> Most people have their phone as the center of their information technology worlds.
Those people are foolish. Putting all your eggs in one basket and then whining about the consequences is a sign of bad character. Besides that it’s pretty irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is whether fingerprint readers are an acceptable means of securing digital transactions. In fact you seem to be suggesting they are, by proxy.
Any one of those accounts is sensitive, even if you just had one it should be protected. But also, in matters of policy we don't really care about someone's character, we care about how it impacts everyone.
Since everyone has a phone now, that means technologically illiterate people are using them for whatever their authority figures tell them to. They trust those entities, and perhaps they shouldn't, but that is the reality. Any policy that doesn't cater for the reality is bad policy.
Smoking is a historical example, at one point doctors, movie stars and media all told you smoking was good for you. Now, decades later, health policy has to take into account that people smoke. Maybe one day down the line there will be regulation on companies as to how they influence people to use their devices, but for now we accept that people put sensitive info on their phones.
Those people are foolish. Putting all your eggs in one basket and then whining about the consequences is a sign of bad character. Besides that it’s pretty irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is whether fingerprint readers are an acceptable means of securing digital transactions. In fact you seem to be suggesting they are, by proxy.