 |
|
|
|||||
Biometric authenticationthe ability to unlock your devices by using just your face or fingerprintis one of the few smartphone features that, even today, leave me feeling like were living in the future. When I was a kid, technology like facial recognition was limited to science fiction. But as cool and useful as biometric authentication is, the technology can also leave us vulnerable. Heres whyand how to protect yourself. Its not just journalists and activists who can have their biometrics used against them Last month, journalists got a stark reminder that their biometrics might not keep the data they have on their devices safe from law enforcement searches. While the Fourth Amendment usually protects an individual from having to turn over a PIN code or password for a device, courts have generally ruled that the same protection doesnt apply to biometrics. This means that in some cases, authorities can compel you to unlock your phone with your fingerprint or facial scan. Its why many press freedom and civil liberty organizations have long advised journalists and activists to disable biometric authentication like facial recognition on their devices and return to requiring a passcode to unlock them. But its not only journalists and activists who have to worry about their phones’ biometrics making themand their datavulnerable. A phones most convenient identity verification feature can leave any one of us exposed. There have been reports of people unlocking their partners’ phones using their biometrics while they were sleeping, as well as reports of criminal gangs forcing victims to unlock their phones with their biometrics to steal cryptocurrencies. Of course, sometimes forced biometric unlocks are less nefarious. Ive heard parents complain that their children have unlocked their phones by holding the device up to their face, or with a touch of their fingerprint, while they were sleeping, in order to disable software that restricts the internet in their house after certain hours. If someone wants to gain access to your phone, and you happen to be physically available (unknowingly or not), all the person needs is access to your face or finger to do so. Giving up convenience for more security While biometric authentication is one of the most convenient features of todays smartphones, the scenarios above exemplify how the technology can leave us at risk. However, if you are in a situation where you believe that your biometrics may leave you vulnerable, there are, thankfully, some easy steps you can take to mitigate this risk. The first is to permanently disable biometric authentication on your smartphone. Doing so means youll need to enter your passcode every time you unlock your phone. Yes, it will take a couple of seconds longer to get to your home screenbut it also means that no one can steal your face or finger and unlock your phone while youre sleeping. To disable your iPhones biometrics (called Face ID or Touch ID, depending on your iPhone model), open the Settings app, tap Face/Touch ID and Passcode, and then toggle the iPhone Unlock switch to “off.” For Android users, disabling the facial or fingerprint biometric feature may differ slightly, depending on your phone model. On a Pixel phone, you can disable fingerprint unlocking by going to the Settings app, tapping Security and privacy and then Device unlock, and then deleting your registered fingerprints. When in doubt, restart Of course, biometric authentication like facial recognition is one of the great conveniences of modern lifeone that many of us would have a hard time giving up for good. If you fall into this camp but still want the extra security that disabling biometric authentication provides, you can quickly deactivate the biometric unlock feature on your iPhone or Android device by restarting it. When your phone shuts down and restarts, your biometrics will not unlock the device until after you enter your passcode. Many activists use this trick when crossing borders or attending politically contentious events. And its not a bad one to remember right before you turn off the nightstand light, if you think your kids might be waiting until you fall asleep to snatch your phone.
Category:
E-Commerce
Olympians arent just physically exceptionaltheyre masters at managing where their attention and energy go. Cognitive research finds a key link between working memory and performance: elite athletes are better able to regulate their memory and attention than their less-trained peers, and this ability predicts better performance under pressure. What separates peak performers isnt just effort, but also the discipline to balance their mental load. In other words: their thoughtload. Consider thoughtload the invisible tax on your ability to perform. It consists of three problems that erode your effectiveness: The cognitive demands of competing priorities The emotional burdens of uncertain times The depleted energy reserves that make everything feel more difficult When thoughtload is high, even talented, motivated people underperform. But Olympians succeed because they refuse to carry unnecessary thoughtload. So how do you begin to reduce your own load? Four strategies can help. 1. Flip your focus Olympians know that keeping their attention focused on performance is critical to achievement. Take the U.S. figure skating team, who had more than a few members skip this years opening ceremonies to stay locked in. At work, we tend to do the opposite. Instead of starting the day with our eyes on the prize, we let our inbox and calendar dictate our priorities, hoping that enough activity will lead to success. Lowering your thoughtload means flipping that logic. Begin with the outcome youre being rewarded for: more paid users, lower churn, a better accounts receivable balance. Then identify the few outputs that will move the needle and the activities that will get you there. 2. Budget your attention Elite athletes also dedicate consistent hours to training, no matter how assured their place is as a champion: practice is always on the calendar. But at work, we frequently allow ourselves to switch priorities or allocate our time in the wrong places. Think of your time as a finite resource to spend. Pick one critical outcome and decide how much of your attention it deserves; only after that, allocate your remaining time for other important outputs and even a few side pursuits. Defer, decline, or delegate everything else that doesnt fit in your attention budget. 3. Use an emotion track Even with your gaze locked in, emotional distractions can come from within. For an athlete, it might be a fall in practice or a menacing new competitor. For you, its a missed target, a tense exchange, or an unwelcome piece of feedback. Emotions are unavoidable, but unprocessed emotions slow you down. Olympians understand that emotional baggage from yesterdays disappointment can sabotage todays performance; take the many that use sports psychologists to work through poor performances and devastating crashes. You can reduce the hold of your feelings with an emotion track, which helps pinpoint and reroute distracting emotions. It consists of four simple steps: place, name, question, act. Notice the place youre experiencing the feeling, like sweaty palms or a racing heart. Name the feeling youre experiencing precisely, like frustration or anxiety. Question the story youre telling yourself about why youre feeling that way, and if its rational. Choose one action that helps you move forward, whether it addresses the issue directly or just helps you get in a better headspace. 4. Hold an energy audit Energy management isnt about indulgence or self-care. Its about making the right investments, so you have the physical, mental, and emotional energy when you need it most. Olympians plan exertion and recovery with rigor. But at work, we often treat energy as unlimited until it suddenly runs out. There are back-to-back meetings, deadlines strung one after the next, new change initiatives starting before youve had the chance to embed the previous ones. All that adds up to fatigue that leads to poor decisions. Instead, try an energy audit. List three activities that reliably energize you and three that inevitably drain you. Then make small shifts to increase your investment in the first group and reduce your exposure to the second. Even minor changes can make your thoughtload feel much lighter over time. Elite performance isnt reserved for elite athletes. Its available to anyone willing to carry less so they can accomplish more.
Category:
E-Commerce
In November 2025, the Trump administration announced a special park pass commemorating the nations 250th anniversary that featured images of two presidents: George Washington and Donald Trump. Featuring the current presidentin place of the National Park Services usual landscape picturestriggered both a lawsuit and a social media movement to put stickers over Trumps face. As a businessman, Trump has frequently emblazoned buildings and consumer productsshoelaces, an airline, an edition of the Bible, among many otherswith his own name. During his current presidential term, his administration has put his name on numerous government propertiesperhaps most famously the Kennedy Center, but also money, monuments, and military equipment. In January 2026, Trump floated the idea Congress would rename both New Yorks Penn Station and Washingtons Dulles International Airport after him. With Florida lawmakers considering renaming the airport near Mar-a-Lago after the president, the Trump Organization has filed an application to trademark his name for use in airports and ancillary activities, although the company said it would not charge a fee in the case of the Palm Beach airport. As a communication professor who studies the First Amendment, I was intrigued by the federal actions and the protests theyve triggered. Citizens certainly have the right to protest these decisions, like any government action. The First Amendment prevents the government from making laws that abridge freedom of speech. But does the federal government itself have freedom of speech? And can a president put his name and image wherever he wants? Free speech for government The answer to the first question has already been answered. In a series of rulings, the Supreme Court has upheld the government speech doctrine, which allows the government as speaker to say whatever it wants. Moreover, if the forum is governmental, the government may even be able to compel people to express its messagesfor example, with public employee speech that is part of job duties. The 2006 Supreme Court decision establishing that principle involved a deputy district attorney whod questioned the validity of a warrant, but the rule applies to other employees, such as teachers who have to offer instruction in state-mandated curricula. The courts decisions in government speech cases imply that if people do not like the government speech, they should change the government with their votes. However, some scholars and advocates argue that this relatively new constitutional doctrine gives the government too much power to drown out other viewpoints in the marketplace of ideas. In most instances, the government cannot compel speech or force citizens to express a certain message. Compelled speech is not allowed when the government is forcing a citizen to endorse an ideological message. For example, the Supreme Court allowed a Jehovahs Witness to cover the words or Die on his license plate, which included the New Hampshire state motto, Live Free or Die. The First Amendment is not absolute, and some government regulations will infringe on speech. The federal government has strict regulations on how the American flag should be disposed of, but it cannot punish someone who is burning a flag as a form of political protest. Government control of its own products What happens when the government itself hosts forums for citizen speech, such as placing monuments in a park or flying flags on government property? Can the government deny certain speech based on the speaker or message? In such cases, courts have had to decipher whether the forum was purely governmental. To do so, they examine the history of the forum in which the contested speech takes place, who controls the forum, and the public perception of who controls it. This brings us back to the question of Trumps name and likeness. As a constitutional matter, the Trump administration can express itself as it sees fit under the government speech doctrine. But in some cases, the administration may be bound by statute or formal contracts, as with the legal battle over the naming of the Kennedy Center, which was named by an act of Congress. The awsuit over the National Park passes claims that the administration is violating a federal law requiring that the winning entry in a public lands photo contest be used for the passes. Still, I believe it would be difficult to win a lawsuit claiming that the new passes are a form of compelled speech, with bearers of the pass arguing they are being forced, in effect, to endorse Trump. Most people would likely see the park passes artwork as being controlled by the government and therefore a form of government expression, not a form of private expression. Can people cover up Trump? But the Trump administration may not be able to defend its policy of declaring passes null and void if the presidents image is covered by a sticker. Citizens protesting Trumps appearance by covering up the presidents image is protected speech, in my view. The governments action to void the passes is likely a violation of the First Amendment. On the face of it, placing stickers on passes would appear to violate the long-standing Interior Department rule that passes are void if altered. Those regulations were content neutral and incidental to any particular message or cardholder. However, the updated policy, voiding the pass if Trumps image is covered or marred, is more suspect. The new rules seem to be a direct response to the protesters political speech and, as applied, primarily aim to affect these stickers and speakers. With an administration known for its social media savviness, it may not be convincing for officials to argue they did not know about the protest or that the policy was not a direct attempt to chill such speech. The government will have the right to put Trumps name and images on more government property in many cases, but most resulting political protests, in my view, will also be protected speech. Jason Zenor is an associate professor of mass communication at the State University of New York Oswego. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||