You will implant chip and you will be happy

Fingerprint scanners fucking blow. They can't read my fingerprint if my finger is slightly wet, too dry, has a cut on it, when the scanner is a bit dirty, or sometimes just randomly when they don't feel like working. They can also often be fooled with a damp rag which can sometimes make them read the last fingerprint that was scanned. Furthermore, sticking one of the most germ-ridden parts of my body on something that others touch with the most germ-ridden parts of their bodies doesn't seem very sanitary, especially considering how many people I see walk out of the bathroom without washing their hands.

Some of this only applies to stuff like building security systems, which I likely wouldn't be able to get this sort of chip to work with, but something of the sort will likely become an option for that in the future.

there was device which used your veins in hand instead in swedish uni iirc

Attached: e8gewlot01c91.png (2000x2400, 2.5M)

Yeah, and this has the advantage or disadvantage of being able to be read from a distance using a camera. Another big issue with this or fingerprints is that they're not too hard to covertly collect and then use the fool the scanner. Meanwhile a key stored on a thing I have to tap on a scanner and doesn't leave random copies of itself on everything I touch, takes a little more to covertly read. This could be improved further by having some device like my phone that I'd need to tap on the chip in order to activate it for a few seconds, before the key can be read. The device could feed the chip a key it already knows, which would prevent an attacker just tapping it with an activator.

No chip, no vaxx nothing. I will remain as natural as possible.

Something you have will always be less secure than something you know (password)
At best its a convenient key, at worst its a worse two factor method, since usually your phone can have an added layer of something you know before accessing the something you have (2FA code)
>This could be improved further by having some device like my phone that I'd need to tap on the chip in order to activate it for a few seconds, before the key can be read.
Right, so what's the point, just use your phone.

It's amazing to me how ignorant Any Forums is about RFID and its capabilities and lack thereof.

I'll never put anything under my skin. Give me a card or I'm looking for something else.

>Something you have will always be less secure than something you know (password)
This is why it's better to use both. The chip can hold a key that's encrypted with a password I know. Someone got me plastered and scanned my chip while I was out cold? They need the password. Someone keylogged my password? They still need the key itself. They could still capture the key using malware though, so what I'd really like is a device that contains the key and will encrypt short messages using it. I could then enter my password, feed that to the device, it encrypts that with a key that never leaves it, and then that string of bytes goes into a hash to generate whatever length key is needed to access my data.

>Right, so what's the point, just use your phone.
Which is easily taken from me by a pickpocket or accidentally lost or broken.

>This is why it's better to use both.
That's just 2FA and there's a ton of ways to achieve it. Your stolen phone still needs something you know to get the something it has, and you aren't unlocking your chip without your phone so what's the point.

If the chip just encrypts my password and only works at super short range, the unlock requirement may not be necessary or could be reduced to a simple double tap with a finger. If the phone is required though, that's 3FA: phone+chip+password / something I have + something that's inside my body so basically who I am + something I know.