Okay so some issues.

1. The first half of the article is the author talking to an analyst, which is suspect when the article is so simplistic. Okay, so a guys says X. This is typical lightweight reporting.

2. So the author links to two studies, which are important. Except one link is broken! I can't confirm anything they say. For the one link that is not broken, the study is dense, and I can't make out how the analyst draws a line from this study to "it's bad." It's not that I think he's lying, I just don't understand; the study is using statistical methods I'm just not smart enough to know anything about. The analyst says "I routinely see errors at 1:500 or lower." That sounds like on specific types of fingerprint scanning. The author should be breaking things out, which types of identification are better than others. saying "I routinely see errors at 1:500 or lower" makes it sound like that's across all technologies when it could easily be not. It's weasel wording that makes something generic when it might not be. I want specifics.

3. the second half the article is conjecture and mostly a hit piece against biometrics. Some of what he says may be true, but then provides no real proof of any of it. "Apple and Google clearly do X." Do they? Where are your citations for X? You are using the studies as proof of how inaccurate they are, but then wildly speculating as to why. I think he should be a little more generous by trying to explain more possibilities as just that, possibilities and not out and out declarations. There are kernel's of truth here but what I can tell from the study is that it doesn't make out and out declarations as to why, only the how many. To the study's credit, that's what it's supposed to in order to be good science. The article, however, is not good science reporting. Because you heard one report on the internet that someone's kid unlocked your iPhone with their face is not scientific evidence of how often it occurs. Stop including anecdotes with scientific data! Bad reporting!

4. To round things out, Apple claims touch ID has false positives 1/50000. The NIST is looking for 1/100000. So I can't tell how accurate touch ID is because I can't even see which line is touch ID. Touch ID isn't going for the accuracy the NIST is asking for. Face ID is supposed to be much higher, but like I said the study link is broken so I can't even confirm the statistics, even if I could read them. Also, what is "Accuracy"? Is that false positives as well as false negatives? False negatives are a problem, but far less so than false positives.

Again, there are kernels of truth here, but security at this scale is primarily about "how often" and putting things in a risk/reward analysis, and the article doesn't do enough work to put that all into context. It's not that the fingerprint scanner let someone into your phone, it's how often would that occur and if it's more or less possible than guessing your 4 digit code? It's not that your phone let your child unlock your phone, it's how often he had to try it before it took it. This article throws some numbers down but never explains all that and throws a bunch of conjecture. I have no doubt manufacturers like apple are fudging their own numbers, and I would never use Apple's stuff as high security for major corporate or government groups, but I also don't see massive waves of people losing their data when they lose their phones and then someone cracks the biometrics, nor do I see major waves of parents having their children unlock their phones and play candy crush, racking up huge credit card bills.

I don’t know why we even bother with facial recognition. Fingerprints were just fine.

Is it called the Throat Goat?

Honestly u can just get T-Mobile home. Mine runs $30 a month. I get it, but starlink is in places where people get T-Mobile home (and that’s what I mean). I pull about 500 down / 70 up no caps. Ironically u could dual wan your starlink and T-Mobile home, be kind of dumb but you can use that extra cost on starlink to pay for the mobile internet. The discount for 30 is with two voice lines on the magenta max plan. Just additional ideas. Upside is if you travel, the T-Mobile box works while traveling.

They also had problems with Asian faces and would unlock one person’s phone when someone else was trying to unlock it.

I just downvoted your comment.

#FAQ

#What does this mean?

The amount of karma (points) on your comment and Reddit account has decreased by one.

#Why did you do this?

There are several reasons I may deem a comment to be unworthy of positive or neutral karma. These include, but are not limited to:

• ⁠Rudeness towards other Redditors, • ⁠Spreading incorrect information, • ⁠Sarcasm not correctly flagged with a /s.

#Am I banned from the Reddit?

No - not yet. But you should refrain from making comments like this in the future. Otherwise I will be forced to issue an additional downvote, which may put your commenting and posting privileges in jeopardy.

#I don't believe my comment deserved a downvote. Can you un-downvote it?

Sure, mistakes happen. But only in exceedingly rare circumstances will I undo a downvote. If you would like to issue an appeal, shoot me a private message explaining what I got wrong. I tend to respond to Reddit PMs within several minutes. Do note, however, that over 99.9% of downvote appeals are rejected, and yours is likely no exception.

#How can I prevent this from happening in the future?

Accept the downvote and move on. But learn from this mistake: your behavior will not be tolerated on Reddit.com. I will continue to issue downvotes until you improve your conduct. Remember: Reddit is privilege, not a right.

Biometrics can be broken by anyone in a few seconds as long as you didn't disfigure the body

Biometrics are incredibly good at Identification.

Much less so at Authentication.

However, getting rid of password authentication is seen as a key security aim, so companies keep trying to replace passwords with biometrics.

I'm not a fan.

"Biometrics are even less accurate than cops will tell a jury they are."

Only after the system was trained on that particular cats paw print.

Then give them to me, I need my 8k streaming at 120 fps!

Yeah but we all know cats are actually running the show. Now rub your master's belly!

Iphones used to be able to be unlocked by a cats paw

I'm a little confused after reading through the article....didn't we already know this? Or is it supposed to be surprising How inaccurate it is?

I swear I remember seeing a new phone a while back that fingerprint scanner could be unlocked by anyone

I hope it’s not that exploding San Francisco police robot.

Not sure what CMR is selling to end users, I'm just speaking from seeing that modular robot in an OR and how much less space it takes up compared to the booms of the newest da vinci models. Wheeling the Versius arms around a room is faster and less burdensome than driving the massive da vinci patient cart doing 18 point turns in an OR that already has tons of other equipment. Remember with a modular robot you can choose to bring in a camera and 2 arms if that's all you need, save the space of a 3rd arm.

MDs aren't aware of what they're missing when they're buried in the da vinci console because they've been conditioned to value its "immersion". It depends on your specialty but for procedures that have the instrument arms potentially colliding, the console surgeon can't see that. They can't look at a patient scan without taking their head out. They can't see patient vitals or other activity in the room without disengaging the robot. To "pop their head out quickly" versus not pop your head out at all and use the same room awareness you'd have in an open/laparoscopic surgery has value. It's like looking through 4K binoculars instead of a 1080p panoramic view when you're captaining a ship, but the binocular manufacturer keeps selling you the fancy 4K visuals.

These aren’t the huge benefits that CMR sells them as. The footprint of a modular robot is massive and the single-unit isn’t as restrictive as it would seem. From the care team perspective, OR footprint is a huge deal, if your hospital isn’t new with huge ORs.

I’m also not sure what the benefit of an open console is- all the MDs I’ve spoken with don’t feel disconnected in a console that they can pop their head out of quickly. It’s not like they’re in a different room than the patient?

That’s a great move and exciting to hear. DaVinci arms take so much more to process in SPD since you can’t cram multiple arms into a sink basin or ultrasonics due to their size.

Versius arms are draped. Obviously the instruments need to be sterilised but you have multiple sets of them since they are consumables.

Did it wine appropriately for it’s age?

I’ll never need more than one terabyte per day that’s for sure!

My dog died 3 years ago because he had a throat tumor and no one wanted to operate, as they were afraid of accidentally cutting an aorta due to the location of the tumor. This news is bittersweet, as we probably could have used it back then. But dammit, if this isn’t good news! FOR BEAR!!!

The Versius robot is ZERO percent autonomous during actual operation on a patient. There are elements of instrument orientation/calibration that are automated but that technology has been around a long time for operating microscopes and, wait for it, autofocus cameras.

Open surgery is faster, but patient outcomes are much better with robotic-assisted surgery. Additionally, reimbursement is typically higher for minimally invasive surgery (i.e. laparoscopic or robotic).

This screams insecurity and fragility.