Apple Reduced Face ID Accuracy To Ease Production, Bloomberg Reports (bloomberg.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Reduced Face ID Accuracy To Ease Production, Bloomberg Reports (bloomberg.com)

Posted by msmash on Wednesday October 25, 2017 @05:20AM from the quality-over-quantity dept.

In order to speed up the production of iPhone X, which Apple plans to begin shipping starting November 3, the iPhone-maker told its suppliers that they could reduce the accuracy of the Face ID facial recognition system, Bloomberg reported on Wednesday, citing multiple people familiar with the matter. Earlier reports suggest that suppliers were facing difficulties manufacturing the Face ID system, something that was holding them back from manufacturing enough iPhone X units for the holiday season. From the report: As Wall Street analysts and fan blogs watched for signs that the company would stumble, Apple came up with a solution: It quietly told suppliers they could reduce the accuracy of the face-recognition technology to make it easier to manufacture, according to people familiar with the situation. Apple is famously demanding, leaning on suppliers and contract manufacturers to help it make technological leaps and retain a competitive edge. While a less accurate Face ID will still be far better than the existing Touch ID, the company's decision to downgrade the technology for this model shows how hard it's becoming to create cutting-edge features that consumers are hungry to try. And while Apple has endured delays and supply constraints in the past, those typically have been restricted to certain iPhone colors or less important offerings such as the Apple Watch. This time the production hurdles affected a 10th-anniversary phone expected to generate much of the company's revenue. Apple has denied the claims made in Bloomberg report.

130 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Apple has already denied it by orev · 2017-10-25 05:25 · Score: 5, Informative

Apple has already denied it: https://techcrunch.com/2017/10...
1. Re:Apple has already denied it by orev · 2017-10-25 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe they changed some manufacturing tolerance or something, or test procedures, and they could compensate in software some other way. Not the same as reducing accuracy.
2. Re:Apple has already denied it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-25 05:31 · Score: 0
  
  Which may mean much or little. They may have changed the specs in such a way that they can claim that the intent was not to reduce the accuracy, but to alter the functionality in some way. The fact that the accuracy happened to be reduced as a result is, of course, pure coincidence, yes sir.
3. Re:Apple has already denied it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-25 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  And apple has never lied before?
4. Re:Apple has already denied it by jellomizer · 2017-10-25 06:30 · Score: 2
  
  The problem is that News Organization in order to get the Headline over summarize something complex to a point where it is understandable to an 8th grader.
  Changing an engineering tolerance in a part once in mass production is actually fairly common action. This doesn't mean that they will reduce its accuracy as stated in its engineering specifications, but the lower tolerance would mean the mean of the products would reach the lower end of the tolerance range approved before manufacturing. I expect the problem is on this Dot generator on the iPhone X and they probably have problems reaching the maximum dot level... So other then 10,500 dots, it may have 10,031 Dots while the Specification says it needs to generate more then 10,000 dots. The tolerance level for the QA for the phone may had been 10,250 dots, and they lowered to to 10,000 dots.
  This isn't reducing the advertised capabilities, just lowering the tolerance levels for faster production.
  Just like the older iPhone are rated waterproof for 1 meter of water for 30 minutes, most of them released actually fair much better.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
5. Re:Apple has already denied it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-25 10:59 · Score: 0
  
  Can you give an example of them lying about something like this?
6. Re:Apple has already denied it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-25 13:26 · Score: 0
  
  Some will be like "I AM SHOCKED AND APPALLED!!!"
  Smarter others will realize all sorts of things like this already have some tuning offsets in there that says, "Face must be at least this accurate to be good". This sort of thing is based on probability, you can't say, "Face must match exactly this model".
7. Re:Apple has already denied it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-26 03:18 · Score: 0
  
  No no no... Apple is finally owning up to its phones being one facepalm after the other... now you can even mimic this action with your brand new iphone....
Face ID by 110010001000 · 2017-10-25 05:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

No one wants Face ID anyway. Apple and the tech industry has completely run out of ideas in the mobile space. You might as well improve profit margins instead.
1. Re:Face ID by VY99 · 2017-10-25 05:35 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah I'm with you, Face ID doesn't appeal to me in any way shape or form...at this point it seems like they're making changes for the sake of making changes rather than adding value to the user experience.
2. Re:Face ID by 110010001000 · 2017-10-25 05:46 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I don't think they have any ideas on how to improve the user experience at this point. It is a smartphone. I can't think of any features that I want that a modern smartphone doesn't have, except for durability. It would be great to have a smartphone that doesn't require a case to protect it from drops.
3. Re:Face ID by retchdog · 2017-10-25 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  yeah, no one wants face id specifically, but people do want a log-in that doesn't require a gesture but still deters at least casual intrusion. that happens to be done by face id, and the face id process/api is probably also going to be used for advertising/content delivery purposes.
  apple's profit margins are already high enough to be the wet dream of every executive in the tech industry.
  
  --
  "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
4. Re:Face ID by 110010001000 · 2017-10-25 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  They do? I'm pretty sure everyone is happy with PIN based logins. Does anyone even use Touch ID?
5. Re:Face ID by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2017-10-25 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  Problem is, we're at a point where any reasonably recent smartphone has plenty of processing power to do pretty much everything the average consumer wants.
  Apple, Google, Samsung, and others are struggling to come up with ways to distinguish their own hardware and keep people from treating their products as commodities, which would be a disaster for the companies' bottom lines.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
6. Re:Face ID by bluefoxlucid · 2017-10-25 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  What? I totally want FaceID! I can keep my Android phone safe while hacking into encrypted iPhones by holding the phone up to someone's Facebook page! Then I can tell everyone I'm Zero Cool!
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
7. Re:Face ID by geekmux · 2017-10-25 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  They do? I'm pretty sure everyone is happy with PIN based logins. Does anyone even use Touch ID?
  I can only assume you're being sarcastic here. Given the demand this generation has brought forth to automate and voice activate every damn thing, operating technology with as little effort as possible is now a design requirement.
  PIN based logins would require someone to lift more than a finger, which is why I see a lot of people using Touch ID. And Face ID reinforces the fact that now even lifting a finger is too much effort.
8. Re:Face ID by hipp5 · 2017-10-25 06:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They do? I'm pretty sure everyone is happy with PIN based logins. Does anyone even use Touch ID?
  Ah yes, the classic, "this is the way I experience things, ergo I'm sure that's how everyone else does too."
  I use the fingerprint reader on my Android and find it wayyyyyyy superior to using a PIN.
9. Re:Face ID by Bing+Tsher+E · 2017-10-25 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  I wanted a notch in my phone's display. It wasn't good when they implied the new Applephone would have no bezel. Faceid is just a good way of insuring that people know when watching a video that they have a genuine Apple product, because of that part of the view that is obscured.
10. Re:Face ID by 110010001000 · 2017-10-25 06:04 · Score: 2
  
  I'm not being sarcastic. Who is demanding automation and voice activation? The reason there is a current push to automation and voice activation is FOR TRACKING AND DATA COLLECTION PURPOSES. It is amusing you think it is about what YOU want.
11. Re:Face ID by Bing+Tsher+E · 2017-10-25 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  Apple uses Touch ID to brick phones repaired by an unauthorized third party. There is always a need to put terror into the heart of Apple customers who don't go directly to the 'Genius' bar when anything scary happens.
12. Re:Face ID by 110010001000 · 2017-10-25 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting. I never see anyone use the fingerprint reader. I guess there is always one guy.
13. Re:Face ID by ctilsie242 · 2017-10-25 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  FaceID means Apple has the "courage" to not to not worry about a fingerprint scanner, so more real estate used for the display on the phone.
  How about a compromise... stick the fingerprint scanner on the back. Everyone is happy now.
14. Re:Face ID by sexconker · 2017-10-25 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  I use a password on my Android device and I find it wayyyyyyyyy more secure than, and thus superior to, using a fingerprint reader.
15. Re:Face ID by Dixie_Flatline · 2017-10-25 06:11 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Well, and this was the problem in the first place. Apple's stats indicated most people weren't bothering to set a PIN, so the phones were unsecured entirely. TouchID made it possible to provide some modicum of security (as much as 4 digits is gonna get you anyway) while giving everyone enough convenience that they were happy to use it.
  FaceID has the potential to be a much better implementation AND do some interesting things with face mapping and depth mapping besides that (see the minimum-viable-product that is the snapchat filters that more accurately map to one's face).
16. Re:Face ID by tripleevenfall · 2017-10-25 06:15 · Score: 2
  
  Who uses TouchID?
  Just about every single iPhone user out there?
17. Re:Face ID by 110010001000 · 2017-10-25 06:15 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If most users don't care enough to set a PIN, then why would they care enough about biometric security for Apple to invest money in producing it? Maybe there is an other reason that Apple is pushing this.
18. Re:Face ID by jellomizer · 2017-10-25 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  I like the idea behind Face ID. Being that it is doing a 3d scan of your face, it makes it more secure then a finger print, which is much easier to duplicate.
  Also while the current Face Emoji are just silly. It does open the technology up to doing more interesting types of more practical work. If you are not looking at the device it could slow down the GPU to save battery. Improve accuracy on speech to text, as it can read your lips in connection on what you are saying. The technology could also be modified further for processing ASL for the hearing impaired.
  Being that your face information IS NOT sent to the cloud, like how the fingerprint reader doesn't send your finger print to the cloud, I don't the security problem with that.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
19. Re:Face ID by 110010001000 · 2017-10-25 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting. I don't. I guess I am the only one who doesn't use it. Carry on!
20. Re:Face ID by nine-times · 2017-10-25 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  I think Face ID is interesting tech, and potentially makes sense as a piece of the puzzle of authentication. I imagine that eventually there might be a variety of authentication factors that are weighted and considered together, intelligently, to verify a person's identity. For example, your phone could look at:
  * Your fingerprint
  * Your face
  * Whether you're wearing your smart watch
  * Location information (whether you're at home or at work)
  ... and perhaps some other things that I'm not thinking of, and then it could decide how to deal with security based on the context. Maybe if you're at home, and the phone sees your face and reads your fingerprint, it just unlocks. If you're in a place that you've never been before and it sees your face and reads your fingerprint, it still asks for a short PIN to unlock. If you're in a weird place and it reads your fingerprint but can't see your face, then it requires a different long complex password to unlock. Maybe it could bet that the phone won't unlock from FaceID itself, but it will show some limited information that it wouldn't show if your face were not identifiable.
  I'm just making that up on the spot, but my point is that, as these sensors get better and AI gets better, we might be able to train computers to really know whether you are who you say you are, and maybe even whether you're acting under duress.
  And that brings me to my second point: the value isn't just in authentication. If the camera can identify specific people better, and maybe eventually facial expressions, their may be other purposes it could be put to. Imagine you have a phone, tablet, computer, car, or home automation system that can easily identify the members of your family on sight, and adjust its behavior and preferences based on that. Just as an example: Put this system in your car, and then whenever you sit down in the driver's seat, it automatically adjusts the seat and pre-programmed radio stations the way you like it. Your wife sits down in the driver's seat, and the settings automatically adjust to her preferences.
21. Re:Face ID by 110010001000 · 2017-10-25 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  "Being that your face information IS NOT sent to the cloud, like how the fingerprint reader doesn't send your finger print to the cloud, I don't the security problem with that."
  
  Riiiight.
22. Re: Face ID by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-25 06:24 · Score: 0
  
  There are so much they could do to be different - they are not even trying when all they make is another standard smartphone.
  Camera:how about a shift lens? Not that hard to use, interesting, nobody else has it. Or the flash, how about putting it max distance from the lens, instead of right next to it? So much better light for photography.
  Fortunately, there are different phones around. The axon phone with two screens. Or the yotaphone with an extra epaper screen.
23. Re:Face ID by 110010001000 · 2017-10-25 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  How is this interesting at all? You could have built these types of systems 10 years ago. Do people really think that facial recognition was invented by Apple? Geez. This isn't AI. My car already has what you describe.
24. Re:Face ID by DontBeAMoran · 2017-10-25 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  I don't use TouchID on my iPhone.
  Posted from my iPhone 4.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
25. Re:Face ID by DontBeAMoran · 2017-10-25 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah... this isn't Space Quest III, it's real life.
  Go watch Apple's keynote. Even a 3D mask of your own face should fail to authenticate with FaceID.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
26. Re:Face ID by jellomizer · 2017-10-25 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  Mostly I don't think Face ID is an improvement to the User Experience, but an attempt to maximize screen space. A fingerprint reader takes a lot of space. Just because we have big fingers.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
27. Re:Face ID by nine-times · 2017-10-25 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  We've had facial recognition for a long time. We haven't had a lot of compact, practical, and reliable consumer implementations.
28. Re:Face ID by jellomizer · 2017-10-25 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  Being that the FBI had a hard time breaking into an older iPhone, that they had the actual system on hand. And Apple had stated that they do not store the information off the phone, And this phone will need to function in areas where there is no cell or network connections. There is little need to store in the cloud, and just a lot of risk if they do. I tend to take Apples word on this.
  Now they may be sending every time I use the phone, and where I am located, but I doubt they are sending my actual face info over.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
29. Re:Face ID by bluefoxlucid · 2017-10-25 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  Phil Schiller said they tested with 3D masks; he didn't say none of the masks fooled it. Still, point taken.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
30. Re:Face ID by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-25 06:41 · Score: 0
  
  They didn't care enough to TYPE a pin, as opposed to "setting" a PIN. Using TouchID takes effectively no effort. And this may come as a shocker, but the overwhelming majority don't give a flying fuck about the same privacy concerns you do.
31. Re:Face ID by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-25 06:43 · Score: 0
  
  Apple has done a good job of getting people to at least lock their phone with the fingerprint. Even kids are using it, if they want their friends to have access to the phone they'll register their friends' fingerprint, but mostly gone are the days of open access for anybody.
32. Re:Face ID by 110010001000 · 2017-10-25 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  Really? I had a webcam that did it 10 years ago, and so did my old Windows Phone. Maybe the reason they weren't more widespread is due to the fact no one wanted it. I don't see anyone asking for it, but maybe I missed it.
33. Re:Face ID by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-25 06:47 · Score: 0
  
  Most repairs work fine. The issue is twofold, the first part of it is outstanding security practice. The fingerprint reader is authenticated and access to the secure element is denied is that authentication fails. This is great for security, I can't just hook up a phony or a weaker reader and have it send registered fingerprints. Swapping it out shouldn't brick the phone though, it should deny anything involving the fingerprint but allow pin-based access to continue (maybe with a naggy warning message because it is theoretically a security risk).
34. Re:Face ID by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-25 06:48 · Score: 0
  
  I don't use it because I have an iPhone 5. My daughter uses hers on her 6s.
  I'm rusty on my statistics, what's the margin of error with a sample size of four out of 505,000,000?
35. Re:Face ID by 110010001000 · 2017-10-25 06:48 · Score: 2
  
  If you have privacy concerns, why are you carrying around a mobile tracking device which uploads your location and activities to Apple and anyone else? You are right, I am shocked.
36. Re:Face ID by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-25 06:50 · Score: 0
  
  Uh, they aren't incorrect. One of Apple's sales points for the last few years is just how much of the fancy processing is done locally on the device (phone or computer) without sending it off to the cloud, or using it for other purposes. If you are paranoid about Google data collection, Apple is not a bad alternative.
37. Re:Face ID by OneHundredAndTen · 2017-10-25 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  It seem that they are competing to find out who is able to add more junk to their devices. The fingerprint sensor was fairly ridiculous, but the face identification takes ridiculousness to a higher level.
38. Re:Face ID by R3d+M3rcury · 2017-10-25 06:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Okay, see, here's the thing:
  A PIN is a nuisance. 99 times out of 100, I'm opening my phone to look at something like Facebook or check movie times or take a picture or place a call or whatever. 1 time in 100, I'm using my phone to pay for something, transferring money between bank accounts, or some other system where I really want to make sure that there's a way for the phone to verify that it's me.
  What I want is some way for my phone to know it's me without me having to memorize some number. Fingerprints, retina scans, face scans, voice-print, whatever.
  Now, yeah, grampa, you can yell about the kids today and how when you were their age you memorized 57 different unique passwords and you were happy! They have no business being anywhere near your lawn.
39. Re:Face ID by Dixie_Flatline · 2017-10-25 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  It's all about friction. We KNOW that users are bad with passwords and all that jazz, and they feel like they should be better, but it's just one more thing they have to remember. It seems alien to a lot of us, but that's how it is. And that's why Apple made TouchID. The phones aren't unhackable, but they're close enough for most purposes, and they prevent casual intrusion if nothing else.
40. Re:Face ID by Archangel+Michael · 2017-10-25 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  Believe it or not, but all those "tracking features" you seem to think are intractable, are all easily defeated by a variety of means. Here is just the quick half dozen I could think of.
  1) Disable Data unless actually using it
  2) Disable Location.
  3) GPS Spoofing App
  4) VPN services
  5) Firewall rules
  6) DNS Encryption
  7) Change your ROM (Several available, different focus/approach)
  8) Incognito Mode
  The problem is, that there are plenty of different ways to improve the profile being generated by the "mobile tracking device", while still able to use the various features that it provides.
  However, I've found the best security for the paranoid among us, is to drop off the grid entirely, give up living in modern life, and hang out in a cave out in the middle of nowhere. But that would surely draw the attention of those looking to get you. Duh.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
41. Re:Face ID by UnknowingFool · 2017-10-25 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  I totally want FaceID! I can keep my Android phone safe while hacking into encrypted iPhones by holding the phone up to someone's Facebook page!
  Other than the fact that's not how FaceID works.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
42. Re:Face ID by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-25 07:19 · Score: 0
  
  Re-read the statement, chief. I said "(they) DON'T give a flying about the same privacy concerns you do." That's exactly WHY they're carrying a mobile tracking device. They see it as their phone/texting/app device, and couldn't give a shit about the privacy implications.
43. Re: Face ID by sound+vision · 2017-10-25 07:19 · Score: 0
  
  What will be interesting to me is to see where the market is in 5 years - how many people will have realized the $50 phone works just as well as the $800 phone, and how many are still chasing the logo. In a free market, I think you would see the iPhones and Galaxies quickly fade to irrelevance. But the cost of the phones is obscured for so many people by the contracts they sign. Going shopping for phones with someone really opened my eyes. "Why are you getting the $30 phone from Kroger, the Galaxies at Sprint are only $40..." Not realizing it was forty *a month*. Then they complain about their phone bill hitting triple digits...
44. Re:Face ID by nine-times · 2017-10-25 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  Really? I had a webcam that did it 10 years ago, and so did my old Windows Phone.
  I believe you when you say you had a webcam that did it 10 years ago. I'll even believe that it kind of mostly did an ok job of recognizing that there was a face in the image. Maybe it even could identify people and tell one person from another... kind of... maybe if they looked very different from each other, and looked very much the same from one day to the next. If you changed your hair or grew a beard, it probably wouldn't be able to figure out who you were. If you had a family member with a strong resemblance, it probably mixed the two of you up fairly often.
  My point is, yes, it existed. It didn't work well. It was a gimmick, and any attempt to use it for a practical application would have immediately revealed that it didn't work.
  It's like many years ago, there were speech recognition programs. They were kind of almost useful if you trained them a lot, and even then there were limited applications of the technology, and they still didn't work well. There were a lot of improvements in recent years that allowed for all of these virtual assistants, but they're still a bit gimmicky and error prone. A lot of this technology is only now becoming genuinely practical.
45. Re:Face ID by AuMatar · 2017-10-25 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  And for years hardware makers claimed fingerprints were secure, when they can be fooled by silicone molds. Just because they say it doesn't mean its true.
  
  --
  I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
46. Re:Face ID by Luthair · 2017-10-25 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  I suspect the older webcams would have been easily fooled by a picture of your face whereas the newer devices like Windows Hello or now Apple's Face ID have varying degrees of protection from it.
47. Re: Face ID by sound+vision · 2017-10-25 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  There's plenty of people, I see them all the time. I know one older woman that refuses to type anything on her phone but is constantly texting with the voice recognition. Usually this results in her having to repeat certain words over and over, before finally giving up and typing it anyway. The resulting message is still often incomprehensible. Oh, she's also one of those who feels like they need the new Galaxy every year. Yes, there are plenty of these people around. You might even find some of them on Slashdot, but not many.
48. Re:Face ID by geekmux · 2017-10-25 07:49 · Score: 2
  
  I'm not being sarcastic. Who is demanding automation and voice activation? The reason there is a current push to automation and voice activation is FOR TRACKING AND DATA COLLECTION PURPOSES. It is amusing you think it is about what YOU want.
  If no one was buying this shit, the automation industry wouldn't be in a constant state of growth. Doesn't matter who started it, or who didn't ask for it, or even what nefarious activity it drives. People DO use automation. A LOT of people. And none of them give a fuck about trading privacy or security for that convenience. Consumers are also lazier than ever, which is another reason automation and voice activation have become insanely popular, and ultimately drive demand. Look at the migration of authentication. PIN---Pattern---Touch---Face. Catering to lazy clearly sells product.
  Yes, I agree that we often get tech features shoved down our throats that seemingly no one asked for. Google Glass is a good example of what happens when product fails to create demand. Amazon Alexa is a Prime example of the polar opposite.
49. Re:Face ID by Kristoph · 2017-10-25 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  No one really 'wanted' any biometric security in their devices, and yet Touch ID ( and similar technologies from other vendors ) is used my millions of people today. Face ID is rational evolution of Touch ID and will undoubtedly become pervasive in all Apple devices and no doubt in devices by other vendors because it's easier.
50. Re:Face ID by torkus · 2017-10-25 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  A fingerprint reader takes room for Apple because they planned on having it integrated with the screen. WHen they couldn't...the back was likely already formed and committed. Samsung had this strange idea of moving the fingerprint reader to the back (where, TBH, it is FAR more convenient) and it seems to work out just fine for them.
  Apple may be obsessed with screen size but they have a ridiculous notch cut out of theirs...so you lose the full-screen experience anyhow.
  
  --
  You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
51. Re:Face ID by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-25 08:35 · Score: 0
  
  And for years hardware makers claimed fingerprints were secure, when they can be fooled by silicone molds.
  It would take more than just a silicone mold to fool the touch ID sensor.
  The sensor is only enabled when the outer layer detects a conductive object via capacitive sensing.
  Once enabled it again uses capacitive sensing to detect both the ridges and valleys in a finger print, and automatically reports a failure if either of those values are too low.
  Because the top layer of skin on your finger is mostly dead cells which conduct poorly if at all, all of that is basically ignored by the sensor. The capacitive detection is reading conductivity from the sub-dermis layer underneath the surface dermis layer of skin.
  The touch ID is also supposed to measure the conductivity changes over a few milliseconds as well and do some math voodoo to separate out the conductivity changes caused by your pulse from the changes caused by the increasing pressure from your finger naturally pushing downward on it.
  I'll fully admit I don't know how this last part works, so if you wish to doubt that it works that way it would be understandable.
  But this entire process is why images of lifted prints, dead fingers, and even dry skin read as a blank image and do not unlock the phone.
  As for the face detection using the regular camera module, I have doubts that similar levels of hardware protection as the touch ID sensor would even be possible.
  I guess some amazing stuff can be done with the IR spectrum but could it be enough to detect a pulse and heart beat?
  It just feels like a step backwards to me.
52. Re:Face ID by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-25 08:39 · Score: 0
  
  You can imagine some pretty interesting applications besides Face ID for a system that can import 3-D. I imagine Anthony Weiner is salivating already.
53. Re: Face ID by ryanmc1 · 2017-10-25 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  So to the police. https://www.theatlantic.com/te...
54. Re:Face ID by AuMatar · 2017-10-25 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  Except you're wrong and all of those can and do fool a variety of fingerprint sensors. Given the newness of the technology I trust facial recognition even less. I'll stick with a pin or password, thanks.
  
  --
  I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
55. Re:Face ID by Dixie_Flatline · 2017-10-25 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  If the data were being sent to the cloud, you'd have to have an internet connection to use it, and you don't. You can turn wifi off or go into the forest or whatever and all these features still work. The TouchID (and presumably FaceID) systems are stand-alone, on-device only. They don't store pictures, they create a mathematical hash of the data, and then generate a new hash every time you're scanned. The hashes are then compared to see if they're alike, so there's nothing that's stored that can be turned back into personally identifiable data; the process is one-way.
56. Re:Face ID by Shatrat · 2017-10-25 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  I use the fingerprint reader. It's quick enough that you wouldn't see me doing it unless you were paying attention.
  
  --
  09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
57. Re:Face ID by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-25 09:57 · Score: 0
  
  Wow, you've really jumped to conclusions here. I use Touch ID, and so does everyone that I know and work with who has a recent iPhone.
  On top of that, I actually do want Face ID, if it's implemented well, and that's yet to be proven! I'm not paranoid about Apple or whoever abusing it because my face is already on more social media, government systems (license) and security systems than imaginable. If I ever wanted to do something dodgy, I'd mask my face somehow; not that I can imagine myself ever wanting to do anything like that.
58. Re:Face ID by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-25 10:02 · Score: 0
  
  I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but in reality, you don't have any data that is worth anyone's time to obtain. If someone ever did want to access your data, they'd simply hold you captive and cut off your parts until you give them the code.
59. Re:Face ID by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-25 10:09 · Score: 0
  
  The parent poster explicitly said Touch ID, not any other random finger print reader. I've not seen any reliable demonstration of a properly set up Touch ID being cracked in the ways described above.
  Yes, there are shoddy finger print readers who don't do very well, and Apple didn't choose them for Touch ID.
  There are people out there selling fake USB drives, but that doesn't mean that all USB drives are fake.
60. Re:Face ID by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-25 10:15 · Score: 0
  
  Except you're wrong and all of those can and do fool a variety of fingerprint sensors.
  
  Well there lies the misunderstanding.
  This whole article and reply thread was specifically about FaceID and TouchID.
  My description was about the TouchID sensor specifically and explicitly.
  There is no "variety" of TouchID sensors. There's only been two models I know of, and everything I stated is true for both of them.
  Since it apparently needs said, nothing I described applies to any random $5 Chinese knockoff fingerprint sensor (Which I had no idea we were discussing)
  
  Given the newness of the technology I trust facial recognition even less. I'll stick with a pin or password, thanks.
  Perfectly fair enough.
  In fact if you use a password and not a simple PIN, that is likely to be the most secure and safest possible option.
  At least in the USA, a password stored in your brain is the only one of those options the government is explicitly banned from taking using force, and if they try to do so anything and everything obtained as evidence from it so is null and void in any court of law.
  People love to talk about how simple and easy it is to torture a password out of someone, ignoring the fact this is how mass murderers, child rapists, and drug lords all walk free every time it happens.
  (PS, no one become a murder, rapist, or drug lord because of that please)
61. Re:Face ID by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-25 10:21 · Score: 0
  
  What you're saying holds true of Google, Samsung, and most other companies; however, Apple has not yet violated the trust of its users. Unlike the other companies, YOU are not the product that Apple is selling. That's just one reason they have such a loyal fan base.
62. Re:Face ID by antdude · 2017-10-25 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  But some of us don't want to share our biological datas like fingerprints, faces, etc.
  
  --
  Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
63. Re:Face ID by Dog-Cow · 2017-10-25 19:04 · Score: 1
  
  And some people like to shit in public. That doesn't make either of you intelligent.
64. Re:Face ID by retchdog · 2017-10-26 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  the priorities of the vast majority of smartphone users work like this:
  1: ux: it must be easy to use because stopping to think about a password causes "friction" with my obsessive-compulsive lifestyle. any cognitively perceivable delay between thinking about facebook and posting on facebook must be eliminated at all costs.
  2: material design (no, not the google shit): it sure would be nice to have one in gold, and with a huge fragile screen. thin too.
  3: security: i don't want my partner or kids picking it up and realizing that i'm fucking the babysitter.
  face recognition improves (1) and leaves (3) at least plausibly covered. we don't really know how secure it will end up since it hasn't, afaik, delivered yet.
  
  --
  "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
65. Re:Face ID by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-26 08:12 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think they have any ideas on how to improve the user experience at this point. It is a smartphone. I can't think of any features that I want that a modern smartphone doesn't have, except for durability. It would be great to have a smartphone that doesn't require a case to protect it from drops.
  I have a few ideas:
  - Add a 3.5" Audio Jack so that I can hear music on my good old hearphones (I can almost hear you: "oh no, not the 3.5" jack again...")
  - Add an IR blaster so that I can control the video projector on meetings (or other remotely controlled devices)
  - Add multiple (and synchronized) bluetooth audio output, so that I can connect to more than one speaker at a time
  Of course, (tending to) infinite battery capacity and extreme durability are always wished for requirements, that will never be fulfilled.
This article is BS by MikeDataLink · 2017-10-25 05:29 · Score: 1

Not only has Apple already publicly addressed this (denied it), they would be insane to change the specs after they've already started selling pre-orders. That would open them to all kinds of consumer advocacy lawsuits.
This article is high on hype and short on facts.

--
Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
1. Re:This article is BS by 110010001000 · 2017-10-25 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  What are you talking about? There are no customer facing "specs" on the accuracy of any iPhone feature like that. Companies can change the design as much as they want, even during production.
2. Re:This article is BS by MikeDataLink · 2017-10-25 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  Yes there is! They gave them during the presentation. They specifically discussed the error rate and compared it to the error rate of touch ID. Go watch the presentation. Don't take my word for it.
  
  --
  Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
3. Re:This article is BS by 110010001000 · 2017-10-25 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  I'll take your word on that! Companies change the design whenever they want. The iPhone has different components and designs within the same model for example. Companies care about money. You aren't going to be able to dispute their error rate claims anyway.
4. Re:This article is BS by known_coward_69 · 2017-10-25 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  I think that was the chance of two people having a very similar face. Not FaceID specs
5. Re:This article is BS by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-25 06:03 · Score: 0
  
  The what about the Qualcomm/Intel modem issue. Did apples spec quote the better speed of the Qualcomm and yet hobble Qualcomm down to Intel speeds and not tell anyone.
6. Re:This article is BS by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-25 06:07 · Score: 0
  
  Except they have not accepted any pre-orders. Pre-orders start on Friday. Also I'd bet there is a disclaimer on their web page that says specs may change.
7. Re:This article is BS by tlhIngan · 2017-10-25 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  they've already started selling pre-orders.
  
  No. Preorders for the iPhone X start this Friday (the 27th). So Apple has not actually taken any pre-orders yet. Carriers might have, but that's a carrier problem, not Apple. Apple has said pre-orders open October 27.
8. Re:This article is BS by sexconker · 2017-10-25 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  An error rate based on internal testing and data (and extrapolation/guessing) which they will never show.
  Unless they've shat out a spec sheet, or you can statistically disprove their claim to a high degree of confidence, they can say whatever they want and change whatever they want.
9. Re:This article is BS by RhettLivingston · 2017-10-25 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  The HW behind FaceID, essentially an evolution of the original MS Kinect technology that Apple purchased a few years back, is used for more than just FaceID. Any app intending to use the AR capabilities or simply to scan 3D surfaces would be degraded by any reduction in performance of this feature. Also, the new portrait capabilities of the camera would be reduced. So, deviations in quality of the sensor would certainly have an effect on the end user experience beyond FaceID itself.
NONSENSE! Face ID will still be far better by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-25 05:31 · Score: 0

This is nonsense. Obviously.
-
While a less accurate Face ID will still be far better than the existing Touch ID
intellectual property by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-25 05:38 · Score: 0

My likeness and all biometrics is my intellectual property and not subject to use by other entities. First thing I do before turning on a new phone is put scotch tape over the screen side lense so only a blurry image can be recorded and used by others.
Many modern phones won't even work if you put electrical tape over that camera.They MUST see something so they can register the image and put it in their database.
1. Re:intellectual property by thegreatbob · 2017-10-25 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  My experience with the ones that use the camera (or perhaps some sensor within it?) as a proximity sensor is that if you render it completely opaque, the phone will work just fine, but will not be able to turn off the screen during calls.
  
  --
  There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
2. Re:intellectual property by omnichad · 2017-10-25 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  Many modern phones won't even work if you put electrical tape over that camera.They MUST see something so they can register the image and put it in their database.
  Use a smaller piece of tape and stop covering the ambient light sensor.
Too much? by DontBeAMoran · 2017-10-25 05:38 · Score: 1

Isn't this too much technology crammed into a smartphone? Over 50% of components manufactured being trashed because they fail the QA test? That's really not green, Apple.

--
#DeleteFacebook
From A Technical Standpoint This Makes Zero Sense by dryriver · 2017-10-25 05:41 · Score: 2

Precisely _WHAT_ can't manufacturers produce that would "reduce the accuracy of Face ID"? It can't be an electronic chip - face recognition doesn't require special chips. That leaves things like the Face ID camera/lens - surely Apple would check beforehand whether that can be manufactured to spec? I just don't get WHICH component of Face ID is so incredibly hard to manufacture that Apple would need to "reduce the accuracy of its face recognition".

--
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
Well that explains... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-25 05:42 · Score: 0

How my dog was able to place an order for dog treats.
1. Re:Well that explains... by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2017-10-25 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  He could already do that, thanks to the ill-conceived PawID.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
Re:From A Technical Standpoint This Makes Zero Sen by 110010001000 · 2017-10-25 05:47 · Score: 1

I thought Face ID requires a special "AI" chip. Isn't image recognition "AI"? Surely it requires a special "AI" chip!
Far better than the existing Touch ID by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-25 05:48 · Score: 0

"While a less accurate Face ID will still be far better than the existing Touch ID..."
Says who?! Did I miss some in depth studies on this thing that prove this?
Re:From A Technical Standpoint This Makes Zero Sen by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-25 05:51 · Score: 1

Apple have already denied that any change was made to the spec, however, you need to go look at what they've implemented. This is not just "facial recognition using the existing front facing camera". There's an IR dot projector, a FLIR sensor, and convolutional neural network acceleration chip in their implementation - this isn't just Android's 'does this image kinda look like the person' facial recognition.
Biometrics by thegreatbob · 2017-10-25 05:56 · Score: 2

Question is not rhetorical, and I'm really on the fence about it:

Is biometrics a dead end for authentication/identification purposes?

Even if it is unequivocally a dead end, is there still merit to seeing how far the rabbit hole goes, for the sake of discovery along the way?

--
There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
1. Re:Biometrics by Dixie_Flatline · 2017-10-25 06:07 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The reason Apple gave for introducing TouchID was that a vast majority of users weren't even bothering to put a PIN on their phone, so giving them an easy way to unlock the phone was better than nothing. There are definitely security concerns, but there's a BIGGER security concern when your phone isn't even locked to begin with.
  FaceID is just a different extension of that. Neither of them is meant to be 100% secure, just somewhat MORE secure. For me, I went from having a 6-digit pin to a passcode somewhat over 15 characters because the overhead of only having to type it once in a while was more than offset by the convenience of TouchID. I simply wouldn't have a passcode that long if it weren't for biometric authentication.
  If I really needed to keep my phone secure for some reason, I'd turn off TouchID/FaceID permanently.
2. Re:Biometrics by 110010001000 · 2017-10-25 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  No it isn't a dead end. It is the Holy Grail. If companies can use biometrics to find and track you, then can push you ads where ever you go. Oh wait, you thought they were doing it for YOU?
3. Re:Biometrics by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-25 06:34 · Score: 0
  
  The issue with Touch and FaceID is that its pushed as a replacement for more secure factors (pattern, PIN), rather than an additional layer.
  That said, the biggest security hole in a modern smartphone is it's user: most would rock around with zero security unless there was an idiot-proof solution, in which case even weak security like FaceID is better.
  Apple makes bold claims about FaceID, but the bottom line is that if they can get a relatively cheap sensor to accurately identify a face in 3D, then an attacker can use the same type of sensor to copy your face. It might be more complex than lifting a fingerprint, or it might be as simple as printing a picture with an extra layer of infrared-reflective ink. Given that Apple themselves evidently plan to share that facial data with all and sundry, it will be available to attackers as soon as a user has fired up FaceChat or whatever for the first time whilst looking at the device.
  They're also using FaceID for authorising payments and downloading apps, so you'll only need one basically-public factor and brief device access to do whatever you want to the device. Poor show.
4. Re:Biometrics by OneHundredAndTen · 2017-10-25 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  Is biometrics a dead end for authentication/identification purposes?
  Yes. Leaving aside the fact that, up till now, biometrics-based authentication can be bypassed by woefully low-tech approaches, the fact they can't be revoked when compromised kills them instantly, in my view. But, they make for cool-looking gadgets, which many will pay to enjoy.
5. Re:Biometrics by ctilsie242 · 2017-10-25 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  Basic security principles state that biometrics are best used for a "username", as opposed to a "password". The true "password" would be something you type in.
  However, with mobile devices, there is a "good enough" factor, so fingerprint scanners are used. This has worked well so far, although with Android, one can have some apps be PIN protected, so a fingerprint scan couldn't have access to the entire phone and its contents.
  Is biometrics a dead end? With more sophisticated scanners to get usable points of data and ways to make it harder to forge them with a gummi bear, curved photo, or other items, they can help. However, for "true" security, they are, at best, just one factor of authentication.
6. Re:Biometrics by omnichad · 2017-10-25 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  giving them an easy way to unlock the phone was better than nothing.
  Not only that, I'm pretty sure you're required to set up a PIN or other password when you set up TouchID.
7. Re:Biometrics by Dixie_Flatline · 2017-10-25 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, exactly, you can't have the feature on without a PIN being set. And I think setting a PIN turns on full-device encryption, though that may be on by default now, no matter what. (I'm not sure where they'd get the key from, or what good it would be without a PIN, but still.)
8. Re:Biometrics by omnichad · 2017-10-25 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  Storing the key in plaintext would be fine, since then you only have to encrypt the key when you set the PIN rather than encrypt the whole device (a poor user experience) - would save loads of time. And not knowing exactly how the secure enclave works, I don't know that the key itself would ever have to be exposed to userspace - just unlocked without authentication.
9. Re:Biometrics by Dog-Cow · 2017-10-25 19:31 · Score: 1
  
  You would feel better if you took your face off and stuffed it in a paper shredder. No worries about being face-tracked. You'd probably look infinitely less ugly, as well.
This is part of the R&D process by HalAtWork · 2017-10-25 06:00 · Score: 1

There are always tradeoffs when developing something. Is this really news?

--
Twinstiq, game news
Re:From A Technical Standpoint This Makes Zero Sen by Dixie_Flatline · 2017-10-25 06:03 · Score: 2

It's apparently the dot projector that's at issue. It's a component that projects 30000 infrared dots onto your face...and it's so small it fits in one part of the notch on the iPhone X. That's bound a high-complexity component at that size.
Re:From A Technical Standpoint This Makes Zero Sen by GuB-42 · 2017-10-25 06:08 · Score: 1

It the news is real, that would probably be looser tolerances with optics as a way to increase throughput.
Software by hackel · 2017-10-25 06:20 · Score: 1

I'm curious, what do the suppliers have to do with the accuracy of the system? Is it not entirely software-based? Or is Apple actually licensing someone else's software to do it, and that is the "supplier" they are referring to? Some kind of embedded firmware?
1. Re:Software by R3d+M3rcury · 2017-10-25 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  Is it not entirely software-based?
  It requires sensors.
2. Re:Software by Dixie_Flatline · 2017-10-25 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  Apple is not doing this the easily-exploitable image comparison way. Samsung tried that and it was terrible. They've got a projector that paints the face with 30,000 dots, then a height map is created and face analysis is done. That data is converted into a mathematical representation (that can't be reverse engineered, assuming you could even get to it) and compared with the mathematical representation that was already stored.
  No pictures are taken or stored. You're not taking a selfie. That's also why this works at multiple angles, but isn't fooled by things like latex masks.
Re:From A Technical Standpoint This Makes Zero Sen by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-25 06:22 · Score: 0

Basically its a copy of a Microsoft Kinect.
Makes sense; why deny it? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-25 06:34 · Score: 0

They announced a ship date in advance! If someone has a schedule by which they have to release things, instead of using the alternative ("it'll be ready when it's ready") then you know they have to alter the goal to fit whatever they can achieve by the set-in-stone date.
Every single Apple customer knows this. All of Apple's customers are ok with this. There are zero downsides to admitting the truth, because the truth is what everyone expects. If something weren't ready yet, then everyone would be surprised/disappointed if they shipping something broken instead of something that sets the bar a little lower.
But lying and pretending that marketing's deadline just happens to miraculously be exact same as engineering's required timeline -- lying is a way to look worse.
Good job on doing the wrong thing, Apple.
And for what? Nobody gives a flying fuck about Face ID anyway. It's ok if it's lame at first. There's always next year's product...
Who even asked for FaceID? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-25 06:46 · Score: 0

What is the problem Apple trying to solve? This solution is neither simple nor cheap, and clearly provides little to no value in addition to raising privacy issues.
Apple, please stick to doing SIMPLE things your customers actually want - those are usually the hardest problems to solve.
1. Re:Who even asked for FaceID? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-25 07:41 · Score: 0
  
  The problem apple is trying to solve is to develop stuff for the iPhone that can't be copied. Then they can say, the iPhone is always better than anything else because of X, whether or not X is useful is not the prime concern. Hence the main reason they want to build their own cpus/gpus/chips. Get rid of any possible comparison so that numbers can't be higher or lower and complained about. You only get what they tell you.
Holy shit are you wrong by SuperKendall · 2017-10-25 07:08 · Score: 1

I see Slashdot continues in trotting out the most amazing of luddites, those who predict failures moments before unquestionable success is at hand...
Consider just one small aspect why FaceID will be a huge boon. How many people with winter coming up in the US will no longer have to take gloves off or use a passcode to unlock a phone? FaceID and touch-capable gloves are the perfect pairing.
And again that's just ONE aspect of the benefit FaceID brings, which applies to every single person where it is ever cold...

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:Holy shit are you wrong by AuMatar · 2017-10-25 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  Or just use a PIN like a normal person. More secure, you can lend your phone to friends/family/coworkers as needed.m FaceID is a solution that nobody needs or wants.
  
  --
  I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
2. Re:Holy shit are you wrong by omnichad · 2017-10-25 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  coming up in the US will no longer have to take gloves off or use a passcode to unlock a phone
  No, but you'd have to take the gloves off to answer the phone or do almost any useful work after unlocking it.
3. Re:Holy shit are you wrong by rogoshen1 · 2017-10-25 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  Luckily it won't be cold anywhere outside of the poles for too much longer. can we go back to using PIN based auth methods for our phones then?
  (This post was not meant to be taken seriously, yet I predict that somehow the AGW / anti-AGW crowd will not be cool about it.)
  ps: That was indeed a shitty pun.
4. Re:Holy shit are you wrong by SuperKendall · 2017-10-25 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  No, but you'd have to take the gloves off to answer the phone
  Why???? Have you ever used gloves that worked with touch screens? I need to nothing like that to answer a call, I just swipe over as I normally would.
  I can easily operate the iPhone camera with my gloves, including turning on or off a variety of settings, focusing, taking the picture, etc. Typing might be trickier but I can also just dictate if I really don't want to remove the gloves...
  
  --
  "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Biometrics as userid, sure by davecb · 2017-10-25 07:13 · Score: 1

But like my login name, my face and my fingerprints are available to (almost) everyone. My password, on the other hand, is a secret that I and my phone know, and it exists so that other people with copies of my face or fingerprint or username can't just log in.

--
davecb@spamcop.net
No, they are an additional layer by SuperKendall · 2017-10-25 07:20 · Score: 1

The issue with Touch and FaceID is that its pushed as a replacement for more secure factors (pattern, PIN), rather than an additional layer.
That is incorrect - they really are an additional layer.
When you use TouchID today, you still need a passcode, and the passcode is asked for at some specific points - like just after you have booted the phone.
So then between these points there is a convenience period where the device is pretty sure you are still the one using it, in which you get to use the biometric auth to verify it's still you - but that does not mean the other mechanisms have not brought you to that level of acceptance.
Apple makes bold claims about FaceID, but the bottom line is that if they can get a relatively cheap sensor to accurately identify a face in 3D, then an attacker can use the same type of sensor to copy your face.
That is pretty absurd. Please note that FaceID testing included life-like 3D masks of people's facing. If the system can reject those what makes you think you can do better? Being able to read something a sensor sees and being able to produce something that will fool a similar sensor into seeing the same thing are worlds apart in difficulty.
They're also using FaceID for authorising payments and downloading apps, so you'll only need one basically-public factor and brief device access
Again the rest of the internet refers you to the XKCD comic about the password and pipe-wrench to show you how stupid your argument is. The fact is that FaceID is about 100000x more secure than whatever it is that YOU PERSONALLY are doing today to guard your data (probably just a password, laughable in ease to use for a determined attacker).

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Re:From A Technical Standpoint This Makes Zero Sen by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-25 07:26 · Score: 0

Correct - in fact, Apple bought PrimeSense - the company that designed the Kinect. It pretty much litterally is a (very) miniaturized Kinect.
Re:From A Technical Standpoint This Makes Zero Sen by RhettLivingston · 2017-10-25 07:54 · Score: 1

FaceID uses an infrared blaster that projects a point cloud of over 30,000 infrared dots onto the surface (often a face) being scanned. If, for example, the infrared dots weren't of the expected intensity, sharpness, or spacing precision, I'd imagine performance of the 3D scan would be degraded. Presumably, SW might be able to correct for spacing precision, but not sharpness or intensity issues. This technology is essentially the same as the MS Kinect v1 device and was acquired by Apple when they purchased PrimeSense in 2013.
https://www.theverge.com/circu...
There's a significant HW component by Brannon · 2017-10-25 08:07 · Score: 1

this isn't "facial recognition" using the built-in video camera. In fact it doesn't use the video camera at all.
vastly LESS secure by SuperKendall · 2017-10-25 10:57 · Score: 1

Or just use a PIN like a normal person. More secure
You use your PIN in public??? EVER???
How is that more secure than a face you can't even steal by making a 3D model? I'll bet in the last month 100 security cameras have you entering a phone PIN on video, much less anyone nearby who simply shoulder-surfs the presses and grabs it from you immediate after... can't as easily grab your face now can they.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:vastly LESS secure by AuMatar · 2017-10-25 18:10 · Score: 1
  
  They can very easily grab my face- just grab the phone and hold it up. You really are an idiot aren't you?
  
  --
  I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
2. Re:vastly LESS secure by Dog-Cow · 2017-10-25 19:14 · Score: 1
  
  You are the most insanely stupid person I've come across this week. And I visit Leftist websites, so you have managed to beat a rather high bar.
3. Re:vastly LESS secure by SuperKendall · 2017-10-26 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  Why are you also looking at the phone with your eyes open in that case which is ALSO required to unlock the phone..
  So you are not just an idiot, but an ignorant one.
  I'll let you have the last word as you are too stupid to bother correcting further, at this point no reader is going to do anything but roll eyes at whatever you have to say.
  
  --
  "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Design Flaw -- needing fixing, parent proves it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-25 15:29 · Score: 0

Clearly we need something in between user 'everybody' and the admin user. you should be able to set app permissions in a simple way; and they have defaults. everybody can use your phone for only the apps/features that do not need authentication. Your apps need authentication; and admin should also-- but could do another step... not that we have real admin user on the phone... but it should be owner or something like that. This problem with letting kids have too much control over their phone needs to be solved and done so in a way parents can't be so easily outsmarted by their kids. (the fact kids get backup phones to keep their dopamine habit going is another matter.)
checking the web can be set the everybody user. Better, it should not show any pages open already-- only new pages for that user. authenticate to see existing web pages.