Of course you realise...
... that if press releases had to be biometrically confirmed...
An elaborate scam saw shares in Swedish biometrics firm Fingerprint Cards rise by over 50 per cent after a false press release was circulated saying the company was being bought by Samsung. On Friday press release distributor Cision put out the fabrication, claiming the Swedish firm had been bought for $650m in a cash deal …
It is pretty shocking.
My credit card firm like to phone me up, and pretend to be scammers. Or rather, They like to call with the opening gambit of "what's your address and date of birth for security?"
At least they no longer seem surprised when I tell them off for being stupid, and say I'll call back. But they do still persist in giving me a number to call back on, which would be just as untrustworthy as the original call...
As stand-up comedians now make jokes about this kind of idiocy, you'd have thought the idea would be widespread enough that journos working in market-sensitive stories could use the search tools on their PCs. It's not as if they aren't linked in to all the market data or anything, let alone Google...
> From a practical standpoint, when my phone gets swiped at the bar, its fingerprint scanner is going to keep a thief from looking at my data just as well as a password.
From a practical standpoint, when my phone gets swiped at the bar, its pin number, password, facial recognition, swipe pattern etc is going to keep a thief from looking at my data just as well as a password.
Everyone who printed the press release will blame the modern 'speed of information sharing' for the failure but that's not wholly accurate. When journalists outsourced their jobs to the wire services and stopped reporting this type of thing is to be expected.
The biggest sources of actual investigative journalism are the fucking tabloids who stalk celebrities around. Finding a reporter who actually goes out into the field, makes connections and checks their source material is really rare. They've become nothing more than SEO analysts with credentials.
El Reg does more actual journalism than one might expect from an organization their size. Why the 'big names' don't do that is amazing to me. El Reg doesn't even have a paywall and still manages to usually get things mostly right. It shows too. El Reg might not be the first to publish a story, but it is generally worth the wait as the information therein is valid. First across any given line in most anything generally isn't the best.
> El Reg doesn't even have a paywall and still manages to usually get things mostly right
Yes. With the glaring, bizarre, exception of climate change. For instance the denier article on the Regs frontpage right now is misleading to the point of being a fabrication: Curry is not a denier, and her result is not "bad news" for the IPCC. When I tried to post a comment stating that, with a link to Curry's blog in support, my comment was rejected.
Yeah, their editorial take on climate change is very odd. It's like trying to learn fine art history from a blimp pilot: Useless and confusing.
Not that they're right, or wrong, but those who are writing the articles are in way over their heads in interpreting scientific papers and no amount of yelling or censorship is going to change that. Besides, the entire topic has less IT relevance than Paris, at least she makes use of low light digital videography technology.
I just ignore those articles. They simply rritate me and I'm in no better place to influence people's thoughts on the subject than they are.
> Not that they're right, or wrong, but those who are writing the articles are in way over their heads in interpreting scientific papers
Yes, that's normal. In this particular case it's pretty obvious that the Reg article is intentionally inaccurate, not least considering that comments with links to the scientist's own blog, where she herself explain her results, get rejected. Suppressing contradictory evidence is not the act of a science editor with clean conscience, it's the act of a demagogue.
"Ever since Apple unveiled its fingerprint recognition technology on the iPhone 5S shares in biometrics firms have been enjoying something of a boom."
.............They only noticed biometrics as a potential growth area when a fingerprint scanner turned up on their iThingies?
They noticed before that. Shares prices in biometrics firms have been increasing for years reflecting their growth potential.
This growth potential substantially increased when the iThingy got one because, invariably, when one phone introduces a feature others follow suit.
It isn't the mobile market that benefits the biometrics industry as much as it is consumer acquiescence. Now that biometrics are in a highly popular consumer product the general public will quickly become comfortable with the tech. In fact, they'll demand the tech in anything that's supposed to be secure. You can already hear the masses saying "My iPhone knows who I am, why doesn't your (x) do that too?"
Consumers will push the tech upstream which is fairly rare and is a dream scenario for providers of biometrics solutions. They won't even have to sell it hard, people will beg for it. Now's a good time to invest in the industry. I wouldn't base my investment decisions on press releases though...
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021