Becuse you're being purposely obtuse
Says you, who wanted to have a whole long argument about the subjective nature of what constitutes a 'huge security risk'.
You framed the next part of the conversation with calling me a 'keyboard warrior' (What does that make you?), while not so subtly implying that I'm paranoid. Then in your next comment, you suggest that my premise for suggesting this is paranoid and/or deluded.
You may think of this as only attacking the premise, but when you suggest that an idea is paranoid delusion, there is an implication that the source of the idea is likely paranoid or delusional as well. Especially when it was only the previous comment that you directly stated that I was paranoid, not the premise for my belief.
Calling the idea paranoid or deluded does nothing to prove that it isn't a 'huge security risk' to a subjective point of view. How the hell are you going to prove a subjective idea such as this?
In your contrived world exaggeration must be taking as a literal statement.
Nah, it was quite clear that you were attempting to frame the extremity of my claim to mean something that it did not mean. You can attempt to say that I don't understand your failed analogy, but I choose to see past it and understand how you were using it. Nothing about choosing a password vs a fingerprint implies that people should use PGP to encrypt their phones. Which was the implication that your analogy goes off of. Where did I suggest anything extreme in your opinion? Are passwords comparable to over 9000 bit encryption or Faraday cages?
Any statement you find offensive is an ad hominem.
When they are being used by intellectually dishonest people to paint what I am saying as something that constitutes some level of paranoid delusion... yeah.. I'm going to call that bullshit out as being fallacious.
It's truly unfortunate that you don't seem to understand any of these things.
This is a supposition, you care to back this up with anything other than a flat fucking assertion? All of your responses have been filled with them. You are correct that statistics make things like this uncommon, but I wouldn't put it as being as rare as being struck by lightening.
Care to agree to disagree about the subjective nature of infosec, yet?