Systems that try to do this in software are always trivially circumvented because you can just change the software to allow ‘not enough matches’ instead of ‘enough matches’. The key is necessarily in the device and software can’t protect it.
Because all of those apply to user IDs.
TLDR yes, biometrics are the closest thing to a user ID
> Are you seriously arguing a fingerprint is an aesthetic symbolic pointer in the way a name is? Absolutely. A given name is non-unique, and not chosen by you. Yet everyone refers you by it, if only by convention.
> That you are going to just refer to other people (whether IRL or online) by "fingerprint"? No but computers might as well do, much as you identify someone by their face. You might refer to someone by their public key fingerprint too (also similarly non-collision resistant)
> That people choose their fingerprints based on what they think will be a good one? People rarely choose their names, nicknames, or usernames. Why is choice an issue here?
> That there can just be a simple process to arbitrarily change their fingerprint if they later decide they'd prefer another one? People find it difficult to arbitrarily change their face, most are reluctant to change their given names - and indeed there's significant pressure from 'the system' to make it difficult for you, and also what about the many who find it annoying when their preferred username is unavailable, etc. I can't see what your point is here?
> Because all of those apply to user IDs. A user id, isn't a primary key in the real world - only when it comes to a particular computer system.
Finally your fingerprints do change over time, though not necessarily in a manner which will confuse current matching techniques
My point is a user name is something everyone knows i.e. not a secret.
Biometrics are not a secret as they are, in the case of fingerprints - easily picked from your Starbucks coffee cup, the door you just opened etc.
Your face is permanently on display.
Etc.
Your assertion that biometrics are not user-name equivalent is embarrassingly ignorant and you've already shown your inability to read or show much comprehension.
I shall therefore assume that you're unused to rational discussion and leave it there.
It's so odd to me that we consider fingerprints "something you are". Fingerprints surely are "something I have" in that I can lose them by disfigurement or maiming. "Something I am" is more like my DNA which can't be taken from me to the point of loss, unlike someone cutting off my fingers which would deny me access to whatever system it's used for.
Citation needed? A fingerprint can absolutely be used to generate a hash that functions as a pointer to primary keys.