On 2/26/2023 2:44 PM, badgolferman wrote:
> A woman said that soon after her iPhone was stolen, she was locked out of
> her Apple account.

<snip>

> Alex Argiro, who was an NYPD detective before retiring in 2022, told The
> Journal that there had been hundreds of similar crimes committed in New
> York in the past two years: "Once you get into the phone, it's like a
> treasure box."
>
> There have been reports of similar crimes in Austin, Texas; Denver, Boston
> and London.

Adding [comp.mobile.android]

“Snatch and grab” of mobile phones is a big problem in some areas. If
the phone screen is locked then the risk of someone being able to access
sensitive applications, like banking and shopping apps, is pretty low.
But one type of snatch and grab is someone running or cycling past
someone that is talking on their phone, or looking at maps or a web
site, and grabbing an unlocked device. This opens up the possibility of
substantial financial losses.

But for most banking apps, you usually will need a separate passcode or
biometrics to get to a screen where it uses 2FA (the 2FA is worthless of
course because the SMS comes to the unlocked phone), but at least for my
banks you need to enter the passcode (or use a fingerprint or face) to
even get to the point where 2FA is sent.

What's needed is the ability to individually require biometrics, or a
PIN, to open certain apps even when the phone screen is already
unlocked. For Samsung Galaxy phones, this feature is built in, using
"Secure Folder." There are also Android Apps like “AppLock”
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.domobile.applockwatcher>
which provide similar type of protection built into Samsung devices.
However an easier way to achieve this on non-Samsung phones is to create
a separate Android user profile that contains apps that require
additional security (bank accounts, shopping, etc.).

What about the iPhone? As “Learn how to passcode protect individual
Android apps”
<https://www.komando.com/smartphones-gadgets/secure-your-apps-and-protect-your-phone/695779/>
states: "Unfortunately, Apple lags behind Android in this regard. Sure,
you can lock your iPhone or iPad by setting a passcode or taking
advantage of Touch ID and Face ID. Although some apps like Whatsapp have
built-in lock mechanisms, Apple doesn’t offer any native feature that
lets you lock apps." Also, unlike Android, iOS doesn’t allow multiple
user accounts on one device so you can’t use that method either.

For jailbroken iPhones there's the BioProtect Tweak
<http://cydia.saurik.com/package/net.limneos.bioprotectxs/>.

I cover this in the document
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JznrWfGJDA8CYVfjSnPTwfVy8-gAC0kPyaApuJTcUNE/>
in 215a on page 104.

On 2023-02-27, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 2/26/2023 2:44 PM, badgolferman wrote:
>>
>> A woman said that soon after her iPhone was stolen, she was locked
>> out of her Apple account.
>
><snip>
>
>> Alex Argiro, who was an NYPD detective before retiring in 2022, told
>> The Journal that there had been hundreds of similar crimes committed
>> in New York in the past two years: "Once you get into the phone, it's
>> like a treasure box."
>>
>> There have been reports of similar crimes in Austin, Texas; Denver,
>> Boston and London.
>
> Adding [comp.mobile.android]
>
> “Snatch and grab” of mobile phones is a big problem in some areas. If
> the phone screen is locked then the risk of someone being able to
> access sensitive applications, like banking and shopping apps, is
> pretty low.

Especially with a secure passcode rather than a simply 6-digit numeric
pin code which would be easily observed by watching someone enter it
over their shoulder. My passcode is a 20-character easy-to-remember
sentence, complete with capitalization, letters, numbers, spaces, and
punctuation.

> But one type of snatch and grab is someone running or cycling past
> someone that is talking on their phone, or looking at maps or a web
> site, and grabbing an unlocked device. This opens up the possibility
> of substantial financial losses.
>
> But for most banking apps, you usually will need a separate passcode
> or biometrics to get to a screen where it uses 2FA (the 2FA is
> worthless of course because the SMS comes to the unlocked phone), but
> at least for my banks you need to enter the passcode (or use a
> fingerprint or face) to even get to the point where 2FA is sent.
>
> What's needed is the ability to individually require biometrics, or a
> PIN, to open certain apps even when the phone screen is already
> unlocked.

That's been available on iPhones for ages. Most of my banking apps allow
you to enable Touch ID or Face ID to unlock the app when it is launched.
And many other apps also provide this capability (it's baked into
Apple's operating system as a simple API call), such as my Proton email
app, and others.

--
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

In article <ttirjh$3aqkk$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> What's needed is the ability to individually require biometrics, or a
> PIN, to open certain apps even when the phone screen is already
> unlocked.

that has existed since biometrics were first introduced on iphones a
decade ago, in september, 2013 with the iphone 5s.

android added two years after apple did, with android 6.

>
> <https://www.komando.com/smartphon

kim komando as a reference? hah.

> states: "Unfortunately, Apple lags behind Android in this regard. Sure,
> you can lock your iPhone or iPad by setting a passcode or taking
> advantage of Touch ID and Face ID. Although some apps like Whatsapp have
> built-in lock mechanisms, Apple doesn¹t offer any native feature that
> lets you lock apps."

apple says otherwise.
<https://developer.apple.com/documentation/localauthentication/lacontext>

apps, such as banking and email apps, can be secured with a passcode
and optionally a fingerprint or face.

> Also, unlike Android, iOS doesn¹t allow multiple
> user accounts on one device so you can¹t use that method either.

wrong. ipads offer that feature.

unlike a laptop or desktop computer, a phone is not a shared device, so
there is no need for multiple user accounts on the iphone. adding a
feature that won't be used is not productive.

On 2023-02-27 20:24, nospam wrote:
> In article <ttirjh$3aqkk$1@dont-email.me>, sms
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>

....

>> Also, unlike Android, iOS doesn¹t allow multiple
>> user accounts on one device so you can¹t use that method either.
>
> wrong. ipads offer that feature.
>
> unlike a laptop or desktop computer, a phone is not a shared device, so
> there is no need for multiple user accounts on the iphone. adding a
> feature that won't be used is not productive.

Oh, yes, it can be shared.

For example, auntie can let nephew play with her phone.

Host can lend a phone to guest that came from the other side of the pond.

Boss can assign a work phone to an employee. Both need access to it. Or
the phone can be assigned to a post, and the employee doing the current
shift changes to his account on it.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

In article <88evcjxh7r.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> > unlike a laptop or desktop computer, a phone is not a shared device, so
> > there is no need for multiple user accounts on the iphone. adding a
> > feature that won't be used is not productive.
>
> Oh, yes, it can be shared.

'can be', but in reality, is not.

a toothbrush can be shared too, but in reality, it's not.

> For example, auntie can let nephew play with her phone.

a kid playing a game doesn't require a separate account and this
mythical auntie is more likely to give the kid an ipad anyway, or maybe
an older phone that is no longer used.

there is also kiosk mode to limit it to only one app.

> Host can lend a phone to guest that came from the other side of the pond.

not their own phone they don't, otherwise they'll be without a phone.

maybe they have a spare somewhere, except the kid has it.

but even ignoring that, a visitor will have their own phone.

> Boss can assign a work phone to an employee. Both need access to it. Or
> the phone can be assigned to a post, and the employee doing the current
> shift changes to his account on it.

that doesn't require separate accounts and it's also not something that
actually happens either.

bosses & employees have their own phones so they can call each other
and generally connect to a server hosted by the company for updates to
whatever it is they're working on.

but even if they did share a phone in some bizarro world, it would be
using the *same* account so that boss & employee can access the same
apps and information.

On 2/27/2023 11:52 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2023-02-27 20:24, nospam wrote:

<snip>

>> unlike a laptop or desktop computer, a phone is not a shared device, so
>> there is no need for multiple user accounts on the iphone. adding a
>> feature that won't be used is not productive.
>
> Oh, yes, it can be shared.
>
> For example, auntie can let nephew play with her phone.
>
> Host can lend a phone to guest that came from the other side of the pond.
>
> Boss can assign a work phone to an employee. Both need access to it. Or
> the phone can be assigned to a post, and the employee doing the current
> shift changes to his account on it.

nospam is wrong of course™, this time in multiple ways.

First of all, I stated that iOS doesn't allow multiple users which is of
course true.

Second, iPad OS doesn't offer multiple user account support either
unless you are using "Shared iPad" which requires a mobile device
management (MDM) solution through a business or educational institution.

Third, the reason that multi-user support would be good to have on the
iPhone or iPad is the same reason it's good to have on an Android device
that doesn't have the Secure Folder feature built in—it would allow
separating apps that need additional security under a different user
account.

For jailbroken iPhones there's the “BioProtect XS” Tweak which provides
biometric protection for individual apps but of course you have to
jailbreak your device to use that tweak.

I have added this information to the document “52 iOS & iPhone Features
Which [many] Android Users Wish they Had and 213 Android & Android
Phone Features Which [many] iOS Users Wish they Had" at
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JznrWfGJDA8CYVfjSnPTwfVy8-gAC0kPyaApuJTcUNE/>
in 215a on page 104.

In article <ttj44k$3biak$2@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> First of all, I stated that iOS doesn't allow multiple users which is of
> course true.

it's of course wrong, as you state below:

> Second, iPad OS doesn't offer multiple user account support either
> unless you are using "Shared iPad" which requires a mobile device
> management (MDM) solution through a business or educational institution.

contradicting yourself so quickly?

> Third, the reason that multi-user support would be good to have on the
> iPhone or iPad is the same reason it's good to have on an Android device
> that doesn't have the Secure Folder feature built in‹it would allow
> separating apps that need additional security under a different user
> account.

phones are not shared devices.

ipads are, which is why that option is available.

sms wrote:

> Snatch and grab of mobile phones is a big problem in some areas.

Which is why every time I see anyone using the face id marketing gimmicks,
I ask them pointedly which _slum_ they happen to live in that they need it.

Leave the face id marketing gimmicks to low class ignorant uneducated
people who can't fathom that biometric locks are nothing but gimmickry.

Ask yourself why you're so deathly afraid of your own children, your wife,
your friends, your neighbors, and your coworkers to need _any_ locking.

Jolly Roger wrote:

> My passcode is a 20-character easy-to-remember
> sentence, complete with capitalization, letters, numbers, spaces, and
> punctuation.

Notice Jolly Roger is the poster child for my point that ignorant low class
uneducated people fall, every time, for even obvious marketing gimmicks.

Jolly Roger is afraid of his wife.
He's afraid of his kids.
He's afraid of every one of his neighbors.
And Jolly Roger is afraid of his so-called friends.
And coworkers.
And he's afraid of _everyone_ around him.
*Because Jolly Roger lives in a slum.*

Otherwise, why does Jolly Roger _need_ to protect his phone from them?

On 2023-02-27 21:13, nospam wrote:
> In article <88evcjxh7r.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> unlike a laptop or desktop computer, a phone is not a shared device, so
>>> there is no need for multiple user accounts on the iphone. adding a
>>> feature that won't be used is not productive.
>>
>> Oh, yes, it can be shared.
>
> 'can be', but in reality, is not.
>
> a toothbrush can be shared too, but in reality, it's not.

I did lent a phone to a guest, and I have friends in the auntie
situation. So, no, you are wrong.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Alan Browne wrote:

> A bit long (IMO). Mine is 10 char composed of a 5 char word + 5 chars
> of gibberish (digits/symbols). My watch is 8 digits - but only need to
> enter those when I strap on the watch. Not likely to have a stranger
> staring over my shoulder at 7 am.
>
> IAC, in "public" only seem to need FaceID or my Watch.

Alan Browne is too stupid to comprehend that he's being fooled by a mere
marketing gimmick to _believe_ that _everyone_ around him is desperate to
grab his precious pink iPhone out of his very hands...

*What remains is an _adult_ observation... about mere marketing gimmicks.*

Only ignorant low-IQ uneducated people like Alan Browne fall, hook line and
sinker, so hard for what is merely a rather transparent marketing gimmick.

It's an _adult_ observation, related to needs marketing preys upon...
*If he _needs_ to lock his phone, then I ask what _slum_ does he live in?*
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information
which, in this case, is to get people to THINK about MARKETING gimmicks.

In article <mihvcjxhk.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> I did lent a phone to a guest, and I have friends in the auntie
> situation. So, no, you are wrong.

it's extremely rare, nowhere near enough to bother supporting when
there are *far* more useful features to implement, ones that many
people will actually use, including satellite sos, continuity camera,
universal control, safety check, tap to pay, centerstage, magsafe, find
my iphone when powered off, precision finding, all of which android
lacks.

nospam wrote:

> that has existed since biometrics were first introduced on iphones a
> decade ago, in september, 2013 with the iphone 5s.
>
> android added two years after apple did, with android 6.

This is an _adult_ observation, nospam, assuming you are an adult...

When it comes to mere marketing gimmicks, nospam, Android is likely
_always_ behind Apple (which is the case with biometric gimmicks).

> unlike a laptop or desktop computer, a phone is not a shared device, so
> there is no need for multiple user accounts on the iphone. adding a
> feature that won't be used is not productive.

And yet Apple loudly touts marketing gimmicks such as RED phones, fancy
named glass (it's just glass), fancy named resolution, etc., all of which
are "features" that are not productive, including biometric gimmicks.

The _adult_ observation, that only _adults_ will comprehend, is that the
real threat to an iPhone (or Android) is _not_ physical access to it.

That's MARKETING trying to get ill-educated low-IQ people to "feel safe",
when they then have more zero day bugs in iOS than any other smartphone.

This has been an adult observation... about mere marketing gimmickry.
*Apple always leads Android when it comes to marketing gimmicks*
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information
which, in this case, is to point out biometrics are marketing gimmicks.

nospam wrote:

>> I did lent a phone to a guest, and I have friends in the auntie
>> situation. So, no, you are wrong.
>
> it's extremely rare, nowhere near enough to bother supporting when
> there are *far* more useful features to implement, ones that many
> people will actually use, including satellite sos, continuity camera,
> universal control, safety check, tap to pay, centerstage, magsafe, find
> my iphone when powered off, precision finding, all of which android
> lacks.

The real problem with all these biometric gimmicks is that Apple is
desperate to get people to "feel safe" from physical access to their phone.

Yet...

*Apple has more zero-day holes in the iPhone than any Android ever built!*

The point is Apple MARKETING is brilliantly leading low-class low-IQ poorly
educated people to _feel_ safe when the reality is the iPhone is NOT safe.

On 2023-02-27 12:49, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>>  My passcode is a 20-character easy-to-remember
>> sentence, complete with capitalization, letters, numbers, spaces, and
>> punctuation.
>
> Notice Jolly Roger is the poster child for my point that ignorant low class
> uneducated people fall, every time, for even obvious marketing gimmicks.
>
> Jolly Roger is afraid of his wife.
>   He's afraid of his kids.
>      He's afraid of every one of his neighbors.
>         And Jolly Roger is afraid of his so-called friends.
> And coworkers.
>               And he's afraid of _everyone_ around him.
>                  *Because Jolly Roger lives in a slum.*
>
> Otherwise, why does Jolly Roger _need_ to protect his phone from them?

You never go out anywhere in public, Arlen?

Never sit in a restaurant?

Never go to a mall?

On 2023-02-27 12:55, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> A bit long (IMO).  Mine is 10 char composed of a 5 char word + 5 chars
>> of gibberish (digits/symbols).  My watch is 8 digits - but only need
>> to enter those when I strap on the watch.  Not likely to have a
>> stranger staring over my shoulder at 7 am.
>>
>> IAC, in "public" only seem to need FaceID or my Watch.
>
> Alan Browne is too stupid to comprehend that he's being fooled by a mere
> marketing gimmick to _believe_ that _everyone_ around him is desperate
> to grab his precious pink iPhone out of his very hands...
> *What remains is an _adult_ observation... about mere marketing gimmicks.*
>
> Only ignorant low-IQ uneducated people like Alan Browne fall, hook line
> and sinker, so hard for what is merely a rather transparent marketing
> gimmick.
>
> It's an _adult_ observation, related to needs marketing preys upon...
> *If he _needs_ to lock his phone, then I ask what _slum_ does he live in?*

Riiiiiiiiight.

Because someone at an expensive rental home in Barbados couldn't
possibly have his information stolen...

....as happened to a client of mine and which cost his company $35K.

In article <ttj63f$3bqt6$1@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2023-02-27 12:49, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> > ...

> You never go out anywhere in public, Arlen?

he can't. he has an ankle monitor.

nospam wrote:

>> You never go out anywhere in public, Arlen?
>
> he can't. he has an ankle monitor.

Hehhehheh... that's actually a good one, nospam. Much appreciated.

However, my _adult_ point is that biometrics are transparent marketing
gimmicks to lead the sheep to be distracted when they're led to slaughter.

*My key point is that the _real_ threat is _not_ physical access.*

Having said that, I certainly agree with you that Apple leads the way when
it comes to marketing gimmicks - Android follows Apple's lead in gimmicks.

*Apple wants you to _feel_ safe... which is why Apple promotes gimmicks*

What Apple knows is that they have the least secure operating system in
terms of zero-day holes, but they don't want you to _think_ about that.

On 2023-02-27 21:59, nospam wrote:
> In article <mihvcjxhk.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I did lent a phone to a guest, and I have friends in the auntie
>> situation. So, no, you are wrong.
>
> it's extremely rare,

Data source for that assertion of yours? You will have polls, stats...

--
Cheers, Carlos.

In article <l4lvcjxjk3.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> > it's extremely rare,
>
> Data source for that assertion of yours? You will have polls, stats...

apple does, and has chosen to implement features that are in higher
demand.

they *did* implement multiple users for ipads, which are commonly
shared, notably in schools.

where's your data that it's common?

On 2023-02-27 13:52, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>>> You never go out anywhere in public, Arlen?
>>
>> he can't. he has an ankle monitor.
>
> Hehhehheh... that's actually a good one, nospam. Much appreciated.
>
> However, my _adult_ point is that biometrics are transparent marketing
> gimmicks to lead the sheep to be distracted when they're led to slaughter.
>
>  *My key point is that the _real_ threat is _not_ physical access.*

And your key point is wrong.

>
> Having said that, I certainly agree with you that Apple leads the way when
> it comes to marketing gimmicks - Android follows Apple's lead in gimmicks.
>
>  *Apple wants you to _feel_ safe... which is why Apple promotes gimmicks*
>
> What Apple knows is that they have the least secure operating system in
> terms of zero-day holes, but they don't want you to _think_ about that.

Sorry, but that is multiple assertions and no facts.

On 2023-02-27 13:49, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2023-02-27 21:59, nospam wrote:
>> In article <mihvcjxhk.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> I did lent a phone to a guest, and I have friends in the auntie
>>> situation. So, no, you are wrong.
>>
>> it's extremely rare,
>
> Data source for that assertion of yours? You will have polls, stats...
>
>

I'm wondering if you ask others for their sources... ...polls...
....stats, etc.

nospam wrote:

>> Data source for that assertion of yours? You will have polls, stats...
>
> apple does, and has chosen to implement features that are in higher
> demand.
>
> they *did* implement multiple users for ipads, which are commonly
> shared, notably in schools.
>
> where's your data that it's common?

I'm not going to pick a bone in why iOS is always the crippled platform.

But I will observer that it's no longer shocking nospam is apparently
completely ignorant Android phones allow this - so it's a common enough
capability for Google to have implemented it in Android phones years ago.

*Apparently, billions of Androids can do it; while zero iPhones can.*

In fact, every common consumer platform _except_ the iPhone can do this.
As usual, it's always the iPhone which is the severely crippled platform.

You tell us whether that's common enough modern capability for you, nospam.

*Every platform can do it _except_ the crippled iPhone*

On 2/27/2023 1:49 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2023-02-27 21:59, nospam wrote:
>> In article <mihvcjxhk.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> I did lent a phone to a guest, and I have friends in the auntie
>>> situation. So, no, you are wrong.
>>
>> it's extremely rare,
>
> Data source for that assertion of yours? You will have polls, stats...

LOL, you're new here huh?

It is true that there are senior couples that sometimes share one mobile
phone between them, but it is not that common any more, at least in the
U.S., because there are so many low-cost, low-use, service plans
available for seniors.

But in any case, I only brought up having multiple user accounts on one
device because doing so is a good workaround for the lack of having a
"Secure Folder" type feature that Samsung, and some other brands of
Android devices, provide.

iPhones, and some brands of Android devices lack a "Secure Folder."
For Android you can use a separate user account or an Applock type app
to achieve a similar result. For iOS you need to jailbreak to use such
an app.

In article <ttjl4r$3d8ud$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> iPhones, and some brands of Android devices lack a "Secure Folder."

iphones have the equivalent.