It's important that we don't lump 'biometrics' as a fancy synonym for fingerprints. Biometrics are a whole range of bio/physiological indicators including iris, vein scans, gait, heatbeats, eye twitches, germ clouds, palm prints, earlobe dimensions, and probably ten thousand more.
Even in the case of the 5.6 mil stolen prints, those template files only are valid on a specific type of fingerprint reader. Use a different reader that 'scans' a different dermal layer, and the chances are those stolen records are valuable are really remote.
Not to say that protection of data like this isn't a priority - it absolutely is! But to call biometrics 'un secure' as a result is too strong.