Slashdot Mirror


'I Tried the First Phone With An In-Display Fingerprint Sensor' (theverge.com)

Vlad Savov from The Verge reports of his experience using the first smartphone with a fingerprint scanner built into the display: After an entire year of speculation about whether Apple or Samsung might integrate the fingerprint sensor under the display of their flagship phones, it is actually China's Vivo that has gotten there first. At CES 2018, I got to grips with the first smartphone to have this futuristic tech built in, and I was left a little bewildered by the experience. The mechanics of setting up your fingerprint on the phone and then using it to unlock the device and do things like authenticate payments are the same as with a traditional fingerprint sensor. The only difference I experienced was that the Vivo handset was slower -- both to learn the contours of my fingerprint and to unlock once I put my thumb on the on-screen fingerprint prompt -- but not so much as to be problematic. Basically, every other fingerprint sensor these days is ridiculously fast and accurate, so with this being newer tech, its slight lag feels more palpable. Vivo is using a Synaptics optical sensor called Clear ID that works by peering through the gaps between the pixels in an OLED display (LCDs wouldn't work because of their need for a backlight) and scanning your uniquely patterned epidermis. The sensor is already in mass production and should be incorporated in several flagship devices later this year.

70 comments

  1. Result: it works by andreas.hummelbrunne · · Score: 1

    What a boring article.

    1. Re:Result: it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you realize the massive potential for this technology?!? You'll be able to reach into your pocket, grab your phone, and accidentally hit 8 different buttons by the time you pull it out of your pocket. Think of the efficiency gains of such easy unlocking!

      I can't wait until they incorporate this tech into my glasses so I can figure out who keeps leaving marks on the lenses. Maybe that's how old miracles were performed. Everyone used to be androids but had forgotten. Eventually a random guy would be born with the proper prints and suddenly becomes the magic healer through his admin access.

    2. Re: Result: it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck this shit. In the end there will only be the fingerprint option to secure the device with when they do away with passwords and pin codes.
      This has ramifications, right now they can't make you give up your pin or your password for your phone, but they can make you out your finger on the sensor. 2. They are mass fingerprinting people. That's a problem for example when you in a moment of intense upheaval and emotional turmoil hit somebody over the head with a steel bar and they're not breathing anymore. Don't think it can't happen to you. But it's also a problem when you have been posting flyers against whatever is the current insanity politkorrektnosti du jour and they come and get you because they isolated a quarter of your left thumbprint on one of those fliers. The Stasi in East Germany even archived smell samples from known dissidents so they could track people posting fliers with dogs. Never underestimate the insane extremes these people go to once they are firmly in power.

    3. Re:Result: it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You'll be able to reach into your pocket, grab your phone, and accidentally hit 8 different buttons by the time you pull it out of your pocket."

      That will be just as convenient as modern, full featured "lock screens"! Ahhh, progress.

      Sent from my Intel powered PC.

    4. Re:Result: it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This article could be communicated in real life verbally in less than a minute. Reading this article is a waste of my life.

    5. Re: Result: it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you so retarded that you cant think of dozens of ways to prevent that from happening?

  2. Who cares how fast it is by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

    Is it reliable? Does it recognize my fingerprint every time and every other fingerprint none of the time?

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    1. Re:Who cares how fast it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fingerprint recognition is never 100% reliable. False positives happen happens once for every 50000 fingerprints and false negatives happen too (less problematic since you can always swipe again).

    2. Re:Who cares how fast it is by sheramil · · Score: 1

      And how reliable is it if I use a potato peeler to remove your fingertips? Can I use those flesh slices get in to your phone?

      I'm not cruel, so I'm not going to remove your entire finger. Or hand.

      Or arm.

    3. Re:Who cares how fast it is by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      I'm more interested in what happens to the biometric data. If the fingerprints of anyone touching your smartphone go somewhere in the cloud where they can be queried on demand, then metadata analysis just got itself a new tool.

    4. Re:Who cares how fast it is by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      No one cares how fast it is until it's not as fast as expected and seemingly laggy.

    5. Re:Who cares how fast it is by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      It's NOT a 'picture' of a fingerprint. It is hash of certain properties pulled off the scanner. Those properties are going to be unique to that type of scanner and possibly each individual unit.

      You can't send the info to the FBI so they can place it in the 'pre pedo' data file.

      So you're off the hook for now.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    6. Re:Who cares how fast it is by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      I wonder if you understand how fingerprint matching can be made to work. It may be possible to make this mechanism safe but your argument won't be enough.
      On the smartphone you reconstruct the match with the hash and some specific data, then if you can upload this specific data together with the hash, how are you going to avoid that another fingerprint, maybe your own, is checked for a match with your hash?

      If you can reconstruct the match you have a functional database for looking up fingerprints.

  3. Optical scanners by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

    Aren't optical scanners rather easy to fool? Some earlier scanners were vulnerable to a "replay attack" that was simply breathing on the scanner after someone else had used it. The iPhone scanner uses capacitance: not unhackable though it is a quite bit harder. I can imagine it's hard to integrate such a scanner in the screen though; apparently Apple gave up on that.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  4. Good for the Surveillance State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This comes right on the heels of the news that China is 'encouraging' private entities to share their surveillance with the government to build a massive biometric database and tracking system, and that India's biometric database got hacked. , !

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-china-facial-recognition-surveillance-20180107-story.html

    https://qz.com/1174285/aadhaar-indias-biometric-id-project-putting-the-identities-and-personal-data-of-millions-at-risk/

    1. Re:Good for the Surveillance State by Boutzev · · Score: 1

      Yes, but they are part of the free world, so nothing to worry about.

    2. Re:Good for the Surveillance State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "free world" is becoming more and more an oxymoron. Kinda' like 'Civil War' or 'angry gay'.

  5. Why is it better than scanner on back? by elwinc · · Score: 2

    Honestly, why is a fingerprint scanner built into the display better than one on the back? On my phone, the scanner is high up in the center of the back, right where my index finger goes naturally when I grab the phone. This makes one-handed operation smooth and easy.

    Seems to me a scanner on the front is just an ergonomically inferior gimmick. Perhaps some enlightened soul can cure my ignorance...

    --
    --- Often in error; never in doubt!
    1. Re:Why is it better than scanner on back? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2, Informative

      I often leave my phone on the desk. To unlock it, I just touch my finger to the home button (this is an older model iPhone). If the scanner is on the back, I'd have to pick up the phone first. Which is of course a huuuge inconvenience...

      But seriously, the Home button is a good place for the scanner, since that's what you click to wake up the phone; that way you unlock it at the same time. It's fast and completely seamless, as if there's no lock on the phone at all. Of course the new iPhone has no home button anymore...

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    2. Re:Why is it better than scanner on back? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More accurate tracking. Now it will be able to tell who is actually using your phone.

    3. Re:Why is it better than scanner on back? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Gotta say I love the location of the fingerprint scanner on my Sony Xperia Z5. It's on the power button which is in the middle of the right side of the phone. It's exactly where I'd have a finger or thumb resting anyway (depending on which hand the phone is in)

    4. Re:Why is it better than scanner on back? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having the Xperia X Compact with the same kind of sensor, mine fails rather often when my hands are greasy, wet and such though so it's not very reliable and have to enter my PIN anyway. My previous nexus phone with a sensor on the back worked much better.

    5. Re:Why is it better than scanner on back? by elwinc · · Score: 1

      Thank you, Jared, now I understand.

      Speaking only for myself, I am forgetful enough that if I don't immediately return the phone to one pocket or another, disaster may ensue. (Of course, this assumes the continued existence of phones so tiny they actually fit in pockets!) My phone unlocks when the appropriate finger touches the sensor on the back as I reach into a pocket, but I can see how face-up phone storage would imply different optimizations.

      --
      --- Often in error; never in doubt!
    6. Re:Why is it better than scanner on back? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Touching the rear fingerprint reader when the screen is off wakes my phone in any case, no need to press any other buttons. Yes, it is slightly less convenient, when it is on my desk, but otherwise it is just as smooth and seemless.

    7. Re:Why is it better than scanner on back? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I wrote touching, what I meant was a positive read of my fingerprint by the reader. A negative read merely uses a vibration to indicate a failed read, and doesn't turn the screen on.

    8. Re:Why is it better than scanner on back? by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      When the phone's on a surface or in a mount (like in a car) the back might not be accessible.

    9. Re:Why is it better than scanner on back? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      when I grab the phone.

      You grab the phone? Mine is lying on my desk and wakes when I hit the home button (finger print reader). Not to mention something in a visible location is far easier to use than something out of sight.

      "Ok Google, read me my calendar."

      "I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that."
      "Dave? Why is your heart rate rising? Dave you may want to remove your finger from the heartrate sensor Dave."
      "No there Dave, if you leave your finger there you won't be able to take a photo Dave."

  6. Still doing it wrong... by Froze · · Score: 1

    When are we going to see bio-metrics treated as ID, not auth? Until then, the fact that my phone has a sensor is useless to me.

    --
    -- The morphemes of your disquisition are ascertainable, but they have eschewed an ambit of transpicuous exposition.
    1. Re: Still doing it wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When "something you are" is no longer considered an authentication factor. Remember that an authentication factor is used to prove the identity claim that you are making, but some auth factors are weaker or leaked more than others.

  7. I love living in the future by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

    ...Where a cellphone-unlocking fingerprint sensor can be called "traditional."

  8. Haha so they copied... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...the tech Apple eventually decided to not use? What a bunch of lusers. Sad!

    1. Re: Haha so they copied... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong again fanboy.

  9. covert fingerprint collection... anywhere by Speare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now that it's shown to be possible to scan a fingerprint without an obvious fingerprint scanning area, be ready for the fingerprint wars. Any touchscreen anywhere, from a gas station pump to an ATM to a plain glass door, could be outfitted with a collection device to gather all our greasy fingertip data. And with the courts assuming that you have no expectation of privacy with third party data, everywhere is open season for state actors.

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
    1. Re:covert fingerprint collection... anywhere by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      Any touchscreen anywhere, from a gas station pump to an ATM to a plain glass door, could be outfitted with a collection device to gather all our greasy fingertip data. And with the courts assuming that you have no expectation of privacy with third party data, everywhere is open season for state actors.

      On the one hand, thanks for pointing out a potential danger I hadn't thought of. On the other hand, thanks for ruining my day... :(

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    2. Re:covert fingerprint collection... anywhere by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      I still have several knuckles that I can use to activate those touchscreens...

    3. Re:covert fingerprint collection... anywhere by chispito · · Score: 1

      Now that it's shown to be possible to scan a fingerprint without an obvious fingerprint scanning area, be ready for the fingerprint wars. Any touchscreen anywhere, from a gas station pump to an ATM to a plain glass door, could be outfitted with a collection device to gather all our greasy fingertip data. And with the courts assuming that you have no expectation of privacy with third party data, everywhere is open season for state actors.

      What exactly is an "an obvious fingerprint scanning area?" I really don't think there was anything preventing door handles or whatever from having scanners in them already.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
  10. Fingertip condoms by rtkluttz · · Score: 1

    If this becomes the norm to where you can't buy one without it, I'll start selling finger anonymizers... otherwise known as fingertip condoms. Because I don't want my fucking finger print in your database or in any device that I'm not root and have full control of.

    --
    Digital is, by definition, imperfect. Analog is the way to go.
    1. Re:Fingertip condoms by balbeir · · Score: 1

      People call those "Gloves"

    2. Re:Fingertip condoms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, he's talkin bout "Finger Cots".

  11. Aww poor apple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Something else they cant lay claim to being the 1st to do, but you bet your ass they'll find some way to spin it.

    The thing is this sensor isn't even made by Vivo, it is made by Synaptics. And it isn't part of the display, it sits under it and peers though the gaps between pixels in the OLED panel. Likely apple could have had it in their own product if they weren't so bullheaded in figuring out how to do it themselves. There are reasons companies specialize in human input devices, video chips, CPUs. Apple want's to be the jack of all trades, but we all know what that means, they'll likely be the master of none, or very few.

    1. Re:Aww poor apple. by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Something else they cant lay claim to being the 1st to do, but you bet your ass they'll find some way to spin it.

      You mean they won't be the first to something slow and unreliable? And you can't think of the obvious way to "spin it" - by not fucking it up that way? Poor boy.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  12. Apple couldn't do it by p51d007 · · Score: 2

    But a 3rd tier company did. (BBK electronics...Oppo, OnePlus, Vivo). You can bet if Apple comes up with one at a later date, it will be applauded as "stellar" and "cutting edge". I think they have so much invested in that silly look at the phone thingy, they won't ever do it though.

    1. Re:Apple couldn't do it by Custard+Horse · · Score: 1

      I don't see the problem with Apple's face ID or having a fingerprint sensor on the back or the front (how about back and front?) but integrated in the screen?

      Surely this is just a case of we can so we did?

      Inventing poorly implemented features for a problem that doesn't really exist is so old-school. Like whistling to find your keys "hold on, it will work as long as I get the correct pitch, at a high-enough volume and I'm within 3 feet of the fob. And the battery hasn't run flat"

    2. Re:Apple couldn't do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't Vevo that invented it, it was Synaptics. One of the leaders of human input devices. Vevo was just the 1st to integrate it. Likely apple could have integrated such a thing into their iPhoneX if they weren't so stupid about trying to invent it themselves.

    3. Re:Apple couldn't do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is nothing special about their face ID scanner, its a fucking IR laser sitting behind a diffraction grating, you know those same things the silly paper glasses are made of that makes you see trippy rainbow effects and multiples of objects. Then they used an IR camera on the front to pick up all the dots. The same IR camera samsung has been using for years for their Iris scanning. Or the same technology microsoft used in the xbox connect.

      It was likely a last ditch effort, or something that was being worked on in parallel with their own in screen fingerprint reader. When that failed they just had to rely solely on faceid.

      Apple isn't a master at inventing anything, they are a master of creating PR spin to make the sheeple think they did.

    4. Re:Apple couldn't do it by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      for a problem that doesn't really exist

      Before you say it's a problem that doesn't exist you should read some reviews or better still try a device which has a fingerprint reader on the back.

    5. Re:Apple couldn't do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple doesn't make screens, so without the necessary expertise, it is no surprise Apple were unable to do it.

      I wonder if the Galaxy S9 and iPhone X2 will use this.

    6. Re:Apple couldn't do it by cmseagle · · Score: 1

      Apple's "invention" isn't an IR dot projector. It's their algorithm that allows them to use an IR dot projector to securely recognize people's faces, even when obscured by scarves/beards/glasses. Who else has achieved that?

    7. Re:Apple couldn't do it by cmseagle · · Score: 1

      The journalist acknowledges that the in-screen reader feels clunky. That seems like a good reason for Apple to stay away from it. If they're able to one day make it work as snappily as current implementations of TouchID, it would right to applaud it as "cutting edge."

    8. Re:Apple couldn't do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're pretending like apple didn't pour millions in to research on this very same topic. The rumor for YEARS has been that apple was going to release a phone with edge-to-edge front screen with fingerprint reader.

      They decided it wasn't ready for prime time and went with plan B on the X.

      Vivo isn't doing anything out of the ordinary. They're integrating a part made by synaptics and pushing it out the door to be first to market-- And the result is, no surprises, clunky.

    9. Re:Apple couldn't do it by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Apple's "invention" isn't an IR dot projector. It's their algorithm that allows them to use an IR dot projector to securely recognize people's faces, even when obscured by scarves/beards/glasses. Who else has achieved that?

      Nope, not new. In fact, you know it as the Kinect for the Xbox 360, which used the exact same technology (it's actually called structured light) to do depth sensing. The only difference is the Kinect was designed to detect room scale objects, while FaceID detects face scale objects (and is much smaller).

      In fact, after Microsoft let go of the technology (the Xbox One Kinect uses real depth sensing via Time of Flight), PrimeSense, the company behind the IR dot projector and IR cameras, was acquired by Apple.

      So technically, FaceID is a tiny version of the original Kinect, because the same company is behind it. Apple's innovation is in the miniaturization so instead of requiring a big bulky accessory, it fits inside the notch.

      In addition, to save on costs, Microsoft got rid of the special PrimeSense hardware to perform the depth calculations, and instead did it on software. I'm sure Apple integrated the hardware inside the SoC for FaceID rather than do it in software. (They own the company, and adding another block to an SoC would be basically free, versus having to make an ASIC just for an accessory).

    10. Re:Apple couldn't do it by cmseagle · · Score: 1

      I think you misunderstand my post, because I agree with you. I understand that FaceID is based on an IR dot projector, and that it's functionally a tiny version of the Kinect. What I'm saying is that the IR dot projector isn't where the innovation lies - it's in the ability to interpret the data to recognize an individual's face.

    11. Re:Apple couldn't do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The algorithm is nothing new. the kinect was able to identify objects like hands and parts of your body. and it does use the exact same system of IR laser dots

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinect#/media/File:Kinect2-ir-image.png

      Apple's face id is working just like any other 2d image based facial recognition, measuring distance relationship of key items, your eyes, nose, mouth, maybe ears just like any other facial recognition has done. The only thing different is it has the added depth of field, so it can add into the relationship of the above data, how far your nose sticks out, how sunken in your eyes are, how much your cheeks stick out. It's not fucking rocket science

      Neither 2d image based facial recognition nor apple's face id cares much about things like facial hair, that part of your face is not needed for recognition. And any BS apple tries to spin is just that plain BS. If a standard camera cant see through your beard for the recognition, then how the fuck is an IR camera going to do it? Hair is not invisible in the IR spectrum.

    12. Re:Apple couldn't do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also apple's system works with things like sunglasses on, because most sunglasses are transparent in IR light. again nothing new and ground breaking here.

      A standard 2d image facial recognition with an plain old flood IR light on the front of the phone work work just as well.

      https://diglloyd.com/articles/...

    13. Re:Apple couldn't do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft also switched to a time of flight sensor that actually measures how long it takes for a pulse of light emitted from the kinect to hit an object with its multiple different depths and how long those different reflections take to reach back to the camera sensor. So in essence works much like radar. a much better and accurate method of depth perception, why MS ditched the dot projection method.

      The dot projection method that old kinects and faceid use rely on a calibration "image" set at the factory of where each of the dots land against a flat surface. depth measurement is done by how much those dots shift in relation to the depth. Since each piece of diffraction grating in front of the IR laser is going to cast a different patterns of dots just because of the nature of diffraction grating, a calibration image has to be stored for each sensor.

      This will be another whole gotcha that most people haven't thought of yet. If something happens to the dot projector in an iPhone X and it gets replaced by a 3rd party, likely faceid will never work again because the pattern of dots cast by the projector will not match the reference calibration image.

    14. Re:Apple couldn't do it by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      This will be another whole gotcha that most people haven't thought of yet. If something happens to the dot projector in an iPhone X and it gets replaced by a 3rd party, likely faceid will never work again because the pattern of dots cast by the projector will not match the reference calibration image.

      Wait, are you telling me that the whole "Right to Repair" movement is mostly about selling you third party replacements that don't work? Shame - on Apple I guess.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  13. Still not sold on biometrics for mobile by wjcofkc · · Score: 1

    For a long time I used face recog on my S8+. It was neat. But there are reasons why the security settings suggest turning it off in order to enhance security. If someone wants to access the data on your phone, all they need is the phone and the user - being held under duress? - or a really good picture. Likewise with the finger print scanner you can physically force someone to unlock their phone even if they don't want to, or use a lifted fingerprint. I never tried the photo bypass, but I was able to lift a fingerprint and artificially apply it to unlock the device.

    Although it took an awkward situation to turn off facial recognition. Long story short, I had left the Youtube app open, paused the video, and locked the phone. Facial recognition on the S8+ is lighting fast. Without my intending to the phone saw enough of my face at an angle I am still surprised worked and unlocked in a room full of people - much to my surprise. The volume was turned up all the way and the paused video auto played. The people in the room were SJW, the channel was Andy Warski. I am lucky I wasn't skinned alive.

    iPhone, blah blah. Problems with that also, too long don't want to write.

    Back to using a PIN only, the best security feature I could ask for would create a condition on the screen where only someone looking directly at it can see it.

    Do I have anything that super secret on my phone to hide? No, if I had anything so sensitive it would not be on my phone at all regardless of measures including encryption. But that is not the point. Is using a PIN perfect? Of course not, but neither is locking the door to your house.

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
    1. Re:Still not sold on biometrics for mobile by cmseagle · · Score: 1

      If you're the user of a device and are being held under duress, the only thing that's going to protect your data is the ability to quickly and covertly delete it all. Even a PIN isn't secure against rubber hose cryptanalysis.

      Your facial recognition concerns seem more about the S8's implementation than about facial recognition itself. Compare to the iPhone X which will show you your notifications if you bypass FaceID but now actually unlock the phone until you swipe up. It also requires that you actually look at the phone, as opposed to just catching a glance of your face. Most importantly, it can't be fooled by holding a photo of the user in front of the phone.

      You may also be interested to learn about the existence of screen privacy protectors.

  14. Broken Screen by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

    I wanted the video and it looks interesting.... however, I would bet a broken screen = a bricked phone.

    1. Re:Broken Screen by cmseagle · · Score: 1

      In every smartphone biometric implementation that I can think of, you can enter a PIN if biometrics fail or are unavailable.

  15. read it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it applies only if THE attorney general approves, and the person is believed to be outside of the US.

  16. Mobile biometric sensors by wjcofkc · · Score: 1

    Sound like a great way to quietly build a biometric database.

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
  17. The point of a fingerprint scanner is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you lock your phone for security right?
    1. Phone lost and data is safe from strangers
    2. Phone stolen and expectation that data fairly safe

    A pin solves both but a fingerprint scanner means I only need to be knocked out and my phone is open with a quick tap of my unconscious fingers.

    Needless to say I'll stick with a pin thx

  18. Apple could and did do it by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    Apple did have prototypes with behind the glass fingerprint readers. But they realized how much better FaceID would be, and they threw everything they had into making it work...

    That was the right choice. TouchID is an archaic technology now, a relic of the old times.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Apple could and did do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Face ID can be beaten with a bent photograph. Really "secure" there. Touch ID at least requires effort to beat, and not a low resolution blurry photograph.

  19. Don't need to go that far by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    And how reliable is it if I use a potato peeler to remove your fingertips? Can I use those flesh slices get in to your phone?

    You can leave that peeler at home sir! Since this fingerprint scanner is entirely optical, it should be very easy to fool with a lifted fingerprint reprinted onto anything.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  20. Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give this guy a medal.

  21. Telescreens. by pz · · Score: 1

    Vivo is using a Synaptics optical sensor called Clear ID that works by peering through the gaps between the pixels in an OLED display

    1984. Exactly.

    --

    Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
  22. Ok so now you have to guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the date the first slashdot article appears about person who has their finger cut off in the traditional science fiction style.

  23. Biometric authentication is flawed by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    Biometric authentication uses authentication credentials that are almost public and cannot be revoked. The challenge for the attacker is only to reproduce them, and once done, the system needs to be replaced, since there is no "password change".