Why do people bother with faceid, touchid, or PINs on a personal cell phone?

I don't live in the slums or favela's of the inner city, although I realize
some people do - so maybe _they_ are worried someone's gonna sneak up behind
them and steal their phone right out of their very hands at any instant.

But for the rest of you who do not live in the slums, why all the worry?
What's on your phone that requires such gimmickry and security?

My phone has never had a PIN, nor do I bother with fingerprint, face, or
touch ID. Why bother? What's the local physical threat you feel?

This is a serious question, given the real threat, I think, isn't physical.

What are you phone owners so afraid of that you resort to the inconvenience
of faceid, fingerprint and touchid to ameliorate that fear you have of it?

On 9/8/2021 1:47 PM, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> Why do people bother with faceid, touchid, or PINs on a personal cell phone?
>
> I don't live in the slums or favela's of the inner city, although I realize
> some people do - so maybe _they_ are worried someone's gonna sneak up behind
> them and steal their phone right out of their very hands at any instant.
>
> But for the rest of you who do not live in the slums, why all the worry?
> What's on your phone that requires such gimmickry and security?

People lose phones all the time.

Once unlocked, the phone could log you in to all sorts of sites that
allow you to make purchases, i.e. Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, App Store,
etc., or allow you to use Apple Pay, Google Pay, or Samsung Pay.

In fact that's one of the issues with FaceID, since it's less secure
than TouchID in terms of family members being able to unlock a parent's
or sibling's phone, even though Apple claims that it's more secure in
terms of a "random person."

"The probability that a random person in the population could look at
your iPhone or iPad Pro and unlock it using Face ID is approximately 1
in 1,000,000 with a single enrolled appearance," and "The statistical
probability is different for twins and siblings that look like you and
among children under the age of 13, because their distinct facial
features may not have fully developed. If you're concerned about this,
we recommend using a passcode to authenticate."

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> asked
> Once unlocked, the phone could log you in to all sorts of sites that
> allow you to make purchases, i.e. Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, App Store,
> etc., or allow you to use Apple Pay, Google Pay, or Samsung Pay.

Hmmmmm... you mean people have those apps set up to work "automatically"
without _any_ additional authentication from the user at the time of use?

If it's set up _that_ way (which doesn't seem like a good idea to me), even
so, wouldn't it still be more efficient to simply put a passcode on _those_
apps, instead of on the entire phone?

Robin Goodfellow <Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net> wrote:
> Why do people bother with faceid, touchid, or PINs on a personal cell phone?
>
> I don't live in the slums or favela's of the inner city, although I realize
> some people do - so maybe _they_ are worried someone's gonna sneak up behind
> them and steal their phone right out of their very hands at any instant.
>
> But for the rest of you who do not live in the slums, why all the worry?
> What's on your phone that requires such gimmickry and security?
>
> My phone has never had a PIN, nor do I bother with fingerprint, face, or
> touch ID. Why bother? What's the local physical threat you feel?
>
> This is a serious question, given the real threat, I think, isn't physical.
>
> What are you phone owners so afraid of that you resort to the inconvenience
> of faceid, fingerprint and touchid to ameliorate that fear you have of it?
>

When an app which requires a passcode such as a banking or credit card app
sees you have Touch ID or Face ID it will ask if you want to authenticate
with one of those from this point forth. Using either of those methods is
far easier than trying to remember the individual passwords for each
different site which may be written down or saved in a password manager.

On 2021-09-08 1:47 p.m., Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> Why do people bother with faceid, touchid, or PINs on a personal cell phone?
>
> I don't live in the slums or favela's of the inner city, although I realize
> some people do - so maybe _they_ are worried someone's gonna sneak up behind
> them and steal their phone right out of their very hands at any instant.
>
> But for the rest of you who do not live in the slums, why all the worry?
> What's on your phone that requires such gimmickry and security?
>
> My phone has never had a PIN, nor do I bother with fingerprint, face, or
> touch ID. Why bother? What's the local physical threat you feel?
>
> This is a serious question, given the real threat, I think, isn't physical.
>
> What are you phone owners so afraid of that you resort to the inconvenience
> of faceid, fingerprint and touchid to ameliorate that fear you have of it?
>

You think that giving thieves unfettered access to all the personal data
on your phone is a good idea?

On 2021-09-08 5:54 p.m., badgolferman wrote:
> Robin Goodfellow <Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net> wrote:
>> Why do people bother with faceid, touchid, or PINs on a personal cell phone?
>>
>> I don't live in the slums or favela's of the inner city, although I realize
>> some people do - so maybe _they_ are worried someone's gonna sneak up behind
>> them and steal their phone right out of their very hands at any instant.
>>
>> But for the rest of you who do not live in the slums, why all the worry?
>> What's on your phone that requires such gimmickry and security?
>>
>> My phone has never had a PIN, nor do I bother with fingerprint, face, or
>> touch ID. Why bother? What's the local physical threat you feel?
>>
>> This is a serious question, given the real threat, I think, isn't physical.
>>
>> What are you phone owners so afraid of that you resort to the inconvenience
>> of faceid, fingerprint and touchid to ameliorate that fear you have of it?
>>
>
> When an app which requires a passcode such as a banking or credit card app
> sees you have Touch ID or Face ID it will ask if you want to authenticate
> with one of those from this point forth. Using either of those methods is
> far easier than trying to remember the individual passwords for each
> different site which may be written down or saved in a password manager.
>

Trust me:

Arlen only thinks these are bad ideas because iPhones have them.

badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> asked
> When an app which requires a passcode such as a banking or credit card app
> sees you have Touch ID or Face ID it will ask if you want to authenticate
> with one of those from this point forth. Using either of those methods is
> far easier than trying to remember the individual passwords for each
> different site which may be written down or saved in a password manager.

I openly admit I don't do _anything_ involving money on a phone (for the
obvious reasons) nor do I have a mother-ship account on my phone; so I don't
have _any_ login/passwords on my phone.

Having said that, may I ask: Is this your use model?
a. Every time you boot your phone, you auto-log in to the mother ship
b. Thereafter every time you touch the phone (after sleep) you authenticate.
c. Also, every time you touch certain apps, they ask you to authenticate.

Obviously I skip all three steps (there is no mother ship connection, and
there are no apps that need authentication) so please be patient with me as
I recognize your use model is likely far more prevalent than is mine.

My question to you is, given you have to constantly authenticate using the
a + (b+c) + (b+c) + (b+c)... method above, why not just skip step "b"
altogether and just use "a" when you boot and "c" when you use an app that
needs authentication?

Why "b"?
(Or did I misinterpret your use model? If so, please advise. Thanks!)

Robin Goodfellow <Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net> wrote:
> badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> asked
>> When an app which requires a passcode such as a banking or credit card app
>> sees you have Touch ID or Face ID it will ask if you want to authenticate
>> with one of those from this point forth. Using either of those methods is
>> far easier than trying to remember the individual passwords for each
>> different site which may be written down or saved in a password manager.
>
> I openly admit I don't do _anything_ involving money on a phone (for the
> obvious reasons) nor do I have a mother-ship account on my phone; so I don't
> have _any_ login/passwords on my phone.
>
> Having said that, may I ask: Is this your use model?
> a. Every time you boot your phone, you auto-log in to the mother ship
> b. Thereafter every time you touch the phone (after sleep) you authenticate.
> c. Also, every time you touch certain apps, they ask you to authenticate.
>
> Obviously I skip all three steps (there is no mother ship connection, and
> there are no apps that need authentication) so please be patient with me as
> I recognize your use model is likely far more prevalent than is mine.
>
> My question to you is, given you have to constantly authenticate using the
> a + (b+c) + (b+c) + (b+c)... method above, why not just skip step "b"
> altogether and just use "a" when you boot and "c" when you use an app that
> needs authentication?
>
> Why "b"?
> (Or did I misinterpret your use model? If so, please advise. Thanks!)
>

Arlen… may I call you Arlen? I know you better that way even though that’s
surely not your name either. Still, it’s the one you’re best known as and
hopefully will return to soon.

I know I cannot convince you that one way is better than another way so all
I can do is tell you what I do. If you find some value in my experience
then I will have accomplished something worthy today.

It’s a given that in this day and and age people use their phones for
nearly all forms of communication or gathering information. It has also
become extremely difficult to talk to someone (bank teller, customer
representative, etc.) so we are forced to use the internet to access our
financial accounts for performing business. People use their phones for
this because they are convenient. It’s also given that these financial
websites and/or apps require some method of authentication for access.
Since using the same password for every site is bad practice a person must
make unique passwords for each of these sites they access.

Using a password manager (LastPass, Bitwarden, etc.) is one way to keep
track of these passwords and enter them automatically into the app but even
then you are forced to enter the master password for these password
managers to work. This is where Touch ID or Face ID come in. Most of these
apps will allow you to authenticate with one of those methods rather than
forcing you to enter a long password on the tiny keyboard which will
inevitably have a mistake the first or second time you type it in.

As much as I don’t like Face ID, I wouldn’t do without it when it comes to
entering passwords. Using a PIN is also inconvenient because you have to
enter at least six digits (twelve for my work phone) and that wears out
your thumb. I know Android allows a pattern to be drawn in lieu of a PIN
but iOS doesn’t have that feature so we use what’s available.

In any case, this is how and why the biometric function is used. Entering a
password or PIN is inconvenient and often fat fingered. It’s a matter of
convenience.

On 9/8/21 4:47 PM, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> Why do people bother with faceid, touchid, or PINs on a personal cell phone?
>
> I don't live in the slums or favela's of the inner city, although I realize
> some people do - so maybe _they_ are worried someone's gonna sneak up behind
> them and steal their phone right out of their very hands at any instant.
>
> But for the rest of you who do not live in the slums, why all the worry?
> What's on your phone that requires such gimmickry and security?
>
> My phone has never had a PIN, nor do I bother with fingerprint, face, or
> touch ID. Why bother? What's the local physical threat you feel?
>
> This is a serious question, given the real threat, I think, isn't physical.
>
> What are you phone owners so afraid of that you resort to the inconvenience
> of faceid, fingerprint and touchid to ameliorate that fear you have of it?
>
Do you have fire insurance on your house? Got a lock on your front door?
Do you lock your car when leaving it in a parking lot or on the street?

Do you button the pants pocket over your wallet? Do you not wear
expensive jewelry/watches if you have to ride public transit or run an
errand in the not-so-hot part of town?

It's called common sense and resonable precautions.

--
Think of how stupid the average person is; then realize half of them are
stupider than that...

badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> asked
> I know I cannot convince you that one way is better than another way so all
> I can do is tell you what I do. If you find some value in my experience
> then I will have accomplished something worthy today.

Hi badgolferman,

May I call you that, although surely that's not your real name, is it. :)
What matters is the value package, not the meaningless nntp wrapping paper.
My value is in the body of the message, where I only do two things here:
a. I add tremendous value in the facts & apps & functionalities I document
b. I try to figure out why the strange apologists do what they always do

That's mainly why I'm here, although there's a third thing I'm here for...
c. To learn from others by asking questions and following their answers

To that end, I've _tested_ authentication on my phones (they all have
biometrics like faceid and fingerprint for example), but I wonder what the
value is given the real security threat isn't physical access to the phone.

> It's a given that in this day and and age people use their phones for
> nearly all forms of communication or gathering information. It has also
> become extremely difficult to talk to someone (bank teller, customer
> representative, etc.) so we are forced to use the internet to access our
> financial accounts for performing business. People use their phones for
> this because they are convenient. It's also given that these financial
> websites and/or apps require some method of authentication for access.
> Since using the same password for every site is bad practice a person must
> make unique passwords for each of these sites they access.

I do not use my phone for any financial applications, but I do use my phone
for communication. Even if I did use my phone with financial applications,
each app can have its own PIN (if physical security is what is needed).

Why not put a PIN on each app (which is only needed when the app is used)?

Bear in mind a good pin far exceeds the "security value" of the gimmicks,
although I do agree the marketing gimmicks are more "convenient" than a pin.

> Using a password manager (LastPass, Bitwarden, etc.) is one way to keep
> track of these passwords and enter them automatically into the app but even
> then you are forced to enter the master password for these password
> managers to work.

Yes. Of course. On the desktop (where I'm also not worried about physical
access) I have OSI certified encrypted password managers such as Keepass.
https://keepass.info/download.html

> This is where Touch ID or Face ID come in. Most of these
> apps will allow you to authenticate with one of those methods rather than
> forcing you to enter a long password on the tiny keyboard which will
> inevitably have a mistake the first or second time you type it in.

Understood about the mistake in typing but these biometrics also make
mistakes, do they not? This article says they _often_ make mistakes:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/our-iphones-are-six-years-old-heres-why-we-are-dreading-upgrading-them/

"Touch ID is rock-solid reliable and it just works... I hate Face ID
and Face ID apparently doesn't like me either. It actually refuses
to admit I have a human face."

> As much as I don't like Face ID, I wouldn't do without it when it comes to
> entering passwords. Using a PIN is also inconvenient because you have to
> enter at least six digits (twelve for my work phone) and that wears out
> your thumb. I know Android allows a pattern to be drawn in lieu of a PIN
> but iOS doesn't have that feature so we use what's available.

On my free Android Samsung, I can do patterns, PINs, faces, thumbprints,
etc., where I guess the "convenience" factor is what's important to you.

Not the security, per se...

Is that correct? (it's for the convenience, not the security?)

> In any case, this is how and why the biometric function is used. Entering a
> password or PIN is inconvenient and often fat fingered. It's a matter of
> convenience.

OK. Well, I understand convenience. I have an easy-to-tell-people PIN on my
gate code so that they can get inside the driveway without me having to
repeat it.

It's for the convenience; not the security.
Two completely different things (with completely different rules).

Wade Garrett <wade@cooler.net> asked
> Do you have fire insurance on your house?

Out where I live, in the highest fire danger area of California, almost
_nobody_ has fire insurance (nor earthquake insurance even though most of us
sit on the San Andreas Fault line - we cross over it every day) simply
because in your lifetime the cost of insurance for what _will_ (eventually)
happen easily will exceed the cost of the home, the way it is set up.

The only places fire/earthquake insurance is reasonably priced is in places
where it won't likely happen (that's how insurance actuarial rates work).

I don't have _any_ type of insurance on my home, electronics, or vehicles
other than liability insurance since I happen to know actuarial arithmetic.

Nor do I buy tires, batteries, or brakes based on the idiotic warranty
(which a lot of people do). I buy those things based on price performance.

And, on my phone, physical access is _not_ the major security threat.
The major security threat to a phone is not local, but from afar.

All those gimmickry biometrics won't help if the hacker is already inside.

> Got a lock on your front door?

I leave my garage doors open. My front and back doors unlocked. The barn
currently doesn't even _have_ a door (it fell off and I have to fix it).

The shed is unlocked. And the pool has a gate only for liability reasons.

I always wondered why the scared shitless Apple owners pay for electronics
warranty (which even Consumers Union says are a complete waste of money).

You Apple owners make all your decisions based on fear (remember when Apple
marketing turned a dead Chinese lady into a huge marketing coup?).

You think Apple marketing doesn't _love_ people so easily manipulated as
you? It's _why_ FaceID exists. It's a gimmick exactly for people like you.

> Do you lock your car when leaving it in a parking lot or on the street?

Yes. Usually. But not when at home. Just when I'm away from home.
Which is my point on the cell phone.

Why do you need a lock on your phone when you're at home or with friends?
What are you so afraid of?

The real threat isn't physical access (although Apple would love for you to
believe that); the real threats are the zero-day bugs coded into the OS.

Apple has so many zero-day bugs that hackers stopped accepting them.

> Do you button the pants pocket over your wallet?

Um. No. Of course not.
My wallet is in my back right pocket. For convenience.

Where do you live that you're worried about pickpockets?
In the favela?

> Do you not wear
> expensive jewelry/watches if you have to ride public transit or run an
> errand in the not-so-hot part of town?

I live in the USA. Rural USA. There is no such thing as "public transit."

> It's called common sense and resonable precautions.

My point is much deeper than you're capable of comprehending.
Put simply my point is this:

1. Apple _fools_ morons into believing the security threat is local.
2. The _real_ security threat are the zero-day bugs coded in the OS.

All this effort people waste on local security is patently wasted.
As Steve & badgolferman said, it's _only_ for convenience.

There's nothing wrong with convenience.
But all the bullshit nospam spews about it being for security is BS.

Apple is a genius at making you think the threat is local.
But the real threat on a phone isn't physical.

Once you understand that, you can see right through these gimmicks.

On 9/9/21 12:47 PM, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> Wade Garrett <wade@cooler.net> asked
>> Do you have fire insurance on your house?
>
> Out where I live, in the highest fire danger area of California, almost
> _nobody_ has fire insurance (nor earthquake insurance even though most of us
> sit on the San Andreas Fault line - we cross over it every day) simply
> because in your lifetime the cost of insurance for what _will_ (eventually)
> happen easily will exceed the cost of the home, the way it is set up.
>
> The only places fire/earthquake insurance is reasonably priced is in places
> where it won't likely happen (that's how insurance actuarial rates work).
>
> I don't have _any_ type of insurance on my home, electronics, or vehicles
> other than liability insurance since I happen to know actuarial arithmetic.
>
> Nor do I buy tires, batteries, or brakes based on the idiotic warranty
> (which a lot of people do). I buy those things based on price performance.
>
> And, on my phone, physical access is _not_ the major security threat.
> The major security threat to a phone is not local, but from afar.
>
> All those gimmickry biometrics won't help if the hacker is already inside.
>
>> Got a lock on your front door?
>
> I leave my garage doors open. My front and back doors unlocked. The barn
> currently doesn't even _have_ a door (it fell off and I have to fix it).
>
> The shed is unlocked. And the pool has a gate only for liability reasons.
>
> I always wondered why the scared shitless Apple owners pay for electronics
> warranty (which even Consumers Union says are a complete waste of money).
>
> You Apple owners make all your decisions based on fear (remember when Apple
> marketing turned a dead Chinese lady into a huge marketing coup?).
>
> You think Apple marketing doesn't _love_ people so easily manipulated as
> you? It's _why_ FaceID exists. It's a gimmick exactly for people like you.
>
>> Do you lock your car when leaving it in a parking lot or on the street?
>
> Yes. Usually. But not when at home. Just when I'm away from home.
> Which is my point on the cell phone.
>
> Why do you need a lock on your phone when you're at home or with friends?
> What are you so afraid of?
>
> The real threat isn't physical access (although Apple would love for you to
> believe that); the real threats are the zero-day bugs coded into the OS.
>
> Apple has so many zero-day bugs that hackers stopped accepting them.
>
>> Do you button the pants pocket over your wallet?
>
> Um. No. Of course not.
> My wallet is in my back right pocket. For convenience.
>
> Where do you live that you're worried about pickpockets?
> In the favela?
>
>> Do you not wear
>> expensive jewelry/watches if you have to ride public transit or run an
>> errand in the not-so-hot part of town?
>
> I live in the USA. Rural USA. There is no such thing as "public transit."
>
>> It's called common sense and resonable precautions.
>
> My point is much deeper than you're capable of comprehending.
> Put simply my point is this:
>
> 1. Apple _fools_ morons into believing the security threat is local.
> 2. The _real_ security threat are the zero-day bugs coded in the OS.
>
> All this effort people waste on local security is patently wasted.
> As Steve & badgolferman said, it's _only_ for convenience.
>
> There's nothing wrong with convenience.
> But all the bullshit nospam spews about it being for security is BS.
>
> Apple is a genius at making you think the threat is local.
> But the real threat on a phone isn't physical.
>
> Once you understand that, you can see right through these gimmicks.
>
It is quite clear from the caliber of your response, sir, that you are
a perfect example of what the rest of the country calls a fruits and
nuts California butt-head ;-)

On 9/8/2021 9:56 PM, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> asked
>> When an app which requires a passcode such as a banking or credit card app
>> sees you have Touch ID or Face ID it will ask if you want to authenticate
>> with one of those from this point forth. Using either of those methods is
>> far easier than trying to remember the individual passwords for each
>> different site which may be written down or saved in a password manager.
>
> I openly admit I don't do _anything_ involving money on a phone (for the
> obvious reasons) nor do I have a mother-ship account on my phone; so I don't
> have _any_ login/passwords on my phone.

What are the reasons? The phone is just as, or even more, secure than
using a computer unless you're using something like the Tor Browser with
a VPN.

Wade Garrett <wade@cooler.net> asked
> It is quite clear from the caliber of your response, sir, that you are
> a perfect example of what the rest of the country calls a fruits and
> nuts California butt-head ;-)

Agree with you on the nutty Californians.

However, even as I agree California is a land of wackos, I was born in upper
New York State... so if I'm a butt-head, I'm an _imported_ CA butt head. :)

The "caliber of my quite sensible logic is rather simple (even astute).
My logic works for all but those who live inside the slums & favelas.

1. Apple desperately tries to make you _feel_ a dire physical threat.
2. Because Apple marketing crafted gimmicks to address that physical threat.
.... ... ...
3. But Apple doesn't advertise the _real_ threat isn't physical.
4. Where Apple provides almost no respite from the real non-physical threat.

The point is that this highly marketed faceid gimmickry is false security.

All this effort we are expending playing to the advertised marketing
gimmicks isn't adding anything to security & safety of our private data.
--
The "caliber" of this assessment is that Apple has us focus on the wrong
threat simply because Apple's marketing gimmicks are what they advertise.

Robin Goodfellow wrote:

>However, even as I agree California is a land of wackos, I was born
>in upper New York State... so if I'm a butt-head, I'm an imported CA
>butt head. :)

My wife is from Oriskany and I lived in Utica for five years. Is that
anywhere near your birth place?

In article <shdc23$1tgu$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Robin Goodfellow
<Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net> wrote:

> Why not put a PIN on each app (which is only needed when the app is used)?

because that's *very* easily bypassed, unless the app has a passcode as
part of the app.

In article <shcq5d$l8u$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

> As much as I don¹t like Face ID, I wouldn¹t do without it when it comes to
> entering passwords. Using a PIN is also inconvenient because you have to
> enter at least six digits (twelve for my work phone) and that wears out
> your thumb.

is it worn down to the nub? how do you hold the phone?

> I know Android allows a pattern to be drawn in lieu of a PIN
> but iOS doesn¹t have that feature so we use what¹s available.

for good reason, because pattern unlock is not secure.

the pattern can easily be determined simply by looking at the smudge
marks on the display. also, the number of pattern possibilities is very
small. it's also *very* easy to see what pattern someone uses.

> In any case, this is how and why the biometric function is used. Entering a
> password or PIN is inconvenient and often fat fingered. It¹s a matter of
> convenience.

yep.

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> asked
>> I openly admit I don't do _anything_ involving money on a phone (for the
>> obvious reasons) nor do I have a mother-ship account on my phone; so I don't
>> have _any_ login/passwords on my phone.
>
> What are the reasons? The phone is just as, or even more, secure than
> using a computer unless you're using something like the Tor Browser with
> a VPN.

I do have my phone on free VPNs almost all the time and I often use Tor.
But those weren't my main reasons for asking the basic question of "why."

#1.
My main point is that Apple highly touts "face id" gimmicks and Apple highly
advertises their encryption gimmickry (even as it's always highly flawed).

But what marketing ignores is the _real_ threat isn't physical access.
People are _fooled_ into thinking the real threat is physical when it's not.

#2.
My second point is that the biometric gimmicks are useful for _convenience_.
But they're not necessarily anywhere near as convenient as having nothing.

Case in point is that this person says Apple's FaceID almost always fails.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/our-iphones-are-six-years-old-heres-why-we-are-dreading-upgrading-them/

Only when we combine those points can one understand the original question.

On 09/09/2021 09:47 AM, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
....
> I always wondered why the scared shitless Apple owners pay for electronics
> warranty (which even Consumers Union says are a complete waste of money).

I've never bought a warranty.

BUT after many decades I finally broke down and bought a new gas stove
(excuse me -- RANGE!). Samsung, $700 or so on sale. 1-year warranty.
Seven months along the sparker for one of the burners stopped working.
Warranty guy said the part cost $60 but the call would have cost several
$hundred. We know what we need to do to take the upper part apart now
-- or just use a BBQ lighter to light the burner -- but the oven is
totally electronically controlled. If THAT goes out the oven is worthless.

I wish I'd bought whatever extended warranties were available. I also
wish I hadn't bought a Samsung stove; I was really unhappy with my
Samsung laser printer, but that was a long time ago. And CRAP, the
expensive Samsung TV we bought several years ago developed
out-of-warranty-by-a-few-weeks horizontal lines.

It takes me a while to learn things sometimes...

--
Cheers, Bev
The early bird gets the worm, the second mouse gets the cheese.

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> asked
> I wish I'd bought whatever extended warranties were available.
> I also wish I hadn't bought a Samsung stove

Notice those two sentences are the entire point I was making on warranties.
1. You use intelligence to buy electronics that are known to be reliable.
2. And you never pay for the warranty as they're designed for their profit.

This is so well known that I shouldn't even have to tell it to you.
https://www.google.com/search?q=consumer+reports%2C+should+you+buy+the+electronic+warranty

Here's the first hit:
*Why You Should Steer Clear of Extended Warranties*
"In nearly every case, it's not worth the extra money
when buying electronics and appliances"
<https://www.consumerreports.org/extended-warranties/steer-clear-extended-warranties-a3095935951/>
--
With warranties, people substitute money for brains, particulary Apple
owners who are always shockingly scared shitless of almost everything.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
>> In any case, this is how and why the biometric function is used. Entering a
>> password or PIN is inconvenient and often fat fingered. It�s a matter of
>> convenience.
>
> yep.

Thank you all for answering that all this marketing gimmickry is for
convenience since physical access to your phone isn't your biggest threat.

I think my method is far more convenient though (tremendously so), but I
fully understand that some people can't have their wife reading their mail.

I just wanted to know if people thought marketing gimmicks are for security.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
>> Why not put a PIN on each app (which is only needed when the app is used)?
>
> because that's *very* easily bypassed, unless the app has a passcode as
> part of the app.

While that may be true, the point is that Apple has people believing their
greatest threat is someone physically accessing their phone, when it's not.

*Unless people live in the slums, their greatest threat is _not_ physical.*
Hence, all the Apple gimmickry on "face id" is just wasting everyone's time.

Sure, if it works (in many cases, we know it doesn't work) it's convenient.
Nothing whatsoever wrong with convenience.

*But this highly advertised face-id gimmickry is decidedly _not_ security.*

On 9/9/2021 3:08 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 09/09/2021 09:47 AM, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> ...
>> I always wondered why the scared shitless Apple owners pay for
>> electronics
>> warranty (which even Consumers Union says are a complete waste of money).
>
> I've never bought a warranty.
>
> BUT after many decades I finally broke down and bought a new gas stove
> (excuse me -- RANGE!).  Samsung, $700 or so on sale.  1-year warranty.
> Seven months along the sparker for one of the burners stopped working.
> Warranty guy said the part cost $60 but the call would have cost several
> $hundred.  We know what we need to do to take the upper part apart now
> -- or just use a BBQ lighter to light the burner -- but the oven is
> totally electronically controlled.  If THAT goes out the oven is worthless.
>
> I wish I'd bought whatever extended warranties were available.  I also
> wish I hadn't bought a Samsung stove;  I was really unhappy with my
> Samsung laser printer, but that was a long time ago.  And CRAP, the
> expensive Samsung TV we bought several years ago developed
> out-of-warranty-by-a-few-weeks horizontal lines.
>
> It takes me a while to learn things sometimes...

If you buy appliances at Costco, you end up with a four year warranty if
you pay with your Costco Visa card. The manufacturer provides a two year
warranty (including for Samsung ranges) then the Citibank Costco Visa
provides another two years of warranty. Ditto for computers. See
<https://www.costco.com/concierge-two-plus-two-warranty.html>. The sale
price is generally not any lower than buying the same appliance
elsewhere, but it's no more expensive either.

For phones, if you pay your monthly bill with some Mastercard cards you
get cellular phone damage coverage of up to $800, not enough to cover a
complete replacement of a new iPhone 12 Pro, but enough to cover most
repairs like replacement screens, cameras, backs, etc., see
<https://www.reimastercard.com/credit/cellProtection.do>.

On 09/09/2021 06:54 PM, sms wrote:
> On 9/9/2021 3:08 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 09/09/2021 09:47 AM, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
>> ...
>>> I always wondered why the scared shitless Apple owners pay for
>>> electronics
>>> warranty (which even Consumers Union says are a complete waste of money).
>>
>> I've never bought a warranty.
>>
>> BUT after many decades I finally broke down and bought a new gas stove
>> (excuse me -- RANGE!). Samsung, $700 or so on sale. 1-year warranty.
>> Seven months along the sparker for one of the burners stopped working.
>> Warranty guy said the part cost $60 but the call would have cost several
>> $hundred. We know what we need to do to take the upper part apart now
>> -- or just use a BBQ lighter to light the burner -- but the oven is
>> totally electronically controlled. If THAT goes out the oven is worthless.
>>
>> I wish I'd bought whatever extended warranties were available. I also
>> wish I hadn't bought a Samsung stove; I was really unhappy with my
>> Samsung laser printer, but that was a long time ago. And CRAP, the
>> expensive Samsung TV we bought several years ago developed
>> out-of-warranty-by-a-few-weeks horizontal lines.
>>
>> It takes me a while to learn things sometimes...
>
> If you buy appliances at Costco, you end up with a four year warranty if
> you pay with your Costco Visa card. The manufacturer provides a two year
> warranty (including for Samsung ranges) then the Citibank Costco Visa
> provides another two years of warranty. Ditto for computers. See
> <https://www.costco.com/concierge-two-plus-two-warranty.html>. The sale
> price is generally not any lower than buying the same appliance
> elsewhere, but it's no more expensive either.

Yeah, but I could just walk across the street to pick out the stove at
Best Buy. Serious mistake that I won't make if I decide to replace the
refrigerator. And it won't be a Samsung.

> For phones, if you pay your monthly bill with some Mastercard cards you
> get cellular phone damage coverage of up to $800, not enough to cover a
> complete replacement of a new iPhone 12 Pro, but enough to cover most
> repairs like replacement screens, cameras, backs, etc., see
> <https://www.reimastercard.com/credit/cellProtection.do>.

--
Cheers, Bev
"My life outside of USENET is so full of love and kindness that I have
to come here to find the venom and bile that I crave." --R. Damiani

Robin Goodfellow wrote:

> I don't do _anything_ involving money on a phone (for the
> obvious reasons)

My bank accepts that same liability for fraudulent phone contactless
transactions, as it does for card contactless transactions, as it does
for chip and pin card transactions.

Can you actually still pay for stuff by swiping magstripe cards over there?