Slashdot Mirror
'Dear Apple, The iPhone X and Face ID Are Orwellian and Creepy' (hackernoon.com)
Trent Lapinski from Hacker Noon writes an informal letter to Apple, asking "who the hell actually asked for Face ID?" and calling the iPhone X and new face-scanning security measure "Orwellian" and "creepy": For the company that famously used 1984 in its advertising to usher in a new era of personal computing, it is pretty ironic that 30+ years later they would announce technology that has the potential to eliminate global privacy. I've been waiting 10-years since the first iPhone was announced for a full-screen device that is both smaller in my hand but has a larger display and higher capacity battery. However, I do not want these features at the cost of my privacy, and the privacy of those around me. While the ease of use and user experience of Face ID is apparent, I am not questioning that, the privacy concerns are paramount in today's world of consistent security breaches. Given what we know from Wikileaks Vault7 and the CIA / NSA capabilities to hijack any iPhone, including any sensor on the phone, the very thought of handing any government a facial ID system for them to hack into is a gift the world may never be able to return. Face ID will have lasting privacy implications from 2017 moving forward, and I'm pretty sure I am not alone in not wanting to participate.
The fact of the matter is the iPhone X does not need Face ID, Apple could have easily put a Touch ID sensor on the back of the phone for authentication (who doesn't place their finger on the back of their phone?). I mean imagine how cool it would be to put your finger on the Apple logo on the back of your iPhone for Touch ID? It would have been a highly marketable product feature that is equally as effective as Face ID without the escalating Orwellian privacy implications. [...] For Face ID to work, the iPhone X actively has to scan faces looking for its owner when locked. This means anyone within a several foot range of an iPhone X will get their face scanned by other people's phones and that's just creepy.
The fact of the matter is the iPhone X does not need Face ID, Apple could have easily put a Touch ID sensor on the back of the phone for authentication (who doesn't place their finger on the back of their phone?). I mean imagine how cool it would be to put your finger on the Apple logo on the back of your iPhone for Touch ID? It would have been a highly marketable product feature that is equally as effective as Face ID without the escalating Orwellian privacy implications. [...] For Face ID to work, the iPhone X actively has to scan faces looking for its owner when locked. This means anyone within a several foot range of an iPhone X will get their face scanned by other people's phones and that's just creepy.
No one is forcing you to use the sensor and a simple piece of tape or a case can obscure it. To be honest the cops forcing people to touch unlock thier phones is probably what moved apple to this approach and the reason I've never used the touch sensor. The touch sensor was actually a bigger security hole because it appears they won't yet be able to force you to facial unlock the phone. I'll never use the facial scanner if I do get one, however a miniature infrared lidar sensor in my phone would have really badass potential - in my opinion an overlooked major innovation.
One in 50K false positive was for Touch ID. The false positive for Face ID is one in 1 million.
#DeleteFacebook
Wait... wut...
Apple is the only company that's doing this with IR scanners that actually detect the shape of your face, not just doing image comparisons.
Apple is the only company giving hard guarantees that the facial recognition data is never going to leave the device.
That is, they're the only company respecting your security, and your privacy. Why on earth would they be the only one you don't trust with it?
For the same reason a developer just told me that MacOS is closed source, so when I first told him, and then (because he did not believe me) showed him this:
.. he defaulted to claiming that the source may be out there but Apple will sue you for breach of IP rights and copyright violation if you modify the code. So I told him I've fixed bugs in OS X/MacOS using that source code and sent them to Apple and have yet to be sued. At that point he changed the subject to talk about how Aqua is closed source which is true but Aqua is also not part of MacOS any more than X11 is an integral part of Linux and I can point out to you plenty of closed source software that runs on Linux. That does not make Linux closed source, it just means that Linux is able to run closed source software. Some people just have to hate something for no particular reason and invent insane bullshit stories about it, for some it's immigrants, for others it's broccoli, for these people it's Apple. Apple is a greedy soulless corporation, but I don't think they are any more greedy or soulless than many other greedy soulless corporations like for example Google and Samsung.
https://opensource.apple.com/
Except that Apple doesn't say "We don't work with the government. Promise."
Apple says "Our products fundamentally limit the ways in which we can work with the government, even if we try or are coerced." The recent leak of the 5s Secure Enclave firmware should allow independent verification of that fact.