'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.

Comments

Whiner

[Anonymous Coward]

Who asked for the original Macintosh or iPhone either? People often don't know what they've been missing out on until you show it to them. This person obviously doesn't understand Apple's history and the way they operate.

Re:Whiner

[Austerity Empowers]

Or technology period.

Re:Whiner

[Anonymous Coward]

Who asked for the original Macintosh or iPhone either?

Neither of those require giving up private information for a product. Do we need facial rec. to unlock a stupid phone? Heck, no. You could easily come up with a dozen, quick means to unlock a phone, that did not involve privacy violation. So we can assume this method was deliberately chosen to invade the privacy of users.

Re:Whiner

[lucm]

People often don't know what they've been missing out on until you show it to them.

It's nothing new. For instance, face unlock was available on Alienware laptops 7+ years ago and has been common on Samsung devices for a while. The fact that Apple users "discover" that in September 2017 says a lot about this brand and their customer base.

Re:Whiner

[dwywit]

Toshiba laptops going back to the WinXP/Win7 crossover, so about 8-9 years. You bought a Satellite Pro with Win7 installed and facial recognition available. If you initiated a factory restore and chose XP, facial recognition wasn't available/installed. Not very reliable so I switched it off.

Also available on my Motorola RAZR HD from 2013. I trained it with and without glasses, with and without beard, and it works reliably nearly everywhere and everywhen, except...... first thing in the morning. Doesn't like bleary eyes, apparently. Also, it has a "must blink" option to prevent a photograph being used.

Re:Whiner

[Camembert]

Never mind the detail that the iPhone X facial recognition is a LOT more complex than to my knowledge any other customer level gadget out there. Apple was rarely the first in anything, but we have to respect that by and large they thoroughly engineer a feature before releasing it.

Re: Whiner

[DontBeAMoran]

One in 50K false positive was for Touch ID. The false positive for Face ID is one in 1 million.

Re: Whiner

[scdeimos]

With iPhone X everyone gets photographed no matter what if they walk by it.

Or, you know, black tape.

Re:Whiner

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize you don't need to use the face id right? You can still unlock it with a passcode, like every iPhone. And it's clearly not a privacy issue, since the author has no issues with touch ID. After all, how could face id be a privacy violation and touch ID not be?

Re: Whiner

[justthinkit]

Worked out for this guy...

Re:Whiner

[Xenx]

To be fair, the summary does mention the concern of your privacy being violated by another person's phone. Now, you can then get into expectation of privacy in public places.

Re:Whiner

[zieroh]

It's nothing new. For instance, face unlock was available on Alienware laptops 7+ years ago and has been common on Samsung devices for a while. The fact that Apple users "discover" that in September 2017 says a lot about this brand and their customer base.

I think if you'll take a closer look at the actual implementation, you'll find that they're not at all similar. But please, don't let that stop you from being smug.

Re:Whiner

[lucm]

Face unlock is face unlock. Spin it any way you want, it's just face unlock and Apple is playing catch-up as usual. They don't even need to innovate anymore because there's people like you who cream their panties about any minuscule thing they see on their iPhone and go around babbling about it.

Apple make average phones that are 2-3 years behind the curve and carry an obscene price tag. If you want to give them money, have at it, but this here is not your grandma's bingo parlor, you can't just throw in lame tech keywords and expect people to faint.

Re: Whiner

[LynnwoodRooster]

Zoom lenses are typically too large to fit on phones, so you're out of luck...

Re:Whiner

[Camembert]

It is a lot more complex than a basic 2d photo recognition. They had face recognition since many years in iphoto, do you really think it would have been that hard for the engineers to transplant this feature simply for the phone? Instead they did serious engineering with the 3d map, secure enclave and all. This is not trivial and I am not surprised it took years to get it right. But hey, any naive argument to diminish a company's success goes i guess?

Re:Whiner

[pjt33]

I'm not sure that I see the relevance of the expectation of privacy in public places. What about the expectation of privacy in private places? The phone isn't going to detect the transition between the two and adjust its behaviour.

Re:Whiner

[phayes]

Like touchscreen = touchscreen, hidef screens = hidef screens, fingerprint reader = fingerprint reader, trackpad = trackpad, etc...

Except that people who used Apple’s implementation of these and many other technologies panned as “2-3 years behind the curve” realize that Apples implementation is the first widely available _GOOD_ implementation of them.

I used touchscreens on phones for years before the iPhone. They all sucked.

Hidef screens on PCs, same (mostly due to poor OS support).

Fingerprint readers that worked 1/4 of the time (and were trivially spoofed), same thing, in fact my most recent Samsung work phone STILL only unlocks after multiple tries.

Apple’s Magic Trackpad & MacOS’ gesture support are _still_ better than everyone else’s.

But you go ahead and stick your fingers in your ears while muttering “late to the game” & “expensive”.

Re:Whiner

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought this was a tech orientated site with people who would appreciate the difference in technology between simply identifying a face from a 2d digital picture vs the technology used in the iPhone X ....

Re:Whiner

[thegarbz]

realize that Apples implementation is the first widely available _GOOD_ implementation of them.

Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. Apple isn't a goose that shits out nothing but golden eggs. They have their fair share of misshits too.

Speaking of high def touchscreen, what's so much better about Apple's current top of the line OLED screen with a notch on it, then the higher resolution, better colour and higher brightness screen in the 3 year old Galaxy S6?

- Sometimes Apple is a true quality leader (first really high resolution display).
- Sometimes they seriously misshit (bullshit excuse about cutting out headphone jack to sell more Beats headphones, claiming that display pixels need to be multiples of 2 for backwards compatibility then reneging on the very next model, no SD card).
- Sometimes they are just purely late to the party (e.g. OLED screens, and Bluetooth 5, or the especially baffling lack of support for aptX on a device where wireless audio is not only a premier feature but actually required to use headphones without a dongle).

Re:Whiner

[Plumpaquatsch]

Never mind the detail that the iPhone X facial recognition is a LOT more complex than to my knowledge any other customer level gadget out there

prove it by providing technical facts, not iPropaganda.

Since you are a "sceptic", you wouldn't accept it, because it came from Apple.

Re:Whiner

[Plumpaquatsch]

Face unlock is face unlock.

And ROT-13 is just like PGP.

Re:Whiner

[TheFakeTimCook]

Who asked for the original Macintosh or iPhone either?

Neither of those require giving up private information for a product. Do we need facial rec. to unlock a stupid phone? Heck, no. You could easily come up with a dozen, quick means to unlock a phone, that did not involve privacy violation. So we can assume this method was deliberately chosen to invade the privacy of users.

1. Apple's FaceID Facial Recognition, including Enrollment, is done entirely on the iPhone. And any Recognition Data on the phone is stored in the Secure Enclave, inaccessible to everyone, including Apple. So there simply isn't any treasure-trove of Facial Recognition data for anyone to scoop up.

2. The Facial Recognition data stored in the Secure Enclave cannot be used to reconstruct the Face that is Enrolled. Again, nothing to be gained, even if someone could manage to extract the FaceID data from the phone in the first place.

3. Apple did not invest the large cost to develop FaceID (which is not just a Kinect), and more importantly, did not add the cost of the FaceID hardware to the cost of the iPhone X, thus increasing the price of the phone, on a whim. Market pressures to increase screen area without increasing overall phone size, versus the apparently so-far insurmountable technical difficulties in integrating a TouchID sensor-like function into the Display assembly (which is what Apple wanted to do), added-up to making Facial Recognition the only PRACTICAL solution.

4. Placing a TouchID sensor on the back of the phone is a singularly horrible idea from a usability standpoint, and thus would have been instantly, and rightly, rejected by Apple's Product Design team for the iPhone. While most Users CAN reach a touch sensor located on the back of the phone, some cannot; but much more importantly, it forms a blind, poorly-locate-able Target, for something you would likely use several times per day. Whereas, Apple's FaceID system provides a simple to "hit" target, as it apparently works at almost any angle, so long as the camera and illuminator can see all the parts of the face it uses for its Recognition. And it also still uses the side of the phone that users normally deal with, rather than creating a blind "UI" Target on the side opposite of the one Users normally deal with.

5. You can use a Passcode/Passphrase if you don't like FaceID for whatever reason. Apple isn't forcing this on anybody.

6. You can simply buy another phone.

Re:Whiner

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Apple's FaceID Facial Recognition, including Enrollment, is done entirely on the iPhone. And any Recognition Data on the phone is stored in the Secure Enclave, inaccessible to everyone, including Apple.

We'll just have trust them, right. LOL.

2. The Facial Recognition data stored in the Secure Enclave cannot be used to reconstruct the Face that is Enrolled. Again, nothing to be gained, even if someone could manage to extract the FaceID data from the phone in the first place.

LOL, that data is like a hashed password. You just need to generate enough "artificial faces" (guessed passwords) before it matches the data.

3. Apple did not invest the large cost to develop FaceID (which is not just a Kinect), and more importantly, did not add the cost of the FaceID hardware to the cost of the iPhone X, thus increasing the price of the phone, on a whim. Market pressures to increase screen area without increasing overall phone size, ...

LOL, I think now that they have everyone's fingerprints, they want everyone's face IDs as well. This is way worse than fingerprint ID. With cameras everywhere, "they" can track you the moment you step out of your house (thanks to the morons who handed over a high-res 3D scan of their faces). Who invests so much time and money into a stupid password manager, unless there were some juicy side benefits?

5. You can use a Passcode/Passphrase if you don't like FaceID for whatever reason.

The smart and semi-smart folks will avoid faceID. But the rest of the (ignorant) population won't.

Apple isn't forcing this on anybody.

Is there a place where you can place black tape to block the faceID scanner? If there isn't one, then it's forcing it on everybody.

Re:Whiner

[djrosen]

The same way you can still use the headphone jacks? Oh Wait....
Just because you can today does not mean you will be able to tomorrow. How does this simple fact escape people when it happens every single day?

Re:Whiner

[angel'o'sphere]

4. Placing a TouchID sensor on the back of the phone is a singularly horrible idea from a usability standpoint
That is nonsense.
There are plenty of phones that have the touch sensor on the backside, and my friends who own such phones, love it.

Re: Whiner

[stealth_finger]

With iPhone X everyone gets photographed no matter what if they walk by it.

Or, you know, black tape.

What does he think the range on this scanning kit is? I know it's not the same but my windows phone has the iris recognition thing and you have to hold it quite close to get past it. Yeah a face is much bigger than an eye but still, I doubt it recognise much past an arms length or two.

Re: Whiner

[BryanCallahan]

They are called the iPhone 8 and 8 plus and come out today...

Re: Whiner

[bsDaemon]

The watch word of the day is "normalization," isn't it? Apple including facial recognition technology helps normalize the idea and numb people to its use in a way thet Microsoft and Samsung apparently weren't because lack of hipster cred. But now that Apple has done it, it will go "mainstream" (i.e., people will realize it is where it was and think that's new. Also will want to add it other places).

There is only a bit of snark there. But frankly, yes, facial recognition technology is more invasive than fingerprint readers because i don't have to touch the phone. It is passive collection technology. And it isn't even necessarily the fact that Apple is using it for login (biometrics should replace user names, not passphrases) or that scan data is held in the SEP. it is that Apple has a chip in the phone that can do reasonably accurate scans at a good rate. Its probably only a matter of time before a Square-like device is made leveraging the ability to provide minority-report like indenrification of shoppers (and then they'll helpfully airplay ads and coupons to people!)

Like I said, some degree of snark there. But if any company can push pervasive biometric identification beyond "z0mg government spying!!" to "this is totally normal and acceptable. I don't remeber a world wherein my face wasn't scanned 300 times a day creating an irrefutable log of my movements and actions throughout the day! Isn't it a totally wonderful and acceptable social norm?!," well that would be Apple.

Re:Whiner

[phayes]

I generally with most of what you wrote but do note that those selecting about specific attributes and whining about them are often missing the forest for the trees. Focusing on the details is falling into the same trap of those ridiculing the iPod and predicting it's failure that begat the meme here on slashdot (No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.). I, like most people selected my phone by looking at all it's attributes (including OS reliability, security and expected lifetime for my part).

OLED screens of sufficient quality and lifetime are still supply constrained with a single source (Samsung though Apple has gifted LG with billions of $ to be able to catch up & become a second source). The Notch isn't an issue for most people and allows the use of larger front-side sensors that make face recognition much better (less spoofable, more reliable) while still keeping enough room for useful notification space. It resembles the touchID/fingerprint sensors in that android phones often had narrower fingerprint readers and ToughID uses round sensors and is much more reliable & faster.

Your 3 year old S6 may indeed have proven to be of sufficient quality/lifetime but Samsung was incapable of furnishing enough screens for themselves & Apple and the expected lifetime had yet to be proven. That's less of an issue with Android phones because their mean used lifetime is so much shorter than iPhones are. Fewer care when the phone they replaced has faded than those who expect to continue using it for another 2-3 years.

Did Apple reneg on the 2x pixel requirement being unavoidable when they announced it? You _know_ this to be a falsehood because you'd seen the updated code to support it and all the applications had been updated to support other resolutions at that date? No, you don't. That Apple used the 2X pixel application framework updates to prepare the way for future non 2X phones and sufficient compatible apps didn't appeal to you so you chose to believe the worst, Ockhams Razor be damned.

As for the headphone jack, it's a popular whine among geeks, but much like changeable internal batteries, the great majority don't care.

Re:Whiner

[phayes]

Ack, I generally >agree with...

Re:Whiner

[conquistadorst]

Neither of those require giving up private information for a product. Do we need facial rec. to unlock a stupid phone? Heck, no. You could easily come up with a dozen, quick means to unlock a phone, that did not involve privacy violation. So we can assume this method was deliberately chosen to invade the privacy of users.

I typically hate the response I'm about to give since I've always felt it to be a cover-all-cop-out but this time I think this is an instance where it does apply. You're under no obligation to buy it. If they miscalculate a technology or marketing decision, you and everyone else should "punish" them by simply not buying the phone. Corporations aren't democratic. At best, you can stretch them to qualify as a republic with money being your elected representative. We can sit here and criticize them all day but if the phone sells like hot cakes because people love this feature, then we're just wrong.

Re:Whiner

[Anonymous Coward]

Not trying to be THAT guy but my Google Pixle XL has a touch sensor on the back and I really like it. Took a day or two to get used to it not being on the front, but now I find it every bit as, if not more, convenient. Maybe I am misunderstanding the arguments and comments but if I am not, the touch sensor on the back already exists, wasn't rejected by the design team, and seems to be very well accepted by the users.

Re:Whiner

[ctilsie242]

I have a HTC Android phone that does fingerprint and facial unlocking, and works well with both. You lift the phone up, it recognizes you (optionally can be set to not allow unlock until the eyes blink), and go on. Android offers other ways to unlock as well, via proximity to Bluetooth devices, presence on trusted SSIDs, safe geofenced areas, and so on.

What I'd like to see is a combination of that. Have a Bluetooth transponder on my keychain, where if the phone detects it, then use a fingerprint or face scan. Otherwise, prompt for the passphrase [1]. That way, if my phone walks off, I kill the keychain transponder, and a would-be intruder has ten guesses.

[1]: With how easy fingerprint access is, I set at least a 20-30 character password. Especially Android devices where you can have a different boot passphrase than the screen unlock, so the boot PW can be long enough to deter most brute forcing by itself, without needing any enforcement from hardware.

Re: Whiner

[ctilsie242]

It is already out. Back in 2014, the HTC device I used had a very good form of facial recognition. People just didn't seem to be interested in using it, because tapping your finger on a scanner is easier than positioning the phone to grab your visage before using it. It also makes things like payment methods a tad awkward. Right now, Apple Pay consists of tapping twice near a NFC reader, and a beer drops out of the vending machine. FaceID means trying to authenticate to that while positioning the phone close enough to the NFC reader of the merchant.

It isn't a bad technology... and it is an additional authentication method... but fingerprint scanners are great for convenience.

Re:Whiner

[fred6666]

1. Apple's FaceID Facial Recognition, including Enrollment, is done entirely on the iPhone. And any Recognition Data on the phone is stored in the Secure Enclave, inaccessible to everyone, including Apple.

How do you know, you've looked at the source code?

Re:Whiner

[thomn8r]

y finger naturally falls right into the TouchID hole on the rear.

Are we still talking about phones?

Re:Whiner

[Anonymous Coward]

Who asked for the original Macintosh or iPhone either?

Neither of those require giving up private information for a product.

And neither does the iPhone X. Face ID (and Touch ID before it) never leave the phone, and are not even available to the OS. Everything is done in the Secure Enclave which is protected from the general purpose part of the system.

Apple has many faults, but IMHO they're doing a decent job on privacy.

Re:Whiner

[Khyber]

Facial unlock was available on old Compaq desktops powered by an overclocked 180MHz Evergreen processor back when Windows 98 was still a thing.

Re:Whiner

[Khyber]

"It is a lot more complex than a basic 2d photo recognition."

Yet my pal who does cosmetology work just broke the FaceID using a mannequin head with similar facial structure (and blinking eyes) which had been warmed up with a hair dryer.

Not very fucking complex if it's that easily bypassed.

Re:Whiner

[ctilsie242]

I bought an el cheapo LG phone (LG Stylo 3) with a fingerprint scanner on the back, and it worked surprisingly well. I don't see why Apple doesn't offer this with the iPhone X. That way, one has the best of both worlds. Plus, the fingerprint scanner gives a definite, deliberate "authenticate this" ability, compared to passive facial recognition, which is important for payments.

Re: Whiner

[Khyber]

"The false positive for Face ID is one in 1 million."

So still less secure than a Forever Lock.

Re: Whiner

[Khyber]

Zoom lenses are for distance. You mean macro lens.

Re:Whiner

[zieroh]

I call bullshit. Especially since the iPhone X hasn't shipped yet.

Re:Whiner

[zieroh]

You must be new here.

Re: Whiner

[Paradise Pete]

Except you get scanned IN YOUR HOME when your buddy bring his new iToy over to show off.

Not only do you get scanned, you get rejected. Oh the humanity.

Re: Whiner

[Camembert]

It is like saying that Caesar's cypher and PKI accomplish the same thing. You don't have to be a fanboi to appreciate the engineering of FaceID. Anyway we may discuss yet I bet that in 3 years all phones > $150 will have a similar or perhaps even better solution.

Re: Whiner

[sound vision]

It reminds me a bit of the voiceprint password they put in OS 9. It's something that looks really whiz-bang on the bullet point list of new features, helping to justify a $1000 upgrade. But it's not actually useful. It was quicker and more reliable to just type in your password

What ended up happening to the voice password feature anyway? Is it still in Mac OS now? Did it even persist to the initial release of OS X? Did it ever make it to iOS at all?

Re:Whiner

[Paradise Pete]

Face unlock is face unlock.

lol do you live in a checkbox world? Is there no level of nuance at all, just either yes or no?

Re: Whiner

[Paradise Pete]

The stink of Android desperation is all over these silly objections lately.
First of all nobody's being photographed. It's an IR sensor on the front of the phone. Second, nobody walking past can cause it to unlock. Not even the owner of the phone can do that. Third, your 50,000 number is wrong. It's 1,000,000, and that's for a person actually attempting to unlock it.

Re: Whiner

[ctilsie242]

I wish Apple would allow combinations of authentication methods, especially with something like an Apple Watch, where the iPhone could tell if the other device was near or not. That way, if the watch was nearby, the fingerprint scanner, voiceprint scanner, or face scanner would suffice. If the watch (or another BT object) was not around, demand the entire full length passphrase.

This would be useful for travel in dodgy areas. If the phone gets stolen, have an option for additional security be be activated.

Re:Whiner

[JohnFen]

the actual on-boarding process

Just a little PR tip: "onboarding" is a term that implies registering and getting oriented with an outside party (usually an employer). You might want to use a different term when you're arguing that the process is completely private.

Re:Whiner

[bobbutts]

Agree. I had an LG G5 with fingerprint sensor on the back and preferred that unlocking system to the home button fingerprint sensor on my Galaxy S7.

Re: Whiner

[Type44Q]

Clearly.

Re:Whiner

[thegarbz]

do note that those selecting about specific attributes

They are called examples. Otherwise your post would have just been a single line saying "such as"

and the expected lifetime had yet to be proven.

Err no. That's been proven about 5 generations ago.

You _know_ this to be a falsehood because you'd seen the updated code to support it

So they lied about the abilities to mask for the fact that they were yet again massively slow and late to the party with supporting code?

To misquote something I once read: "I do note that those selecting about specific attributes and defending them with strange excuses are often missing the forest for the trees."

Re: Whiner

[ScienceofSpock]

I think you missed the "...that care about technology..." qualifier.

Re: Whiner

[LocalH]

Apple's playing catch up with a device that can recognize your face in the dark. Right.

Re: Whiner

[LocalH]

Yeah, I'm sure Apple would destroy battery life by having the sensors live all the time.

You know the fucking braindead Apple haters are grasping at straws when they make shit up or regurgitate the vomit that uninformed so-called "techies" are putting out there.

Re:Whiner

[Curunir_wolf]

Who asked for the original Macintosh or iPhone either? People often don't know what they've been missing out on until you show it to them. This person obviously doesn't understand Apple's history and the way they operate.

He says he's been using Apple products since he was 4 years old, so you're wrong on that count.

FanBoi

Re:Whiner

[Xenx]

First, my point was that the summary mentioned the concern about others with iphones and not the feature on your own phone as you can disable it on your own device. I only brought up expectation of privacy because you can chose not to use it and be fine in your own home or the like. You can choose not to associate with people in private places that use the feature. The only time you don't have a choice is in public, but in public you lose an expectation of privacy. It doesn't lessen your desire to have it, but not much to do about it.

Re:Whiner

[Wrath0fb0b]

Who said the process was completely private? I didn't even touch that point -- only an orthogonal point that the process gives the user a choice on whether or not to enable biometrics.

And a sly note that the process also steers users towards privacy protection by discouraging no/weak passcodes while still preserving the user's choice in the matter.

Re:Whiner

[Applehu Akbar]

Apple requires that all iPhone cases, even the thermonuclear-resistant Otterbox line, have a window in the back to make the Apple logo visible. I always though that this was just to allow the Apple coolness rays to show through to the outside world, but it makes moving the TouchID sensor there an even better idea. When you hold a iPhone in its case, the logo window location is immediately visible to your fingers.

Re:Whiner

[JohnFen]

My bad -- I had assumed that you were defending the iPhone in terms of privacy, since that was the thrust of the comment you replied to.

If the "onboarding" does involve sending your data to Apple, that's pretty harsh and should be called out in these discussions.

Re: Whiner

[flygeek]

Never mind all that about facial recognition; you can get _beer_ from a vending machine?

Re:Whiner

[jellomizer]

Boo hoo. Technology get out of date, and sometimes the replacements have some trade-offs. What happened to our parallel ports and serial ports. Floppy disk drives. The Technology of today will not be the technology of tomorrow, it is the nature of the business.

Apple compared to Google and Microsoft have a rather good track record of keeping your privacy. This face ID doesn't get saved on the cloud, it is saved securely on the device. Today's day and age we need strong authentication, so Bio-metrics is a good strong secure way to validate identity, compared to others.

Could Apple push the data to the cloud, yes, but they havn't yet.

Re:Whiner

[Wrath0fb0b]

Fair enough, thanks - these threads get so toxic.

I (cordially) disagree that the thrust of the comment was about privacy rather than user choice. The OP wrote

Neither of those require giving up private information for a product. Do we need facial rec. to unlock a stupid phone? Heck, no. You could easily come up with a dozen, quick means to unlock a phone, that did not involve privacy violation.

What I wrote in rebuttal was that this OP statement was factual untrue. The user is not required to do anything -- the phone setup process (since we aren't using that other word) gives a choice on which authentication method to use and subtly guided towards privacy-protecting ones.

If the "onboarding" does involve sending your data to Apple, that's pretty harsh and should be called out in these discussions.

Similarly, the user is given a choice of creating an account with Apple or not. So the response is the same as that to the OP: the process involves the user choosing whether to send data to the mothership or not.

I think the net of the discussion is that technology should not be forcing users to give up their private data but rather should be letting users users chose whether, for example, to use FaceID or not. To that extent, I asked the OP if he'd ever actually gone through the phone setup process on an iPhone to see for themselves how it actually works in practice. That seems like an eminently fair ask: to be aware of the facts before pronouncing judgment.

Re:Whiner

[JohnFen]

Ahh, OK. Yes, I think we got tangled up here (or, at least, I was not fully understanding.) By the way, thank you for an actual (and intelligent) exchange. I always enjoy it when that happens!

Re: Whiner

[djrosen]

The point is --------> sorry you missed it. It's not about technology changing it's about them making decisions not in the publics best interest. Once the car is out of the bag there is no getting it back in.

Re:Whiner

[wjcofkc]

"Placing a TouchID sensor on the back of the phone is a singularly horrible idea from a usability standpoint, and thus would have been instantly, and rightly, rejected by Apple's Product Design team for the iPhone."

You sir, are full of shit. On a modern device that potentially contains a lot of sensitive info, yet is easily stolen, giving the users options to choose from is the way to go. On my S8+ I have the following options. I can have them all available, or ignore them all

1. Facial recognition. Depending on lighting, this does not always work. Once the new iPhone is in the wild, I would not be surprised if this primary feature also fails under certain lighting conditions, or if the user is say, wearing a hat.
2. Finger print scanner on the back. The scanner is well placed as can be. If someone has that much trouble, the still have face recognition and these other two.

Iris scanner. The lighting or wearing a hat problem need not apply here.
3. Disable the whole lot and just use the pin code that all other things default to if there is a problem.

I have a number of reasons for not wanting an iPhone, but having a variety of security options to use or not use was a big selling point for me. That and the audio jack which use for several purposes, none of which involve head phones.

Every year when the new iPhone comes out, I stay out of this conversation, but the new iPhone is a step back in many respects. Oh, and at least I am not spending $1,000 on a phone with rapid charging capapabilites only to have to pay extra for Apples rapid charging power brick. That right there is robbery in the face of Apple admitting the device is already overpriced but they don't because people will buy it anyway. And after all that, they just settled a court case in which they established that an iPhone is expected to fail after the first year, when many people will not even have it paid off yet.

Re:Whiner

[Rakarra]

Boo hoo. Technology get out of date, and sometimes the replacements have some trade-offs.

But the headphone jack is not out of date. It's still a hell of a lot better than the replacements.

Re:Whiner

[lucm]

You mean the late Steve Jobs already knew this feature can be built into iPhone

Steve Jobs didn't "know" what could be built into anything, he had tech people for that. At first it was Steve Wozniak, then a busload of young engineers who didn't know better and got chewed out on a regular basis.

Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, even the twitter guy (to a point) built things and have/had relevant technical opinions. Steve Jobs did not.

Re:Whiner

[lucm]

Apples implementation is the first widely available _GOOD_ implementation of them.

This is utter and complete bullshit, backed by absolutely no facts other than lame Apple marketing (and iVolunteers like you).

Just yesterday I handed my Samsung S8 to a friend (who uses the latest iProducts) so he could read an email I had received, and he instantly said: "oh wow this screen is amazing". Unfortunately for him he'll have to wait another year or two before Apple catches up with this kind of quality.

As for Apple having the "first good" implementation of anything: no. Fingerprint readers have worked flawlessly on countless devices for a long time before Apple got into it, same for face unlock.

Get real.

Re:Whiner

[lucm]

Never mind the detail that the iPhone X facial recognition is a LOT more complex than to my knowledge any other customer level gadget out there

prove it by providing technical facts, not iPropaganda.

Since you are a "sceptic", you wouldn't accept it, because it came from Apple.

so you basically have no technical facts, as usual, you just deny the possibility of a discussion

Re:Whiner

[lucm]

People often don't know what they've been missing out on until you show it to them.

It's nothing new. For instance, face unlock was available on Alienware laptops 7+ years ago and has been common on Samsung devices for a while. The fact that Apple users "discover" that in September 2017 says a lot about this brand and their customer base.

The fact that you think Apple users are "discovering" this for the first time because Apple is using it says a lot about you, actually. There are significant differences in this technology than what Samsung uses, but I guess you ignore those details...which also says a lot about you and your lack of knowledge around the technology, while at the same time you're pointing fingers at others. That's some serious irony.

First, you clearly don't know what irony means. Second, you fail to mention actual details and opt for wild accusations instead, which is typical of people who don't have facts on their side. You're like my ex who used to say: "there's so many things wrong about you that I can't name one in particular". Very convincing.

Re:Whiner

[TheFakeTimCook]

"Placing a TouchID sensor on the back of the phone is a singularly horrible idea from a usability standpoint, and thus would have been instantly, and rightly, rejected by Apple's Product Design team for the iPhone."

You sir, are full of shit. On a modern device that potentially contains a lot of sensitive info, yet is easily stolen, giving the users options to choose from is the way to go. On my S8+ I have the following options. I can have them all available, or ignore them all

1. Facial recognition. Depending on lighting, this does not always work. Once the new iPhone is in the wild, I would not be surprised if this primary feature also fails under certain lighting conditions, or if the user is say, wearing a hat.

2. Finger print scanner on the back. The scanner is well placed as can be. If someone has that much trouble, the still have face recognition and these other two.

Iris scanner. The lighting or wearing a hat problem need not apply here.
3. Disable the whole lot and just use the pin code that all other things default to if there is a problem.

I have a number of reasons for not wanting an iPhone, but having a variety of security options to use or not use was a big selling point for me. That and the audio jack which use for several purposes, none of which involve head phones.

Every year when the new iPhone comes out, I stay out of this conversation, but the new iPhone is a step back in many respects. Oh, and at least I am not spending $1,000 on a phone with rapid charging capapabilites only to have to pay extra for Apples rapid charging power brick. That right there is robbery in the face of Apple admitting the device is already overpriced but they don't because people will buy it anyway. And after all that, they just settled a court case in which they established that an iPhone is expected to fail after the first year, when many people will not even have it paid off yet.

1. Unlike Samsung, who put so little effort into facial recognition you can spoof their system with a photograph, Apple has made their facial recognition nearly foolproof. They have already tested it against photos, lifelike face masks, scarves, hats, helmets, glasses, sunglasses, night, day, even beard-growing, and it has apparently proven robust.

https://arstechnica.com/gadget...

So, there's one S8 "Security" system that isn't...

vs.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/09...

Admittedly, as Craig rather candidly says above, we will have to see how well this ultimately works with millions of people; but it does sound like they have tried to think of things like sunglasses, hats, scarves, beards, etc.

2. I still feel that a rear-mounted fingerprint sensor is an epic fail, usability-wise. Plus, as one poster pointed out, it complicates the design and assembly process for the phone. As I said, Apple's first choice was TouchID built into the Display/Digitizer, but that proved impossible/impractical. And if the video below is to be believed (and it does look pretty legit, as you can see a scrolling display of text on the test-jig screen a fraction of a second after the worker places his finger on the area just under the Apple Logo on the back of the phone), Apple at least produced (and obviously rejected) some prototypes with a rear-mounted Fingerprint Sensor. They did say they analyzed at least 10 different prototypes:

http://www.idownloadblog.com/2...

3. Iris scanner. Poor second choice to facial recognition. Not nearly as much data, which means not nearly as much security. And apparently, that's exactly the case. So now, you have two ineffectual pseudo-Security systems in your S8. Cool!

Re:Whiner

[Camembert]

Plenty of iPhone cases without a back window for the logo. In fact I am using one now.

Re:Whiner

[pjt33]

I only brought up expectation of privacy because you can choose not to use it and be fine in your own home or the like. You can choose not to associate with people in private places that use the feature.

One of the fundamental questions here is how much effort it is reasonable to expect people to take in order to protect their privacy.

Is it reasonable to expect everyone (including very non-technical people) to research the ways in which the phone they're planning to buy affects their privacy? Already I think there will be different opinions in different cultures.

Is it reasonable to expect everyone (including very non-technical people) to be aware of the ways in which a well-known brand of phone carried by other people affects their privacy, and to ask people whether they have that brand of phone before choosing to associate with them in private? I think this is already well past what is reasonable.

Is it reasonable to expect everyone (including very non-technical people) to be aware of the ways in which every brand of phone carried by other people affects their privacy, and to ask people what brand of phone they have and perform a (physical or mental) lookup before choosing to associate with them in private?

I think it is a reasonable expectation that a phone shouldn't be using its camera except when triggered by a user. In fact, now that I've thought about it, I wonder whether this kind of feature could run into legal problems in Europe and require owners to register with their national data protection authorities as operators of a CCTV scheme.

Re:Whiner

[phayes]

Awwww, did I hurt snookums feelings? Is snookums so blinded by his partisan sucking up to Samsung that he blocked out the examples I gave in my original post?

Samsung is only this year able to manufacture OLED screens in sufficient numbers for themselves and a subset of Apple's needs. That inability is why Apple is continuing to produce and sell every other iPone model other than the high priced X using LCD screens.

You and your colleague appear to be Fuji people impressed by "ooooh shiny, look at those hyper saturated colors". I'm a Kodachrome guy more impressed by color fidelity. The Samsung S8's I've handled failed to impress. Hopefully, Apple will do better.

My 2017 Samsung work phone begs to differ with your unsupported claim of flawless fingerprint reader function. It has never taken more than 2 attempts and usually takes 3-4 before unlocking and it is thus a coin toss as to whether the PIN code or the reader is faster to unlock it.

Re:Whiner

[phayes]

OLED durability may have been sufficient for Android lifespan phones (18-24 months) 5 generations ago but Apple and Apple purchasers have higher standards. Again, it's not just lifetime, but quality _and_ lifetime _and_ production in sufficient qualities which just weren't available up to now..

I gave multiple examples. You gave one. You're not even missing the forest for the trees, you're missing the forest for the >tree.

And again, the the only one lying about Apple's transition to larger screens is you. It took 4 iPhone generations between the initial retina screen and the non strict multiples of 2 screens.

Re: Whiner

[Anonymous Coward]

Taking a photo of an anonymous person on the street is one thing.
Doing a facial recognition scan of that photo, with a license plate check and GPS tracking of their phone to track where they're going is another.
Just because you walk in public, the loss of privacy is not absolute. You still wear clothes, you don't hold a 20" screen displaying your phone contents and you don't follow people walking on the street

Re:Whiner

[fred6666]

How do you know the phone won't upload your face to Apple at some random time in the future once you will be connected to the Internet?

This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[Archvile7]

This article is so stupid. The author clearly has no idea how existing biometrics that Apple offers work. Touch ID stores information in a secure element, and nowhere else. No cloud, no device transfer methods, nothing - it is On Device only. Face ID is no different. In fact, it doesnâ(TM)t even store images of your face - it reduces your faceâ(TM)s geometry to a mathematical equation that is literally impossible to reverse engineer, due to the high levels of iOS hardware security. Read the damn iOS Security Guide, published and updated by Apple - it is FULL if information on how this stuff works, how keys are handled, how the Secure Enclave works, how encryption works across the OS and user data, itâ(TM)s a great read and would put these inane âoefearsâ to rest simply by understanding how it works. âoePeoples will always fear what they donâ(TM)t understandâ

Re:This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a legal difference though. Apparently here police cannot ask you to unlock the phone by passcode or fingerprint, but showing it your face is perfectly fine.

Re:This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[viperidaenz]

Just a month ago the encryption key for the Secure Enclave firmware on the iPhone 5S's was found.
While it doesn't mean someone can remote access the data from it, it does mean someone could load their own firmware on to an iPhone 5S's Secure Enclave. It also means the firmware can be analysed for vulnerabilities.

IT may be extremely difficult to get in to it, but I wouldn't go as far as saying its "literally impossible to reverse engineer, due to the high levels of iOS hardware security".

Sure, it's a high level of security, but nothing is perfect.

Re:This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[pr0t0]

Actually, law enforcement can force you to use your fingerprint to unlock your phone. They just can't force you to use your passcode.

Re:This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[Austerity Empowers]

I imagine that can be optionally disabled as with touchID. I can't say for certain yet, but it would definitely be a worthy hate article if it lacked that feature.

They were quite clear that the facial recognition and underlying AI was on the device and not anywhere else, that's one of the big features. Not really sure how that got missed on. But as you point out there's some real basic meatspace work-arounds for that, so for people who are worried about it, and there are non-criminals with significant concerns, I think being able to disable it in favor of a passcode ought to be an option.

Re:This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[alvinrod]

Can they force a person to disclose which finger should be used though or compel a person to use the correct one? Sure may not matter since it's almost always going to be the thumb on a person's dominant hand, but if you had it set to require the password after a single failed attempt they might have more troubles with that approach.

Re:This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[TheGratefulNet]

and this is a compelling reason to NOT use finger id for phones.

its stupid that this is how it is; but I'm not going to give any advantage to the thugs in blue, if/when they stop me and want to have a little fun at my expense.

Re:This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, it's a high level of security, but nothing is perfect.

A particular security method only needs to be more effective than the best alternative. So as long as the secure encave is more effective than kidnapping and beating a passcode out of you, its good enough. :-)

Re:This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[johnjones]

correct he's insane and has written for the clickbait without any knowledge of the systems or potential

Re:This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[DontBeAMoran]

You know what I fear? The fact that we're in 2017 and Slashdot still doesn't support UTF-8.

Re:This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[SethJohnson]

Archville7 is incredibly correct here and deserves +9999 modpoints for pointing out the hysterics and idiocy of the OP.

Just wanted to extend this with more details.

When the OP asks, "Who was wanting FaceID?" I can help with that.

Physical buttons on consumer hardware are expensive. I mean that in terms of production, warranty, maintenance, and customer satisfaction. I mean that last one in terms not in usability, but in terms of anger of out-of-warranty broken buttons rendering a device useless. This is why low-end devices will sometimes employ the "function" key that modifies the behavior of other buttons when it is held down simultaneously with them. Suddenly, a user can enjoy myriad functionality while keeping the overall cost the same on the above-mentioned metrics.

The touch screen interface liberated the hardware manufacturers from this button-oppressed UI constraint. Designers were free to conceive all kinds of user interfaces for phones and other products without the burden of physical button expense.

The tricky thing about that home button, though, is it has always been a lynchpin for functionality. If that thing breaks, the whole device can't be used. And with TouchID, even moreso because the part can't be replaced easily. It's a key (no pun intended) component of the security infrastructure and can only be replaced by Apple with an expensive process and stockpile of parts. A failure in the TouchID home button is crushing on all of the button-expense metrics-- "warranty, maintenance, and customer satisfaction."

FaceID solves all of that. The people who were asking for that were the manufacturer as well as their customers (unknowningly).

Re:This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[DontBeAMoran]

TL;DR

Laws in the U.S.A. are fucked-up.

Re:This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[DontBeAMoran]

I don't care! My iPhone 4 doesn't have any "secure enclave" for hackers to crack! Ah!

Re:This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[Gravis Zero]

Iâ(TM)m not claiming youâ(TM)re wrong or anything but I canâ(TM)t help but get the feeling you âoecopypastaâd your post. ;)

Re:This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[DontBeAMoran]

You can't get any more white than the French. On the Web we need UTF-8 for accentuated characters.

Re:This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[pushing-robot]

They already removed the button in last year's model. The iPhone 7 (and 8) have a touchID sensor on the lower bezel, but the home button itself has been replaced by haptic feedback.

I don't have any moral opposition to Face ID, just some practical arguments against it; more parts to fail than a Touch ID sensor, potential issues in direct sunlight, less convenient for quick payments, easier for an attacker to capture your face surreptitiously than your fingerprints.

In any event, Apple should give users the option of biometric + passcode to unlock the phone, not one or the other.

Re:This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[antdude]

Uh huh. Do we trust Apple?

Re: This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[DontBeAMoran]

You can still post in english and have the whole thing fail miserably. Look at Archvile7's post, it's all messed up.

Re:This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[zieroh]

They already removed the button in last year's model. The iPhone 7 (and 8) have a touchID sensor on the lower bezel, but the home button itself has been replaced by haptic feedback.

What, you think that's cheaper than a mechanical button?

Re:This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[rtb61]

Dude, even easier, don't use it. Just configure the security the way you want to roll, don't like the biometrics don't configure them and don't use them, they are not compulsory. As for the phone itself, if you need to buy apps to make it functional buy Android, there are a whole bunch of phones, you do not need to buy one app for, they are fully functional out of the box. Don't know how broad the base apps for iphones are and whether or not you can do every from calendar and appointments to fully featured camera, to a few free basic games and play any file you store on the device, book, tune or video. They are still over priced for what they provide but at least they do treat end user right to privacy with some sort of seriousness. Whereas both Google and M$ consider all your communications post cards they have a right to read, scan, analyse and in the future censor (don't even think for a second they are both not headed straight down that track, the YouTube attack on free speech should be a reminder to you all).

Re:This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[Uberbah]

Police can legally compel you to disclose the correct finger to use, by way of destruction of evidence charges against you by using a self-destruct option by way of an incorrect print. You will be charged with the original crime, destruction of evidence, and interference of the investigation.

Uh huh. Sure it's not a case of "the police can legally lie to you about all this shit they claim is the law"?

Re:This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[JonBoy47]

Apple's security with regard to Touch ID sensor replacements guards against the substitution of a malicious replacement sensor that compromises the security of the Touch ID system. Imagine a hypothetical replacement sensor with a "backdoor" fingerprint pattern, or a man-in-the-middle device that recorded or cloned the bits as they were being sent from the sensor to the secure enclave for authentication, thus allowing their playback for future unlocking of the device.

Re:This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[JonBoy47]

The iPhone 7/8 Touch ID sensor innately provides proximity/pressure sensitivity without need of moving parts. The sole value add function of the physical button is to provide tactile feedback to the user. By replacing the tactile feedback with haptic feedback using the vibration motor, Apple was able to eliminate all the moving parts from the home button, eliminating a significant source of repair claims on the entire device.

Re:This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[Kjella]

Just a month ago the encryption key for the Secure Enclave firmware on the iPhone 5S's was found. While it doesn't mean someone can remote access the data from it, it does mean someone could load their own firmware on to an iPhone 5S's Secure Enclave.

Hell no, lies and FUD. It just means someone has found the decryption key embedded in every copy of the Secure Enclave that Apple has used to obfuscate the code in transit. The updates are still signed, the signature check can't be disabled and the signing key only exists in Apple HQ, hackers can now begin to analyze the binary but there's no way for anyone else to alter it.

Re:This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[93 Escort Wagon]

In iOS 11, just click the power button 5 times - that temporarily disables both TouchID and FaceID, requiring a passcode to unlock the phone

Re: This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[Anonymous Coward]

Touché.

Re:This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[ClickOnThis]

TL;DR

IANAL

FTFY

Re: This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[Phil06]

Or just wait for you to fall asleep

Re:This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[tlhIngan]

You know what I fear? The fact that we're in 2017 and Slashdot still doesn't support UTF-8.

It supports UTF-8 just fine. For over a decade at that. And people have been screwing around with Unicode that craps all over message boards since Unicode was invented. Any popular message board supporting it has undergone the trolls that spew out billions of unicode crap that destroy page layouts and turn entire articles into blobs of black because they pile on 10000 decorations on a single character. Or apply the RTL forcings. It gets so bad boards wither have admins routinely delete accounts and posts of people who do it, or employ automated filters (which is what /. does). In the case of /., the filter strips the high bit of all characters. And maybe as recent as a few years ago, they added the filter on output as well, because you used to be able to see the effects. Now you get highly nonsensical posts because they employed the Unicode chacter that got filtered out. Use Google to search /. for "erocS" or "5 :erocS". (That's a 5, space, colon, "erocS"). Apply a RTL filter and enjoy.

As for biometrics - remember Apple did the research. People unlock their phones thousands of times a day. Many people really hate entering passcodes (or complex passwords), so instead of engaging the phone's security mechanisms, they leave it as requiring nothing more than "Swipe to unlock". Because it can be a pain unlocking your phone, scanning it for 3 seconds, then locking it again. Only 10 seconds later needing to unlock it again. The population was around 50% of people actually had even a 4 digit passcode - the rest did not lock their phones.

Thus to counter this, Apple created Touch ID, which lets you quickly and conveniently unlock your phone. With this you can enable higher security, or for the 50% that didn't, just enable it. After this, something like 80% or more of phones had a passcode.

That's why it exists - because for a large number of the population, they won't bother with security if it gets in the way.

Re:This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[schleimkeim]

Touch ID stores information in a secure element, and nowhere else. No cloud, no device transfer methods, nothing - it is On Device only

You really believe that, don't you?

Re:This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[thegarbz]

eliminating a significant source of repair claims

Citation needed. If their button is unable to withstand being pressed or even dunked into beer, maybe they should have made a better button.

Re: This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[DontBeAMoran]

And your post clearly shows the results.

Re:This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[guruevi]

I'm pretty sure you don't know how the law works.

- The police can't compel you to provide evidence against yourself. They can find methods to 'crack the safe' but if by doing so, they destroy the contents, that's "their" fault, hence why they clone your devices before looking for evidence.

- If YOU destroy the evidence, then you can indeed be brought up for impeding the investigation and destroying evidence, in as much as they can prove the evidence was there to begin with and that there is no other evidence that can be used in it's place. In order for you to be charged though, they would have to know the evidence was there in the first place or have a witness to the fact that the evidence was there. Usually witness accounts aren't well accepted without evidence but if you destroyed evidence, it's more commonly accepted.

- You cannot be charged without evidence even if you have destroyed it. They can substitute evidence for proof of the evidence existing and you destroying it, they can't just say that you were the shooter on the grassy knoll because they suspect you destroyed the evidence of being the shooter.

It's unlikely that a single piece of evidence makes you walk free though so destroying the evidence is counterproductive.

Re:This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[Plumpaquatsch]

There is a legal difference though. Apparently here police cannot ask you to unlock the phone by passcode or fingerprint, but showing it your face is perfectly fine.

Yawn - https://techcrunch.com/2017/09...

I also quizzed Federighi about the exact way you “quick disabled” Face ID in tricky scenarios — like being stopped by police, or being asked by a thief to hand over your device.

“On older phones the sequence was to click 5 times [on the power button], but on newer phones like iPhone 8 and iPhone X, if you grip the side buttons on either side and hold them a little while — we’ll take you to the power down [screen]. But that also has the effect of disabling Face ID,” says Federighi. “So, if you were in a case where the thief was asking to hand over your phone — you can just reach into your pocket, squeeze it, and it will disable Face ID. It will do the same thing on iPhone 8 to disable Touch ID.”

This will of course not work when the police asks for your phone. Sure.

Re: This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[Plumpaquatsch]

Or just wait for you to fall asleep

And hold open your eyelids so you look at the phone, else this won't work.

Re:This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[Plumpaquatsch]

Just a month ago the encryption key for the Secure Enclave firmware on the iPhone 5S's was found. While it doesn't mean someone can remote access the data from it, it does mean someone could load their own firmware on to an iPhone 5S's Secure Enclave. It also means the firmware can be analysed for vulnerabilities.

IT may be extremely difficult to get in to it, but I wouldn't go as far as saying its "literally impossible to reverse engineer, due to the high levels of iOS hardware security".

Sure, it's a high level of security, but nothing is perfect.

Yeah, all you have to do to get around this "security" is a lot of highly complicated stuff - after you got around the security first.

Re:This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[seemaahmed1980]

I'm just a makeup artist from https://asianbridallooks.com/ and no lawyer but in UK the law can force you to reveal passcode and passwords when they want you to enter devices. The penalty for not complying is 2 years imprisonment. Obviously this is only used for serious offences as a court order is needed where the judge orders one to reveal the passcode or password.

Re: This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[k2r]

> While it doesn't mean someone can remote access the data from it, it does mean someone could load their own firmware on to an iPhone 5S's Secure Enclave

Youâre not an engineer, are you?
It means that you can have a look at the encrypted binary before installation. It does not mean you can sign and install your own binary.
I donâ(TM)t get why they encrypt the binary at all - it does not make a sound implementation more secure...

Re:This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[zieroh]

By replacing the tactile feedback with haptic feedback using the vibration motor, Apple was able to eliminate all the moving parts from the home button

You've just contradicted yourself in one sentence. A vibration motor (or whatever they use for haptics) is by definition a moving part.

Re:This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[Plumpaquatsch]

The iPhone 7/8 Touch ID sensor innately provides proximity/pressure sensitivity without need of moving parts.

But unlike the "more parts" needed for Face ID, it still is subject to a lot of pressing (sometimes excessive), not to mention grease, sweat, dust, water and whatever else the environment throws at it.

Re:This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[The Good Reverend]

It gives you the option to call emergency services, but it doesn't auto-dial.

Re:This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[chispito]

In iOS 11, just click the power button 5 times - that temporarily disables both TouchID and FaceID, requiring a passcode to unlock the phone

That's a nice fail safe but doesn't help if your phone is taken before you can go through those steps.

Re:This guy has no idea how Face ID works

[Plumpaquatsch]

apple's "secure elements" aren't exactly secure, either. how easy was it for the fbi to get into the shooter's phone *without* apple's assistance? and secure enclave has been hacked on previous model, means no model iphone is safe from being completely opened.

Errm, the shooter's phone didn't have the Secure Enclave, and of course neither did previous phones.

You're showing your password to everyone

[Ayano]

A good enough mask or disguise can open your devices now.

Re:You're showing your password to everyone

[burtosis]

Supposedly you can't fool the sensor with a professional Hollywood mask. They don't use a camera like some crappy phones do today, it's a miniature infrared lidar sensor, like what google uses on thier self driving car.

Re:You're showing your password to everyone

[Ayano]

You're saying it's impossible to sculpt a head with accurate 3d proportions to fool the sensor? People's faces change, and the scanner needs to have some tolerance. Getting in that goldilocks zone is merely a matter of how accurate the sculpt is; and with machine aided sculpting, and printing, relying on "It's too difficult to replicate" isn't a valid defense.

Re:You're showing your password to everyone

[burtosis]

Obviously nothing is impossible. However you can't simply hold up a photo or even have a professional make one by hand. Perhaps you could use a scanner and 3-d print a mask, then carefully texture and paint it, but it is far far harder than lifting a fingerprint left anywhere and 3-d printing it.

Re: You're showing your password to everyone

[burtosis]

I ran out of fingers myself from the touch sensor. Thank the gods I didn't use my manhood on the sensor, that would have been a serious mistake.

Re:You're showing your password to everyone

[Ayano]

Rather than getting a court order to open your phone. They can hire a company to 3d print your face on a mannequin. Yes it is difficult, but not computationally impossible akin to current respected encryption keys and multi-factor locks.

Re:You're showing your password to everyone

[burtosis]

That's going to be a far bigger pain in the ass than a touch sensor where they can compel you to unlock it. Also after two tries it rolls over to passcode permanently so the method you suggest isn't likely to even work with a perfect mask. That's why it failed at the launch demo, too many people looked at the phone in a locked state.

Re:You're showing your password to everyone

[peragrin]

If they are using ir sensors not only do you have to match physical contours but heat maps as well.

Though I have not played with that to test it.

Re:You're showing your password to everyone

[Opportunist]

So in other words it's likely to fail anyway in a crowded area?

Re:You're showing your password to everyone

[Plumpaquatsch]

A good enough mask or disguise can open your devices now.

Well, the IMF was able to get past TouchID too.

Re:You're showing your password to everyone

[Plumpaquatsch]

Rather than getting a court order to open your phone. They can hire a company to 3d print your face on a mannequin. Yes it is difficult, but not computationally impossible akin to current respected encryption keys and multi-factor locks.

Sure, and if they are faster than the max. 48 hours before they have to re-enter your passcode to get in, it could work. If they also manage to get past the “attention detection”. If you don't just disable Face ID before handing over your phone by pressing one of the side buttons for a few seconds.

Right answer, wrong analysis

[GlobalEcho]

If Mr. Lapinski (the blogger) thinks this will have any significant effect on governments' efforts and success to incorporate facial recognition in the approaching Orwellian utopia, then he is nuts.

On the other hand, I agree that a touch ID on the back would have been nicer. Mostly because I don't want to have to aim my phone in a certain direction for it to unlock.

Get a grip

[MikeMo]

This guy is just making stuff up. First off, he has no idea if people around the phone owner also get scanned. Secondly, Apple doesn't take a picture of anyone, only a hash of a mathematical representation of the 3D scan of the facial contours created from the 3D projector. And finally, it doesn't send that (irreversible) hash anywhere - it stores it internally in the Secure Enclave, so it wouldn't even matter if they *where* scanning other faces.

Get a grip, man, I'm sure you can find other things to hate them for, you don't have to make stuff up!

Why didn't anyone hate on Samsung for *actually* taking pictures?

Re:Get a grip

[Gabest]

Because only evil Chinese and Russian companies work with their government.

Re:Get a grip

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the external evidence makes it really fucking obvious what's happening.

  - it's possible to observe the IR the camera projects
  - it's possible to observe that it continues to work in pitch black, when the visible light camera can't pick anything up
  - it's possible to observe that the flash storage of the device is not affected when you store a new face
  - it's possible to observe that nothing goes across the network when you use the scanner

You don't need to see the source to verify the claims apple is making.

Re:Get a grip

[zieroh]

Why do you think it would need to store it at all?

You've got to store *something* initially to refer to later, when you try to unlock the phone. I mean, duh.

More to the point the data that it does store is not simply a hash. A hash can be used for comparison but not for machine learning that it does to keep up with gradual changes like ageing, hair, growing a beard, etc.

You're about 20 years behind in your understanding of what's happening here.

Re:Get a grip

[AmiMoJo]

It can't be a simple hash, because the measurements are not precise enough to give the exact same results every time. But yes, it's not a photo.

Samsung doesn't take photos either. And their latest models don't use facial recognition, they use iris scanning which also doesn't take a photo.

Re:Get a grip

[joh]

If you're serious about not trusting anyone you never should use any device with a camera or a microphone - both could be used to spy on you all the time. I don't see any reason why FaceID should be special here.

Re:Get a grip

[cmseagle]

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.

Re:Get a grip

[houghi]

Apple doesn't take a picture of anyone, only a hash of a mathematical representation of the 3D scan of the facial contours created from the 3D projector.

Isn't that the same if you are paranoia? I mean, it still is a representation of you.

Re:Get a grip

[MikeMo]

Not the same thing. What happened was that several people "looked at" the phone as if they were trying to unlock it, the unlock failed, and the phone reverted to requiring the unlock code instead. It wasn't just randomly scanning faces as people passed by. That would make it totally unusable, wouldn't it?

Re:Get a grip

[Plumpaquatsch]

If you're serious about not trusting anyone you never should use any device with a camera or a microphone - both could be used to spy on you all the time. I don't see any reason why FaceID should be special here.

Of course you shouldn't have any phone at all anyway, so ...

Nonsense really

[burtosis]

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.

Re:Nonsense really

[vux984]

No one is forcing you to use the sensor and a simple piece of tape or a case can obscure it.

Yeah, because people want to put tape on their 1000 dollar phone. And cases are generally designed to work not to block, so they'll have a hole where a hole is required.

To be honest the cops forcing people to touch unlock their 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.

Under what legal theory are you operating under? Why can't they can't hold your phone up to your face to unlock it?

Re:Nonsense really

[burtosis]

It dosent work if you scrunch up your face, or close an eye, or not look at it. After two tries it rolls over to passcode, that's why the demo failed at launch (people messing with it in back).

Re:Nonsense really

[burtosis]

They can't force you to look at it, keep both eyes open, not contort your face, etc. after two tries it goes to passcode. IANAL but my understanding is there is no legal precedent yet.

Re:Nonsense really

[burtosis]

Also just like people have manual covers for a laptop camera, I expect cases to have them as well. If not I'll make some myself and sell them.

Re:Nonsense really

[AHuxley]

Depends on the country. Some can "ask" a court (not the person) for DNA, a blood test, other medical tests.
Why not ask for a court to request that "look" to unlock?
If no later security was enabled after the needed face thats how police will try to get in.
Another neat law change makes just keeping encryption the crime.

Re:Nonsense really

[Anonymous Coward]

Original comment: "it appears they won't yet be able to force you to facial unlock the phone"

Follow-up comment: "IANAL but my understanding is there is no legal precedent yet."

These claims are not remotely in agreement. In fact, they are opposites: If there is no legal precedent one way or the other, then of course police will take the presumed liberty to do whatever they want, and dare the courts to stop. And in many cases not even then. That's like, almost the entire history of policing in a nutshell.

Re:Nonsense really

[Opportunist]

I'm not so sure about this. Does the phone notice when you're unconscious?

Re:Nonsense really

[burtosis]

Punching you in the face won't make it work and using thier hands to force your face into compliance Won't work either. If two people look at the phone in a locked stage it rolls over to passcode, its the reason why the demo failed at launch. Please tell me how someone could force you to unlock it because it sounds nonsensical. Even legally compelling a person is iffy because you could blame the roll over to passcode on the phone saying it never works right.

If the cops want to beat the everloving shit out of you, or abuse thier authority to search and take things they don't have a right to they don't need an excuse. Beating the crap out of you only ensures the phone won't visually unlock.

Re:Nonsense really

[burtosis]

Obviously not. From the descriptions the person would need to be looking straight ahead, without a surface pressed to the side of thier face, with thier eyes open. Maybe you could glue thier eyes/lids in the right direction or something. But it's far better than just a touch sensor a seven year old can defeat

Re:Nonsense really

[burtosis]

The default is two tries and it goes to a mandatory passcode. It fails even if people look at the locked phone, this caused the failure at the demo launch as people looked at it backstage and it no longer worked during the demo live on TV.

Re:Nonsense really

[Opportunist]

So I not only have to knock you out but superglue your eyelids open. Alternatively I have to trick you into looking my way while holding the phone in your direction.

Re:Nonsense really

[burtosis]

So you are saying if they rough up your children in front of you, then blow off one of thier hands with a shotgun, you would gladly offer your face to unlock the phone but wouldn't dream of entering the passcode? I dare you to make less sense.

You can't fight "convenience"

[davide marney]

I've been thinking about the coming sensor wave for some time, and what I've concluded is this: give people something genuinely more convenient, and they will trade it for slightly more risk, every time. It won't even be close.

Why? Because people intuitively want to use ALL their senses to control their environment. It's something they've been doing their entire lives, and your typical computer interface really stinks by comparison. Heck, even something mundane like driving a car provides a hugely richer control experience than using any smartphone app you can name.

Computer-human interfaces suck. You can't fight progress in this area.

Re:You can't fight "convenience"

[WaffleMonster]

I've been thinking about the coming sensor wave for some time, and what I've concluded is this: give people something genuinely more convenient, and they will trade it for slightly more risk, every time. It won't even be close.

So is the "coming sensor wave" genuinely more convenient?

Why? Because people intuitively want to use ALL their senses to control their environment. It's something they've been doing their entire lives, and your typical computer interface really stinks by comparison.

Seems quite a lot of people would rather send text messages than talk on a phone.

Only a small minority seem to have much interest at all in video phones.

It's increasingly popular for people to buy things from flat 2d websites rather than shop in real life and numerous experiments at 3Dish interfaces for virtual shopping malls..etc. have failed without any fanfare due to lack of interest.

Heck, even something mundane like driving a car provides a hugely richer control experience than using any smartphone app you can name.

This must explain why they are always reaching for their phones while driving. Driving is such a rich experience after all...

Computer-human interfaces suck. You can't fight progress in this area.

Fighting progress is basically the full time job of technology companies these days. Every time I turn around some asshat has invented a new means of screwing with me.

Profiting from market failure is a well known feature of capitalism.. there simply isn't much in the way of market incentive for progress. It simply isn't the objective function of the tech industry or any industry for that matter.

Re:You can't fight "convenience"

[davide marney]

> Is the coming sensor wave genuinely more convenient?

Do you use your smartphone to take photos? If yes, then you've answered your own question, I think.

> What about people preferring texting to phone calls?

There, the issue is multiplexing, I think. You can multiplex text messages easily, but not phone calls, at least not at the moment. Once one can control A/V streams by voice control, texting will die out.

> Fighting progress is what makes capitalism work.

That's just a silly observation, and not even worth comment, except to note that you probably made it using a computing device which has been doubling in capacity and features every year for more than a decade.

Re:You can't fight "convenience"

[WaffleMonster]

Do you use your smartphone to take photos?

I use a standalone camera. Higher surface area lens + higher quality sensor = better pictures. I find interface of real cameras to be a far better experience vs. touching slates of barely daylight visible glass.

The bigger question is why is any of this relevant? Are you asserting "coming sensor wave" is about smartphone cameras?

It's been nearly impossible to buy a phone even a dumb feature phone in the last decade without a camera... with 100% saturation cameras are OLD news. This begs the question what is a "coming sensor wave"?

There, the issue is multiplexing, I think. You can multiplex text messages easily, but not phone calls, at least not at the moment. Once one can control A/V streams by voice control, texting will die out.

All major smartphone platforms have supported voice dictation for years.

That's just a silly observation, and not even worth comment, except to note that you probably made it using a computing device which has been doubling in capacity and features every year for more than a decade.

It's a well understood side effect of unconstrained capitalism that came to me in a dream as I was sleeping thru Geo 130. Basically the objective function of corporations is generally always profit.

Sometimes "profit" and "progress" are aligned. Those working on discreet things where more x or better y yields profit tend to align more with progress. If your working to bring a new process node online, develop higher density interfaces and storage or improve power efficiency you have limited avenues for turning a profit other than delivering better hardware the market wants. You make money by kicking ass and taking names.

Those working software are under no such constraint. The opportunities to make money by means of being a little dipshit is infinite especially in the age of the Internet. Instead of improving your operating system you can opt to turn solitaire and minesweeper into pay apps. You can spend all kinds of time inventing new ways to erect walled gardens to extract value from the work of others, spy on and control customers to create new profit streams by rent seeking, data collection and serving ads. Not only are these activities counter-productive they carry unappreciated opportunity cost associated with working for profit vs working for progress...you haven't just made your software less useable you also haven't worked to make it more valuable to actually create new value for your users. In the past decade things have progressively degraded in the software space to the point where business models of legitimate companies are now indistinguishable from malware vendors.

CIA, GCHQ, NSA capabilities

[AHuxley]

The security services have voice prints if a person is within 4 hops of anyone of interest to any security service.
Use a pay phone, VOIP, cell phone, new cell phone, that older cell phone that can still connect...
The security services don't care as long as the interesting person is still using a service that offers collect it all access.
The PRISM surveillance program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... showed what could be done.
New or old hardware, the trick is keeping the wider population talking. Any network, any device is part of collect it all.

Tape and passcode, any who?

[Balial]

If I can understand this guy's ramblings, he doesn't like that FaceID is so powerful, and he wishes he could unlock his iPhone X another way.

So stick some tape over the front facing camera and use a passcode. Get over it. People have been doing this with their laptop cameras for years.

Even if his argument was based in reality, which I'm not sure it is, there's a well-known work-around.

Face ID optional

[perpenso]

I believe it was mentioned in the keynote that FaceID is optional. That you could configure the phone for a passcode. Four digit passcodes are also only a default, longer passcodes an option.

Re:Face ID optional

[printman]

I'm pretty sure iOS 10 made the default passcode length 6 digits - it is hasn't been 4 since iOS 9...

Windows Hello

[Roger W Moore]

It's also available for Microsoft Surface devices which just goes to show how much things have changed. Now it's no problem when MS does it but when Apple does it's "Orwellian and creepy".

Re:Windows Hello

[sheramil]

It may be "available" for Surface, but is it required? AFAICT if you have an iPhone 10 you're stuck with using your face to unlock your phone whether you like it or not.

Or a recent picture of your face. Or someone else pushing your face up against the camera, which is preferable to them removing your face, I guess.

Re: Windows Hello

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Windows Hello

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as you can tell is apparently not very far. iPhone 10 can be locked and unlocked with a passcode. In fact even if you use face ID the passcode is mandatory.

Re: Windows Hello

[zieroh]

and apple is the only company I dont trust with this info.

So, you would trust google with that information?

Re:Windows Hello

[zieroh]

AFAICT if you have an iPhone 10 you're stuck with using your face to unlock your phone whether you like it or not.

This is just plan false.

Re: Windows Hello

[Anonymous Coward]

And Apple doesn't get this info.

The face ID data stays on your phone in the secure enclave. It doesn't go to Apple.

That's the idiocy of this entire thing, Apple isn't getting the data.

Re:Windows Hello

[Z00L00K]

Or is it actually more like "Brave New World"?

Re:Windows Hello

[hawguy]

Nope - a picture will not unlock it - it works on 3D shape, not on image comparison - hence why it works in pitch black - because it's using IR to measure the shape, not visible light.

It's a good thing there's no commonly available technology that someone could use to print a 3d replica of your face.

Re:Windows Hello

[cheesybagel]

IR is (invisible)light you idiot.

Re:Windows Hello

[sg_oneill]

Its taking a 3D (As in I believe theres a couple of cameras) IR picture, so it would be pretty hard to forge.

But as you say theres nothing to stop them from forcing you to unlock it. Unfortunately its going to be hard to convince a judge that "look at this phone" is a violation of miranda

Re: Windows Hello

[Plumpaquatsch]

Aren't they the company that isn't giving you the choice to turn Bluetooth or Wi-Fi off. I see a pattern here ...

Well, given that you are wrong, you are obviously doubly wrong. And before you point me to yesterdays story: RTFA, you can turn off both in Settings.

Re: Windows Hello

[Plumpaquatsch]

And Apple doesn't get this info.

The face ID data stays on your phone in the secure enclave. It doesn't go to Apple.

It doesn't even go outside the secure enclave.

Re:Windows Hello

[Plumpaquatsch]

It's also available for Microsoft Surface devices which just goes to show how much things have changed. Now it's no problem when MS does it but when Apple does it's "Orwellian and creepy".

It may be "available" for Surface, but is it required? AFAICT if you have an iPhone 10 you're stuck with using your face to unlock your phone whether you like it or not.

To paraphrase your .sig: There's no "IQ" in "jenningsthecat ( 1525947 )"

Re: Windows Hello

[Freischutz]

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:

https://opensource.apple.com/

.. 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.

Re: Windows Hello

[Joce640k]

Yet another deluded fanboy...

https://www.theguardian.com/te...

Re: Windows Hello

[Joce640k]

That is what Apple tells you, yes.

Re: Windows Hello

[Blymie]

You have a weird definition of 'open source'. By your above link, I see a bunch of bsd/OSS/other open source software bits, most of them just ... glue bits.

Where's the kernel? Firmwares? Boot scripts? Ability to build the entire OS from scratch?

By this claim (a page with some OSS bits), you'd be able to call Windows "open source" too. It has bash, and lots of other OSS bits now. So?

(NOTE: this isn't a reason to hate Apple, any more than it's a reason to LIKE Apple... you can be open source and evil, and closed source and good)

Re: Windows Hello

[angel'o'sphere]

Google is not soulless, you insensitive clod!
They got at least my soul already!!

Re: Windows Hello

[berj]

Sadly (for you), you're the one who's deuded.

As the GP correctly said.. you can turn both radios fully off in the settings. Your link only talks about the control centre toggles (which do behave in a new and kinda weird way in iOS 11)

Re: Windows Hello

[MikeMo]

You seem to keep ignoring or not understanding that the data used for facial recognition can not be used to re-create the face (the same is true for the fingerprint data used with TouchID). So, even if some EVIL FUTURE GOVERNMENT forced an EVIL APPLE to hand over the data (which they don't even have, it's only on the phone), it wouldn't do said evil government any good.

Re: Windows Hello

[pastafazou]

From the article you linked to:

The new, redesigned Control Centre in iOS 11, which appears to allow users to toggle various settings such as turning wifi and Bluetooth off, doesn’t actually turn them completely off.

However, from the SAME ARTICLE:

To actually turn off Bluetooth and wifi users will need to head into the Settings app and manually turn them off, which deactivates them until 5am the next morning, or use Airplane mode.

Maybe you should have actually read the article instead of just the attention grabbing headline.

Re: Windows Hello

[ctilsie242]

Apple has a lot to lose if people find out the Secure Enclave is not doing what Apple said. Unlike Google, who is hard to avoid, consumers can give Apple the middle finger quite easily and jump ship. Apple's good name is why people pay more for their hardware.

Of all the companies that have large databases on people, I would expect Apple to be the most worried if they got compromised, mainly because of the "boutique" status of their products, and the relative ease it is to jump ship, either from macOS to Windows (or even Linux), or from iOS to Android.

Re: Windows Hello

[Paradise Pete]

Aren't they the company that isn't giving you the choice to turn Bluetooth or Wi-Fi off. I see a pattern here ...

The pattern is that your seem to gather knowledge by reading headlines. Surely a moment's thought would tell you how ridiculous that sounds.

Re: Windows Hello

[Paradise Pete]

Or in the control panel you can hit Airplane Mode, which is Right Friggin' Next to Them. You even get slashes drawn through the bluetooth and wifi indicators showing that they're now disabled.

Re:Windows Hello

[Paradise Pete]

you can rapidly press the power button repeatedly.

You don't even have to do that. Just squeeze both sides. Briefly holding buttons on both sides disables it.

Re: Windows Hello

[nawcom]

You have a weird definition of 'open source'. By your above link, I see a bunch of bsd/OSS/other open source software bits, most of them just ... glue bits.

Where's the kernel?

The kernel is xnu. It's listed there. They've been releasing the source code for it since the beginning. Here have some source tarballs: https://opensource.apple.com/tarballs/xnu/

With them providing the source code - by choice by the way, since not releasing the source code would not violate the BSD/CMU licenses - is what has made it possible to modify the source and recompile for using AMD CPUs and other supported CPUs with OS X/macOS.

Boot scripts?

You mean launchd?

Firmware? Ability to build the entire OS from scratch?

By this claim (a page with some OSS bits), you'd be able to call Windows "open source" too. It has bash, and lots of other OSS bits now. So?

(NOTE: this isn't a reason to hate Apple, any more than it's a reason to LIKE Apple... you can be open source and evil, and closed source and good)

They've always kept a lot of their OS X UI closed up but running Darwin by itself and launching X11 off it for a UI (similar to Linux or *BSD) has always been an option. I'd say though since Darwin 10/11 (OS X 10.6/10.7) they've been making it harder, closing updated versions of core driver components up. Same goes for some of the other device drivers for networking cards, newer hardware etc. - in the early 10.0-10.5 days they seemed to be more open about it but they haven't been so open with new device support. It doesn't mean it isn't possible which is why devs have written many of their own drivers to support unsupported hardware. PureDarwin is the current project for running a complete OS based on the open source components of macOS and they're currently working with Darwin 16 (macOS 10.12).

You're making a very fair point but it seems most people who like to point this out don't seem to be too knowledgeable about the OS, what Apple still provides the source for, and what you can do with it.

Re: Windows Hello

[tibit]

It's also pretty cool that you can mix and much open-source and closed components quite well. No such thing from MS on their OS front so far.

Re: Windows Hello

[LocalH]

It's done entirely in hardware. Completely separate processor from the running OS.

Re: Windows Hello

[LocalH]

The new device also has an "emergency mode" that disables Face ID. If you can discreetly tap the new elongated lock button five times, then it defeats that. Much better than requiring a reboot as with Touch ID.

Re: Windows Hello

[LocalH]

Nice FUD

Re: Windows Hello

[Joce640k]

So what you're saying is that it'll turn them on again for you, automatically.

I'm sure that's a great convenience, having to remember to turn them off again. Every day.

Re: Windows Hello

[Joce640k]

Or in the control panel you can hit Airplane Mode, which is Right Friggin' Next to Them.

Yeah, because not being able to receive calls is the reason you paid all that money for an iPhone, right?

Re: Windows Hello

[Paradise Pete]

good point. Didn't; occur to me, because...who gets phone calls anymore? But you're right. However, since clearly the third state is already in there and supported, Apple just needs to (and should) make it a three state switch for each of bluetooth and wifi.

Re: Windows Hello

[Plumpaquatsch]

That is what Apple tells you, yes.

And I am supposed to believe you instead of Apple and all the others who have checked their claims and support what they say. Because of your track record on Slashdot; which AFAIR is pure shit.

Don't like it?

[Atmchicago]

Don't buy it.

Re:Don't like it?

[Opportunist]

Unfortunately it's a bit like smoking, not doing it yourself isn't really enough to protect you, someone in your vicinity doing it is already bad for you.

Re:Don't like it?

[JohnFen]

not doing it yourself isn't really enough to protect you, someone in your vicinity doing it is already bad for you.

How so?

I honestly don't see how Face ID can adversely impact me just because someone in my vicinity is using it.

Re:Don't like it?

[Opportunist]

There's a camera in the room with facial recognition software practically mated to it. How naive do you have to be to not be wary of something like that?

Re:Don't like it?

[JohnFen]

In looking at how the system works and what it's doing, I don't see how it poses a privacy risk to me. It's not (and can't) identify everybody it sees. All it's doing is identifying whether the face it sees is the one that it knows or not.

Listen, I'm extremely privacy-oriented (as demonstrated by the number of times I get called "paranoid" in the comments on /.), and I'm hardly naive. But I just don't see the risk here.

Re:Don't like it?

[Opportunist]

What it does is create a hash of a face it sees. Whether that hash gets stored somewhere is anyone's guess.

Now, the hash cannot be reversed to produce my face, much like the hash of a password cannot. But what can be done is checking whether my face creates the same hash.

So no, you cannot take a terrorist's cellphone and flip through it to get everyone he was in contact with. What you can do, though, is compare the results of hashes that are stored with the hashes other "suspects" (read: someone you need some reason to arrest) faces produce.

Apple Users

[DMJC]

Dear Apple and Microsoft users. Maybe if you care about freedoms, you should be supporting platforms which respect you as a user and support your right to privacy and freedom. Sincerely, someone who doesn't compromise their integrity by using systems which are broken by design. All of this was foretold, all of this was preventable, and yet people chose to vote against their own interests with their wallets, and they now reap what they have sown.

Re:Apple Users

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like Android whose sole purpose was to give Google even more access to your information so they can on sell it to advertisers ?

Or how about those creepy home assistants that sit and listen (and send into) to everything that happens in your house.

Or the email providers who scan all of your incoming and outgoing email for information gathering so they can sell more adverts.

Yeah, gotcha.

Re:Apple Users

[zieroh]

Dear Apple and Microsoft users. Maybe if you care about freedoms, you should be supporting platforms which respect you as a user and support your right to privacy and freedom. Sincerely, someone who doesn't compromise their integrity by using systems which are broken by design.

Better than using a system that is broken by by lack of design, which is what Linux is. And I like Linux. But if you think I'm going to use it on my laptop as my main interface to the world, you need to stop smoking crack.

Re:moron

[DontBeAMoran]

I don't have a cover but I don't place my finger on the back. I hold it by the sides like a normal human being. A fingerprint scanner in the back of a phone is like a steering wheel in the back of your seat.

I'm going to be LMAO,

[jenningsthecat]

when October 31st rolls around and everyone who has an iPhone 10 and is wearing a mask discovers that they have to take off part of their costume just to make a phone call. If part of their get-up is heavily applied makeup and/or latex, they may not be able to use their phones at all without pretty much destroying their disguise. In addition to Hallowe'en there are also Mardi Gras, parades, high school plays, and on and on.

A phone that's constantly scanning even strangers' faces without their consent is rude, obnoxious, insidious, and invasive. A phone that its owner might not be able to use while he or she is wearing a mask or heavy makeup, is just plain stupid. Way to go Apple!

Re:I'm going to be LMAO,

[xlsior]

...If it doesn't recognize you, you can still get in simply by entering your PIN -- no one is getting locked out.

Re:I'm going to be LMAO,

[zieroh]

when October 31st rolls around and everyone who has an iPhone 10 and is wearing a mask discovers that they have to take off part of their costume just to make a phone call.

I'm guessing you don't work on anything more complicated than a horoscope generator, then. Clearly, the fallback in this case would be the passcode. Did you seriously not consider that? And because you didn't actually consider that possibility, did you seriously not consider that Apple engineers would consider it? Or were you just trying to score snark points?

Seriously, which is it? I want to know.

Re:I'm going to be LMAO,

[Opportunist]

...provided it ain't too cold to take your gloves off...

Re:I'm going to be LMAO,

[Rakarra]

Clearly, the fallback in this case would be the passcode. Did you seriously not consider that?

How many people will remember their passcode when they don't use it all the time? That's the only reason why anyone remembers an unlock code -- they use it. Do you remember the pin number that came with your credit credit? No, not your ATM/credit card; most credit cards come with a PIN so you can access the cash advance limit through an ATM. If you're like me, you might have seen it once, trashed it, and not even remember if you'd seen it. But my bank's ATM PIN I only remember because I use it every other week, and I still only remember that because it's a number that is meaningful to me elsewhere (which isn't very secure).

Not mandatory

[seven of five]

Don't like face ID?
Use a passcode. Or no security at all...

Loser techno-pundit writes clickbait, gets clicks

[mveloso]

OMG, this door thing is creepy. There's a window where someone can look at me but I can't look at them, and they need to actually let me in! I can't just walk into a cave anymore! WTF!

3D depth map of face, not just a 2D image

[perpenso]

Never mind the detail that the iPhone X facial recognition is a LOT more complex than to my knowledge any other customer level gadget out there

prove it by providing technical facts, not iPropaganda.

Like the fact that it has special hardware for detecting the 3D topology of your face, a 3D depth map. That it is *not* simply looking at a 2D image as other current facial recognition software does, as the 8-9 year old platforms referenced did.

"Face ID
With the Home button and Touch ID gone, Apple's new way of unlocking the iPhone X is called Face ID. The feature uses the new front-facing camera setup, which includes the lens, a new IR camera, a flood illuminator, dot projector, and ambient light sensor, along with 3D-sensing facial recognition software to identify your face and unlock the handset. This system virtually projects 30,000 IR dots on your face that are then stored on the smartphone. The phone references that dot-map whenever you look at the front of the device so it can identify you as the correct owner and unlock itself. Apple is calling the new technology system that enables Face ID its "True Depth Camera system.""
https://arstechnica.com/gadget...

Re:3D depth map of face, not just a 2D image

[Camembert]

Exactly. Apple had face recognition in iphoto since several years, they could easily have adapted it quickly for use in a phone, but what they did required serious engineering. Saying that X had the feature earlier is naive. Comparing Apples to, well, Koreans.

Re:3D depth map of face, not just a 2D image

[phayes]

Under what rock (or more likely bridge) were you living to not hear that FaceID updates your 3D face map as time goes on?

AC idiot troll once again proven too dumb to actually inform itself before posting

Re: 3D depth map of face, not just a 2D image

[perpenso]

"serious engineering." Sorry, but this requires a bit of perspective; phones aren't serious engineering, regardless of the manufacturer.

When you consider that Apple is also designing the CPU/GPU and coprocessors (ex motion), yes it is.

Re: 3D depth map of face, not just a 2D image

[perpenso]

Kinect had that sort of technology a while ago.

Good point.

You can burn your fingerprints,

[TheOuterLinux]

but you can't burn your face (or you shouldn't). How hard would it be to 3d print a missing dead guy's face? They'll have the data for it soon. Someone should make a Game of Thrones God of many faces parody for this. And you know, Facefarm is somehow going to find a way to be 5x's more creepy with this tech than Apple some how. They always find a way. I say we use our private parts to unlock our phones. I'd actually feel safer and it's not like the iPhone 11 won't be getting semen samples next, so mind as well.

Security Cameras

[chriswaco]

I wonder if the author minds that every store that he shops in and restaurant that he visits records his face on their video surveillance systems? Sure, maybe it's 2D instead of 3D, but much more pervasive.

Normalization isn't good, but we're already past..

[XSportSeeker]

I'll agree with the author with one single thing: it really isn't good that the face recognition tech is getting normalized and spread out as much, which is something that Apple tends to do through it's cult like fanbase and media love affair.

But let's be realistic for a moment here. First of all, public security cameras are already a thing, plus dashcams in some countries. And plenty of relatively good software for face recognition and identification are already out there, in real time and without any need for special cameras. In fact, we're already over face recognition and now encroaching on general recognition which is a full complexity step beyond it. Software that can use real time input of regular cameras to identify not only face, but also objects, animals, landscapes, even with some interpretation about the data. Not only that, the tech and code is already open source:
https://pjreddie.com/darknet/y...
For this particular application of surveillance technology, Apple isn't going to make much of a difference with a Face ID thing in their smartphones... we're already past Orwellian surveillance.

Second, iPhone X isn't even the first to do it. Samsung already had both face recognition and iris recognition in the failed Note S7, current S8, Note 8 and one Galaxy Tab. Not to mention how Microsoft came with Windows Hello years ago. So the timeframe for panicking has already passed if it's about personal devices with facial scanners.

The tech is already here, and no matter what one or another company does, it will be developed and used. Unfortunately, governments, policies and law hasn't quite catched up to the dangers of so much erosion of privacy, but we'll eventually have to get there, probably not without a very horrible round of feeling the consequences of living in a society that doesn't have almost any privacy protection anymore.

But like I said, it's too late to panic. In fact, it's the sort of short sightedness that lead us to this situation. If people are really feeling creeped out only now because Apple released some new phone with a whole bunch of old tech borrowed from past devices, then people are really trailing behind times.

Apple even sometimes tries to save face posing as a costumer friendly corporation that cares for stuff like privacy, but that's not where people should be looking at. It's governments, governmental agencies, the frequent overstepping of citizens rights, all the revelations that came from multiple whistleblower cases... you see, nothing is changing. There is no public outcry and outrage. The Snowden leaks would have to have ended in a complete revolution and overturning of political power to stop something like an Orwellian dystopia. It's too late now. It certainly won't be as obvious or as clear as in, say, the 1984 novel, but it's already happening, make no mistake.

You can have absolute certainty that DARPA is probably already funding multiple projects for robots and cameras with advanced facial and object recognition cameras to be potentially deployed in several scenarios in the future. You can bet that autonomous cars in the future will do double duty in identifying people and potential criminal scenarios. We already live in a suveillance state, and things are only going to get worse, particularly with governments that are all about bravado, show of strength, and activelly persecuting citizens inside of their own nation because of their skin color or previous nationality. Apple is but a drop in the ocean.

OP has no idea how any of this works

[JonBoy47]

The OP is clearly ignorant of how the secure enclave works, or really any of the concept of operations of the Touch ID and/or Face ID sensors. Touch ID and Face ID both require the setting of a minimum 6 digit passcode for the device, as a backstop for the biometric sensor. The passcode is required for unlock after a device is rebooted, if the device ever goes more than 48 hours without being unlocked, and after 5 consecutive unsuccessful unlock attempts using the biometric sensor. FFS Craig Federighi (unintentionally) demoed this functionality during the damned keynote! Once the phone starts making you use the passcode, it only accepts passcode input from the touchscreen, and after 5 consecutive incorrect passcode inputs starts to impose increasingly long cool downs before the 6th and subsequent attempts.

Though I don't recall it being specifically addressed in the keynote, I can only imagine the Face ID sensor and secure enclave authenticate to each other in a manner similar to the way the Touch ID sensor does, as a countermeasure against the sensor being replaced with a alternative device with malicious functionality.

Re:OP has no idea how any of this works

[Opportunist]

And you're clearly ignorant of how easy it is to fool the fingerprint sensor. Unfortunately I have first hand experience just how easy it really is. A year ago we still made a lot of effort to pull it off, etching PCBs with fingerprints and creating "artificial" fingers... only to learn that Play-Doh and some graphite dust along with a child's toy fingerprint-taking kit would also do.

As for the various "security features" you list: That it needs the passcode after rebooting is worthless, I simply wait to steal (or rob) it from you until after you turned it on. Does anyone actually turn their phone off anymore? I don't. Every time it runs out of power for some odd reason I actually have to ponder what my PIN was because it's been a few weeks by that moment.

I don't know whether iPhones crash more often than my phone does, though. That could be a reason to reboot, of course.

Second, not unlocked for 48 hours... when was that the case the last time? Is there a phone in the western hemisphere that's not used for security research or other development that isn't unlocked at least daily?

As for the 5 attempts: I need 1-2 for the fake finger. Reliably.

Spoiler alert

[93 Escort Wagon]

It recently leaked that - in the opening scene of Game Of Thrones Season 8, we'll see Arya Stark successfully unlock Littlefinger's iPhone X using his face.

Re:moron

[93 Escort Wagon]

Yup, gotta agree with you there. My fingers are never on the back of my phone - and wouldn't be, even if I didn't use a case.

Re:This just in âoeApple replaces FaceID with

[93 Escort Wagon]

Arrested Development had prior art on this.

Side-channel response from free market:

[hattable]

don't buy it. Yeah, the chance that enough people will refuse to buy the device due to privacy invasion feature X or Y will stop them. But you have done as much as you can in the situation. Perhaps switch to another phone that doesn't have a similar feature... hmm, I'm sure someone can suggest a modern phone without this feature. Or at least one that doesn't force you to use the face unlock...unlike the iphone. Or rather, just use this phone and set it up exactly like the Android!

Turn off facelock and be done with it. Or switch and stop bitching. Everyone wanted competition. Now, no one wants to make use of it.

Re:Side-channel response from free market:

[Opportunist]

Just point me to a sensible smart phone without cameras. You have any idea how hard it is to find one?

Re:Side-channel response from free market:

[Ash-Fox]

You have any idea how hard it is to find one?

I do now, less than a second. It was that easy to find on Google.

Re:Side-channel response from free market:

[Opportunist]

And they deliver to the EU?

We had a few more requirements, but in the end it was a bit of a struggle to actually find phones that give us what we needed. Not for a lack of features but actually for having too many.

Re:Side-channel response from free market:

[Ash-Fox]

And they deliver to the EU?

First link for me does.

https://www.aliexpress.com/sto...

Re:Side-channel response from free market:

[Opportunist]

I somehow doubt I get Aliexpress on the list of "trusted suppliers", but thank you.

I'm waiting for iPhone 13

[qzzpjs]

It will come with LickID. You lick the screen and it will analyze your DNA to check your authentication.

FaceID is pretty useless but

[phorm]

If the NSA can already hack the sensors on the phone, wouldn't they be able to pull pics from any front-facing camera app and not just the facial recognition?

Dear God, won't somebody please think...

[clickety6]

Won't somebody please think of the security of identical twins! How will the good twin ever get over the loss of not being able to use iFace without giving his evil twin brother access to his Twitter account.

This has nothing to do with 1983

[schleimkeim]

But we sure are living in the Brave New World.

I don't get it. Please clue me in.

[Opportunist]

I honestly don't get it. And I would really love to understand, I do.

What I can observe is that iPhones lose features that I would actually use and gain features that I can't really identify a sensible use for. In other words, to me they become inferior with every incarnation.

I can only assume that this is not the case in general, because the newer models of iPhones still sell in approximately the same number as the older models did when they came out. There has to be a reason for this. And please refrain from trolling like "because people are dumb", that's rarely the case. There are certainly cases of people who'd buy anything from brand X because ... reasons, but after 2-3 models of getting increasingly inferior products, they would stop doing it. So they actually must deem those products satisfactory.

And this is the part I don't get.

Do people really want these features? The unlock-by-fingerprint, unlock-by-face and the other recent additions that I'd call gimmicks at best and security risks at worst? While at the same time not missing the ability to attach headphones, replace the battery (or any part for that matter), use the software of their choice instead of what the vendor deems "appropriate" and so many other things where I simply cannot fathom why one would put up with it.

What the hell is the appeal of this thing? I got used to not fully understanding the motivation humans have, but why they actually consider newer models of iPhones superior to their (in my opinion) more versatile and useful older models completely puzzles me.

Re:I don't get it. Please clue me in.

[Voyager529]

The short version: People like us prefer our computers "do what we say". We will explicitly tell a computer to do a particular, non-default thing because we have some concept regarding how these things work.

The iPhone has a principally different paradigm: "do what I mean". The walled garden we see as keeping us in, generally keeps the baddies out for the general populous who has answered a "Windows technical support" call recently. The "do what I mean" crowd is perfectly content with a phone that lacks advanced features that they would never use. They're also okay with a device that works very similar to their old device, and seamlessly moves over their contacts and text messages and auto-downloads their apps and puts them in the same place. iPhones still do all of this incredibly well, and if it means they need an adapter for their headphones, it's a small price to pay.

Do I think the "wow" moments with the iPhone are behind us? Generally, yes. However, I think the appeal of $NEW_IPHONE is that the owner's current iPhone has a cracked screen and the battery requires three charges a day, and moving to the new model keeps things basically the same. This is what people are buying. And Apple still delivers this better than anyone else.

Re:I don't get it. Please clue me in.

[Maury Markowitz]

> other words, to me they become inferior with every incarnation ::rolleyes::

Like the best screen and camera of any smartphone, ever, and much faster performance?

Aren't those then things you *actually use*?

The rest is fluff, but it didn't stop you buying a phone before, did it?

Re:Not unlike ALL phones with cameras

[Opportunist]

So when you take *your* phone out, it's camera isn't also scanning every single other person in visual range of its one or perhaps two cameras??

No it isn't. Why would it? More important, how could it without power?

The difference is that I can (and do) disable my camera unless I explicitly need it. I can even disable it permanently if I have to for security reasons without completely crippling my smartphone.

Re:moron

[Opportunist]

You know, technology is today advanced enough that they can actually make holes into covers where such a sensor would be located.

Apple, too, might innovate it in a year or two.

Re:moron

[Opportunist]

Mine actually is. My Index finger is resting on the back of my phone when I make a phone call.

Hey, who'd have thought, different people have different habits!

Re:Simple question...

[Opportunist]

it's stored in a write only security chip

Ponder this for maybe 5 minutes. You might find out yourself why this is bullshit.

Re:What about a passcode?

[Opportunist]

We have a president for that.

Re:You Expected No Less?

[Opportunist]

But that facial recognition is an affront to the Arab world! According to Apple, all the women look the same when wearing those curtains.

Does Apple's website detect and censor negatives?

[shanen]

The Apple website (on several occasions) rejects my negative comments. Usually I'll be trying to describe my problem and the context, but at some point I apparently become too negative and the Apple website says it can't save the draft, and once that happens, whatever I've written cannot be posted. Doesn't seem possible to undo or reset the flag, whatever it is.

Has anyone else experienced this? If you are asking a question or making a comment in the Apple "Discussions", but your tone becomes too negative, then your comment suddenly becomes unpublishable? I suppose it could be based on human moderation, but I know that some of the sentiment analysis systems are becoming powerful enough to do it automatically without expensive and clumsy human beings in the loop.

Details of my most recent experience at https://slashdot.org/journal/2..., but this isn't the first time I've seen it. I think Apple has decided they need to control the tone of discussions or no one will pay $1,000 for their latest and greatest iPhone.

Isn't Apple already censoring negative comments?

[shanen]

I think your "future" has already arrive on the Apple website. If you get too negative, then your comment will be blocked. I think it's based on automatic sentiment analysis, but there might be a personalized element there, based on my prior negative comments. Most of them involved annoying problems with the voice dictation. I posted a longer description elsewhere in this discussion, but your comment was the only one to mention censorship.

Dear whoever,

[dschiptsov]

Using words like Orwellian and Creepy is pseudo-intellectual hipster's bullshit.

Apple 1984

[borisaman]

Well said that man. Funny thing is, so many people on this site claim to be intelligent, but put trust in a corporate company lol. Apple, Microsoft, Google, Samsung etc... they are ALL the same. The walls don't need ears, people are buying the government eyes and ears and installing them on their own

Re:Ass ID

[Plumpaquatsch]

They could have done Ass ID

Then you would have a conspiracy theory about "Tim Cook checking out my butt."

Dear Mac Enthusiasts

[gx5000]

Please do not buy X and start sending a message to this company that double charges you for the same hardware found in other devices.
Have you looked at the component list of manufacturers?!
How can one call this an apple product at all?
Part chosen and assemble by Apple maybe?
1984 by Ghost of Steve?
Seriously when will the masses wake up?

Re:Dear Mac Enthusiasts

[Mordaximus]

Please do not buy X and start sending a message to this company that double charges you for the same hardware found in other devices.
Have you looked at the component list of manufacturers?!
How can one call this an apple product at all?
Part chosen and assemble by Apple maybe?
1984 by Ghost of Steve?
Seriously when will the masses wake up?

Not to derail your clearly well thought out rant, but can you name a single manufacturer who also manufacture every single component in their device?They once said that Steve Jobs had a reality distortion field, but you sir have him beat by leagues.

Re:Dear Mac Enthusiasts

[thejynxed]

The parts in Apple's devices are made by the exact same manufacturers that fab the parts every other device (there are only three radio manufacturers for these devices to choose from after all). There are only so many board, screen, and chip fabs in the world. This is why the Chinese are able to take those same parts and slap them in their own clone devices for a fraction of the price that Apple charges (They go without iOS, even though the device was internally identical otherwise, and in some cases beat the iPhone to market in China at least). The same goes for smart tvs, etc. You see lots of brand names but the parts inside of them are virtually identical due to the same limitations in the amount of parts manufacturers (this is especially true about the visual panels themselves).

The person you replied to is right on the face of things, it's a device assembled of COTS parts to an Apple design spec, there is nothing inside of them that are manufactured by Apple or otherwise makes those parts in any way special from what is found in similar devices assembled from the same parts under other brand names.

Simple solution to this...

[Timothy2.0]

So, you want product XYZ without "features" ABC...Apple offers you XYZ *with* ABC...It looks like Apple's not giving you the product you want. Company not giving you the product you want? DON'T BUY IT.

Assume you can disable this in settings?

[Ensign_Expendable]

Can one switch this feature off in settings? It would be a shame to have to tape over part of the phone.

You know what's creepy?

[avandesande]

People posting pictures of themselves and information about their personal life on a public website

Let's be honest here

[JohnFen]

I have no way of knowing how secure or not secure Face ID is, so I'm not even going to venture a guess about that.

But, even if it is perfectly secure, are there really people who don't see that it's straight-up creepy?

Re:Let's be honest here

[Mordaximus]

I have no way of knowing how secure or not secure Face ID is, so I'm not even going to venture a guess about that.

But, even if it is perfectly secure, are there really people who don't see that it's straight-up creepy?

I for one don't find it at all creepy. The ultra paranoid could easily say that any smart phone turns on the front camera when the user is in front of it and discreetly sends it to {pick your favorite evil corporation/government entity}. You have no way of knowing if that's going on either. On the other hand, I'm far less likely to forget my face than the passcode I'm forced to change every 3 months, so I'm glad for the feature.

Re:Let's be honest here

[JohnFen]

I should have added a qualifier to my statement:

Are there really people who don't see that other reasonable people can find this straight-up creepy?

I'm not arguing the feature is bad, I'm merely stating that it not exactly beyond understanding why some people who recoil at it.

How is that different than fingerprint ID?

[Brannon]

...nothing? crickets...seriously it took 2 seconds to completely decimate your stupid argument.

Well me for one

[Maury Markowitz]

> who doesn't place their finger on the back of their phone

Me. I hold it with my thumb on the power button on the right, my first three fingers around the left side of the frame, and my pinky curled up so its on the bottom holding it up. None of my fingers is near the location of the sensor found on other phones.

Re:moron

[JohnFen]

I don't have a cover, but I almost always have one or two fingers on the back of my phone when I'm holding it. From my point of view, the back of the phone would be the the most convenient place for a fingerprint scanner.

Different strokes and all that.

No Apples

[stooo]

>> This means anyone within a several foot range of an iPhone X will get their face scanned by other people's phones
Moral of the story: don't frequent people who use Apple phones.