From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

Samsung A36
Android 15 (now 16)
UI 7.0 (now UI 8.0)

How many fingerprints can be saved? When I save fingerprints, seems I
can only define 3. I thought I could save more, so I saved right index,
right middle, and right thumb figuring I'd do the same for the left
hand. I'd have fingerprints on both hands in case one gets injured.

With only 3 fingerprints, guess I'll save right index, right thumb, and
left index. On my old LG V20 (c.2016, Android 8), I could save 5
fingerprints. Only 3 for Android 15/16? Or might it be a Samsung
limitation?
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

On 1/18/2026 8:51 PM, VanguardLH wrote:

Samsung A36 Android 15 (now 16) UI 7.0 (now UI 8.0)

How many fingerprints can be saved? When I save fingerprints, seems
I can only define 3. I thought I could save more, so I saved right
index, right middle, and right thumb figuring I'd do the same for the
left hand. I'd have fingerprints on both hands in case one gets
injured. With only 3 fingerprints, guess I'll save right index, right
thumb, and left index. On my old LG V20 (c.2016, Android 8), I could
save 5 fingerprints. Only 3 for Android 15/16? Or might it be a
Samsung limitation?

Seems like a lot of work giving your phone the finger that many times as
an injury backup (pun intended). My ancient 6 year old phone allows me
to revert to the pin if a bio-entry were to fail. Don't modern phones
have that capability?


--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

On 19.01.26 04:51, VanguardLH wrote:

Samsung A36
Android 15 (now 16)
UI 7.0 (now UI 8.0)

How many fingerprints can be saved? When I save fingerprints, seems I
can only define 3. I thought I could save more, so I saved right index, right middle, and right thumb figuring I'd do the same for the left
hand. I'd have fingerprints on both hands in case one gets injured.

With only 3 fingerprints, guess I'll save right index, right thumb, and
left index. On my old LG V20 (c.2016, Android 8), I could save 5 fingerprints. Only 3 for Android 15/16? Or might it be a Samsung limitation?

A login is always possible with a PIN. And every Android requires a PIN
after a restart or powering up.
--
"Ave! Morituri te salutant!"
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

VanguardLH wrote:

Samsung A36
Android 15 (now 16)
UI 7.0 (now UI 8.0)

galaxy tab s10 fe
same firmware

How many fingerprints can be saved? When I save fingerprints, seems I
can only define 3.

same here, two per hand would be useful.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

On 19 Jan 2026 at 07:04:02, J=C3=B6rg_Lorenz?= <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:

On 19.01.26 04:51, VanguardLH wrote:

Samsung A36
Android 15 (now 16)
UI 7.0 (now UI 8.0)

How many fingerprints can be saved? When I save fingerprints, seems I
can only define 3. I thought I could save more, so I saved right index,
right middle, and right thumb figuring I'd do the same for the left
hand. I'd have fingerprints on both hands in case one gets injured.

With only 3 fingerprints, guess I'll save right index, right thumb, and
left index. On my old LG V20 (c.2016, Android 8), I could save 5
fingerprints. Only 3 for Android 15/16? Or might it be a Samsung
limitation?

A login is always possible with a PIN. And every Android requires a PIN
after a restart or powering up.

Not true, my phones don't use PINs.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

Bob Martin wrote:

With only 3 fingerprints, guess I'll save right index, right thumb, and
left index. On my old LG V20 (c.2016, Android 8), I could save 5
fingerprints. Only 3 for Android 15/16? Or might it be a Samsung
limitation?

A login is always possible with a PIN. And every Android requires a PIN
after a restart or powering up.

Not true, my phones don't use PINs.

I don't live in the slums so I too don't have PINs on my devices either.

If someone steals my phone, all they get is the phone anyway.

There's nothing on it except pictuers that I would care about.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

VanguardLH, 2026-01-19 04:51:

Samsung A36
Android 15 (now 16)
UI 7.0 (now UI 8.0)

How many fingerprints can be saved? When I save fingerprints, seems I

It depends on the device.

can only define 3. I thought I could save more, so I saved right index, right middle, and right thumb figuring I'd do the same for the left
hand. I'd have fingerprints on both hands in case one gets injured.

With only 3 fingerprints, guess I'll save right index, right thumb, and
left index. On my old LG V20 (c.2016, Android 8), I could save 5 fingerprints. Only 3 for Android 15/16? Or might it be a Samsung limitation?

Yes, it is a device specific limitation.
--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

Jörg Lorenz, 2026-01-19 08:04:

On 19.01.26 04:51, VanguardLH wrote:

Samsung A36
Android 15 (now 16)
UI 7.0 (now UI 8.0)

How many fingerprints can be saved? When I save fingerprints, seems I
can only define 3. I thought I could save more, so I saved right index,
right middle, and right thumb figuring I'd do the same for the left
hand. I'd have fingerprints on both hands in case one gets injured.

With only 3 fingerprints, guess I'll save right index, right thumb, and
left index. On my old LG V20 (c.2016, Android 8), I could save 5
fingerprints. Only 3 for Android 15/16? Or might it be a Samsung
limitation?

A login is always possible with a PIN. And every Android requires a PIN after a restart or powering up.

No, it only requires a PIN if you decide to do so *OR* if you want to
set up a work profile with higher security requirements. Otherwise an
unlock pattern is also possible.
--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

On 1/20/2026 12:36 AM, Maria Sophia wrote:

Bob Martin wrote:

my phones don't use PINs.

I don't live in the slums so I too don't have PINs on my devices
either. If someone steals my phone, all they get is the phone anyway.
There's nothing on it except pictures that I would care about.

YMMV.

For those billions of us that use Google products the phone should be
locked because the Google sensitive apps inside (like Gmail and Drive
etc.) are not. If I lose my phone the phone lock gives me time to get to another device and change my Google password. After that even if the
lock is broken nothing of value is available.









--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

AJL wrote:

I don't live in the slums so I too don't have PINs on my devices
either. If someone steals my phone, all they get is the phone anyway.
There's nothing on it except pictures that I would care about.

For those billions of us that use Google products the phone should be
locked because the Google sensitive apps inside (like Gmail and Drive
etc.) are not. If I lose my phone the phone lock gives me time to get to another device and change my Google password. After that even if the
lock is broken nothing of value is available.

Hi AJL,

I never disagree with any logically sensible sentient defensible statement.

Hence, I agree with you if you're saying that you understand that, with a mothership account, the account (and its associated data) is the danger
when/if the phone is physically accessed by a non-friendly person.

Given that...
i. I get why people who rely on Google accounts want a lock screen as the
account data is the "dangerous" target to protect, not the hardware.

ii. However, given I understand phones better than most people ever will,
my setup is different. I do not use Google accounts or any other
cloud accounts on the phone, so there is nothing on the device whose
autologgedin account can be used to pivot into any online data.

iii. Being intelligent in addition to understanding computers, the little
personal data I do keep is inside encrypted containers, so the phone
itself is only a shell. Without the passphrase the containers stay
closed, and the passphrase is never stored on the device.

iv. Because of that unusual intelligence and comprehensive understanding
of why marketing is so desperate for us to store things on their
cloud, the inconvenience of a lock screen adds no real protection
for me, as it would only add. Convenience matters greatly in my case,
where, for example, if something takes me two steps, I cut it to
one (which is why everything is only a single tap away for me,

v. Given most people aren't anywhere nearly as comprehensive as I am
int terms of computer knowledge, they use a different threat model,
where their different threat model leads to different choices.

To most people who fall prey to those highly marketing cloud accounts,
a lock screen makes sense given they choose a model which requires it.

However, I do agree that it takes uncommon intelligence & knowledge of computers and data security to successfully avoid accounts and keeping
only sensitive data in encrypted volumes which are accessed infrequently.

People who can't understand the sophisticated threat model I use will never understand it because they do always what the marketing tells them to do.

I accept prima facie evidence that most people don't think philosophically about how a computing device "should" be set up to balance both convenience
& privacy, which is why they seem to fall prey to biometric gimmicks.
--
Here on Usenet we each have decades of experience setting up our devices.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

On 1/24/2026 12:34 PM, Maria Sophia wrote:

AJL wrote:

For those billions of us that use Google products the phone should
be locked because the Google sensitive apps inside (like Gmail and
Drive etc.) are not. If I lose my phone the phone lock gives me
time to get to another device and change my Google password. After
that even if the lock is broken nothing of value is available.

Hi AJL, I never disagree with any logically sensible sentient
defensible statement. Hence, I agree with you if you're saying that
you understand that, with a mothership account, the account (and its associated data) is the danger when/if the phone is physically
accessed by a non-friendly person. Given that... i. I get why people
who rely on Google accounts want a lock screen as the account data is
the "dangerous" target to protect, not the hardware. ii. However,
given I understand phones better than most people ever will, my setup
is different. I do not use Google accounts or any other cloud
accounts on the phone, so there is nothing on the device whose
autologgedin account can be used to pivot into any online data. iii.
Being intelligent in addition to understanding computers, the little
personal data I do keep is inside encrypted containers, so the phone
itself is only a shell. Without the passphrase the containers stay
closed, and the passphrase is never stored on the device. iv. Because
of that unusual intelligence and comprehensive understanding of why
marketing is so desperate for us to store things on their cloud, the inconvenience of a lock screen adds no real protection for me, as it
would only add. Convenience matters greatly in my case, where, for
example, if something takes me two steps, I cut it to one (which is
why everything is only a single tap away for me, v. Given most people
aren't anywhere nearly as comprehensive as I am int terms of computer knowledge, they use a different threat model, where their different
threat model leads to different choices. To most people who fall prey
to those highly marketing cloud accounts, a lock screen makes sense
given they choose a model which requires it. However, I do agree that
it takes uncommon intelligence & knowledge of computers and data
security to successfully avoid accounts and keeping only sensitive
data in encrypted volumes which are accessed infrequently. People who
can't understand the sophisticated threat model I use will never
understand it because they do always what the marketing tells them to
do. I accept prima facie evidence that most people don't think philosophically about how a computing device "should" be set up to
balance both convenience & privacy, which is why they seem to fall
prey to biometric gimmicks.

As always YMMV...


--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2