.

Why is MARKETING desperate for us to believe in their version of Face-ID?

As for your comment that it's "one entry method", that's true, but it's an
entry method that is _required_ for _every_ single interaction, which,
clearly, is unnecessary.

It's like having to unlock your car to get in, and then when you want to
use the radio you have to unlock your car again, and then whenever you want
to set the air conditioning you have to unlock your car yet again, and when
you need to open the glovebox you have to unlock your car again, and when
you want to step on the brake pedal you have to unlock your car again, and
when you use the accelerator you have to unlock your car again, and when
you move your seat back you have to unlock your car again, and when you
adjust your mirrors you have to unlock your car again, and when...

The point being that if you keep private papers in the glovebox, then you
should only have to unlock the glovebox when you use the glovebox, right?

That's what it's like with _all_ apps.
I don't know of a single app that can't get its own app password.

Do you?
(see sig for caveat)
--
NOTE: Plenty of app password apps exist so if you claim that any given app
doesn't have an app password, that app has to pass two tests on Android:
1. Does the app _need_ a password, and,
2. If so, then why can't it use an app-password app to get it?

Jeff Layman wrote:

> Xiaomi phones have had face identification for at least a couple of
> years. My year-old Redmi Note 10 can can use PIN, password, draw
> pattern, Face ID, or fingerprint to get past the lock screen.

Hi Jeff,

The point of this thread is to make people think at higher levels.

Despite overblown claims of one gimmick better than another...
it's still a marketing created fear & a marketing created solution.

Besides, as you noted, almost all phones have this marketing gimmick,
where mine, which is a _free_ low-end Android, BTW, has them all too.

> My 10 years-old laptop has fingerprint ID if I want to use it.

While face id is a marketing gimmick, it's more importantly a brilliant
marketing gimmick, where, if it was necessary, laptops would have it too.

Since I'm trying to make people think, the reason I brought up laptops is
people do the _same_ things on a laptop that they do on a phone, right?

Banking...
Email...
Photos...
etc.

The question is if someone feels they _need_ faceid on a smartphone,
then by those same measures they should feel the same need for a laptop.

Right?

On 2022-08-28 21:16, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Jeff Layman wrote:
>
>>> So what _are_ they protecting with FACE-ID then?
>>
>> I can only assume that it's for apps which don't have their own
>> version of 2FA, and are important to them. I guess that Face-ID etc
>> for a phone is a bit like a password manager for a PC - you only have
>> to remember one "password" to get into the system.
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
> The most important question for this thread is this... *Why is MARKETING
> desperate for us to believe in their Face-ID gimmick?*

Assumes facts not in evidence.

<snip>

Joe Beanfish wrote:

> Maybe not start by using snide derisive statements if you want
> genuine answers.

The underlying adult understanding is marketing has _fabricated_ a need you
are supposed to be _desperate_ to feel - which is called *abject fear*.

Hence... due to this unreasonable abject fear you're "supposed" to feel
that you actually _need_ some kind of gimmick so that you feel safe again.

Hence...

It's actually a valid way to ask because it makes the point that a person
who lives in the dangerous dark recesses of the slums would _need_ FaceID.

You don't seem to understand that is the underlying reason for the use of
the word "slums" because, from reading below, you actually _do_ feel that
abject fear of every single person who surrounds you in your daily life.

Logically... in effect... based on what you said below...
a. *You _do_ live in the slums*...
b. So you _do_ feel (rightly) afraid of every single person around you...
c. Hence... for you, the face-id gimmick actually makes a lot of sense.

And that's ok.

> But anyhow, I use fingerprint/pin to keep random people out.

Well, that's obvious because you do live in the slums.
Remember... the question was asking _which_ slums you live in.

You answered that question by saying everyone around you is a threat.

That's EXACTLY how MARKETING (who created this gimmick) want you to feel.

> I don't want people
> * swiping away my important notifications/unread email flags
> * installing random crap
> * rearranging my desktop
> * watching lewd stuff on my youtube or other media accounts
> * sending "joke" texts as me

I think your opening showed you completely missed the point of why the word
"slums" was added to the question since you're describing _exactly_ the
people who live in slums - when you describe where you live yourself.

So you _do_ live in the slums.

Hence... for you... this faceid gimmick makes a lot of sense.
That's fine.

But most people are not like you.
Most people do NOT live in the slums.

For them, face-id is just a marketing gimmick.

> It also protects me from accidentally doing some of those things by
> touching the screen randomly while handling it.

Um... er... No it doesn't. Not even close.
It has _nothing_ to do with it, in fact. Nothing.
That you even think that means you haven't thought this through one bit.

> Even with the lock
> I've managed to activate the emergency call screen with the phone
> in my pocket. I shudder to think the mess I'd find with no lock.

If you "shudder to think" of what you, yourself, would do if it you didn't
have face-id gimmicks on your own phone, well, then, um, er, we're not
talking about someone operating at the adult level of logical sense.

Are we?

I mean that is an absolutely ridiculous fear. For a whole bunch of reasons.
Not the least of which is face-id does _nothing_ to alleviate the fear.

It's sad actually that you attribute to Face-ID some kind of magical
completely imaginary fabricated functionality - much like nospam does.

I hate to tell this to you, but I don't have face ID and my phone isn't
calling 911 by accident, nor is it doing _anything_ else by accident.

It's just not.

> Also, if I lose the phone, I don't want random strangers rooting thru
> my personal business nor contacts. I have an emergency contact on the
> lock screen and the phone has an "emergency call" feature that lets
> anyone call a few pre-selected contacts without unlocking.

We've already determined you live in fear of everyone around you.
Hence, losing your phone to them (they can steal it for example) is valid.

Losing your phone is something that happens, I admit completely, so face-id
gimmicks may be useful if you fear you will lose your phone in the future.

Me?

If I lose the phone, I lose nothing but the phone.
Well, the case. And the twenty bucks inside the case.

But that's it.
They can have all my free apps.
--
It's a valid question because people don't stop to think why marketing is
so desperate for you to feel so afraid of everyone around you taking your
phone out of your hands.

Joe Beanfish wrote:

> Not even close. I live in a nice part of a nice suburb.
> Plonk the rest of your ignorant bs. Thanks for making me regret
> responding to you. I'll not make that mistake again.

I said, from the very start... this is an _adult_ conversation, didn't I?

It's a valid observation that marketing propaganda has not only made you
fear every single person who surrounds you (which is bad enough)...

But that marketing has tailor-made the "exact" solution to your problem!
*FACE ID*

Voila!
Marketing in action.

1. First, create an unnatural abject fear of an artificial threat...
2. And then provide a trademarked solution to that artificial threat!

It's genius.

You may hear me tell the truth about marketing where I never say they're
stupid (even as I will say the customer who believes them, isn't so smart).
--
PS: Take a class in marketing where their goal is to create a need and then
they fulfill that artificial need that they indoctrinate into your brain.

Ant wrote:

>>> Also, is there a way to password protect specific albums (not the
>>> default hidden album)?
>
>> only with a third party app.
>
> Thank you for the quick answers.

Hi Ant,

This free FOSS third-party app creates an encrypted container which you can
then put any files or directories into (the type of file doesn't matter).
Veracrypt <https://veracrypt.eu/en/Downloads.html>
Windows, macOS, Linux, FreeBSD & RasberryPi

Most people I know who use it generally maintain a few encrypted containers
on each platform, where they store personal information such as tax records
or medical records or, depending on your level of security, photos & docs.

On Windows, for example, the encrypted container becomes a simple disk
drive, which you can have automatically "eject" after x minutes of non use.

The advantage of container encryption is there is never a need for storing
your data onto the Internet, and no need for a phone pin or password or to
store face data or any other data on a phone just to be able to use it.
*Which slum do you live in where you feel you NEED a Face-ID gimmick?*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/LfcV3fpA45Q/m/eFfN02qkAgAJ>

Here is VeraCrypt page for equivalent container software on mobile devices.
<https://veracrypt.eu/en/Android%20%26%20iOS%20Support.html>

*Android*
EDS <http://sovworks.com/eds/>

*iOS*
Disk Decipher: <http://disk-decipher.hekkihek.nl/>
Crypto Disks: <https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/crypto-disks-store-private/id889549308>

As you're well aware, I check all links before I post them, where
I'm not sure why the Disk Decipher link above comes up blank for me.

A search on the Apple iOS App Store shows apps of the same name apparently.
<https://apps.apple.com/az/app/disk-decipher/id516538625>
But I don't know if they're the same app recommended by Veracrypt.
<https://disk-decipher.app/>
The Android app is free while the iOS apps are not free.
This is unfortunate as you then need to protect your privacy when you
purchase the iOS apps (which isn't needed on any other platform).

Worse, as you're likely aware, Apple has been sued for tracking an immense
amount of your usage data because you are forced to use their mothership
account to obtain apps (which no other mobile platform requires but Apple).
*apple sued for deceitful privacy settings* by badgolferman
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/-hMMpRS2saA>

Nonetheless, the use model people I know who never put their personal data
on the Internet is to store sensitive data in an encrypted file container.

That sensitive data is then available to you on your mobile device without
the onus of the FaceID gimmicks and other onerous whole-phone protection
schemes (which, I would agree you need if you do indeed live in the slums).
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information
which, in this case, is to provide Ant encrypted file container software.

Andy Burnelli wrote:

> Nonetheless, the use model people I know who never put their personal data
> on the Internet is to store sensitive data in an encrypted file container.

By way of example, this thread posted on the _adult_ operating system
newsgroups was fruitful in developing a general solution for storing your
private data in platform portable encrypted file containers, at no cost.
*Cross platform compatibility of portable encrypted file containers*
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.os.linux/c/j8qxaT8g-1A>

Here are some of the screenshots which resulted from that informative
thread, where you'll note the huge difference in attitude between any
technical thread on the adult OS newsgroups versus an Apple OS newsgroup.
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.os.linux>

exFAT formatted encrypted container file between desktop & mobile.
<https://i.postimg.cc/xjgzJCh0/eds01.jpg> EDS Lite exFAT module installed
<https://i.postimg.cc/ZqkBtyBL/eds02.jpg> EDS opens Veracrypt container
<https://i.postimg.cc/vBhcVqPP/eds03.jpg> Desktop & mobile portability
<https://i.postimg.cc/QthFVGq9/eds04.jpg> It's a general purpose solution
<https://i.postimg.cc/bwSDBRJJ/eds05.jpg> Closing the container on Android

FAT formatted encrypted container file between desktop & mobile over Wi-Fi.
<https://i.postimg.cc/26c2nPhj/eds06.jpg> Opening encrypted container file
<https://i.postimg.cc/Ghsqsg2r/eds07.jpg> Editing container contents
<https://i.postimg.cc/N0yMgXDN/eds08.jpg> Copying back to the desktop

Linux natively treats the entire iOS device as a read _and_ write filesys!
<https://i.postimg.cc/NFkXsJ0X/files01.jpg> iOS/Win DCIM is 1-way only
<https://i.postimg.cc/L8b18Zmx/files02.jpg> iOS "Files" does nothing
<https://i.postimg.cc/d3SGkdgr/files03.jpg> Android is two way, everything
<https://i.postimg.cc/QMk7tvZW/files04.jpg> Ubuntu is two way, everything
<https://i.postimg.cc/qqg61Rh8/files05.jpg> Ubuntu, movies _to_ iOS on USB
<https://i.postimg.cc/Jhmy9KH7/files06.jpg> Ubuntu uses iFuse for magic
<https://i.postimg.cc/KjK4nHwf/files07.jpg> Ubuntu is two-way, everything
<https://i.postimg.cc/3xcCBngd/files08.jpg> iOS is just a dumb brick
<https://i.postimg.cc/mDx3xkp4/files09.jpg> iOS only DCIM & only 1-way
<https://i.postimg.cc/9MGdc2s7/files10.jpg> Android is 2-way fast over USB
<https://i.postimg.cc/cChf8mx1/files11.jpg> iOS requires hacks
<https://i.postimg.cc/pVJf72fN/files12.jpg> iOS hacks very often will fail
<https://i.postimg.cc/g269S8rT/files13.jpg> How does macOS work with iOS?
<https://i.postimg.cc/s2x0f9Js/files14.jpg> linux, win10 & iOS at last!

nospam wrote:

>> sms wrote:
>>> The big issue with phones is with NFC payments. Once your phone is
>>> unlocked, the fraud potential, if the phone is lost or stolen, is very
>>> high if there's no security.
>
> that is very definitely false.
>
> payments will require authentication, even if the phone has been
> unlocked.
>
> the more you post, the more it's clear you don't actually use a
> smartphone.

Whether or not you like Steve's use model isn't really the point here.
I'm just asking educated intelligent adults to think about biometrics.

There is a reason the MARKETING organizations at both Apple and the others
(Google, Samsung, etc.) pitch their face-id and other biometrick gimmicks.

There's even a reason these marketing gimmicks are perceived to be needed.
All I'm trying to do is to get intelligent educated people to think.

Think. Think. Think. Think.
Think.

Why do people _feel_ desperate to use these biometric lock/unlock gimmicks?

What Steve said, which I completely understand, is he uses an insecure
payment system which _requires_ the _entire_ phone to be locked.

OK. But that's an absurd use model, is it not?

What AJL said was that he has "google stuff" which he wants to keep secure.
That's reasonable but then I ask why not secure the "google stuff" instead?

When I ask people "what slum do you live in", I ask it that way to point
out the absurdity of them feeling desperate to lock/unlock the entire phone
just to use one or a few apps which they wish to secure from prying eyes.

The whole biometric lock/unlocking is a gimmick foisted by MARKETING.
I'm just asking educated intelligent adults to think about biometrics.

Do you have any idea why MARKETING spends millions promoting biometrics?
I do.
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information
which, in this case, is to THINK about why MARKETING promotes biometrics.