Slashdot Mirror
Face ID Deemed Too Costly To Copy, Android Makers Target In-Display Fingerprint Sensors Instead (9to5mac.com)
"Android phone makers are 'rushing' to implement fingerprint sensors under the display for upcoming handsets," reports 9to5Mac, citing a new report from Digitimes. "Android manufacturers have decided that recreating the 3D facial recognition used by iPhone X is simply too costly to include, and are instead focusing on implementing Qualcomm's ultrasonic fingerprint scanners." From the report: The report says that including an Infrared depth-sensing facial recognition system like the iPhone X is simply too expensive for Android smartphones to offer, which cannot command the same price premiums as Apple's iPhones. This is a combination of hardware and software development costs. Digitimes claims the cost of the TrueDepth 3D sensors in iPhone X peaked at $60 per unit, an incredibly high proportion of the overall phone cost if accurate. Android makers are also worried about possible patent infringement from adopting Infrared dot projector systems. Instead, they have turned to in-display fingerprint sensors as their next-generation of device authentication. This depends on using Qualcomm technology for ultrasonic-based fingerprint scanners, which can sit below the cover glass and work even if fingers are wet or greasy.
FaceID is a terrible idea anyway. Notches in the screen? Seriously?
Bad choice.
I liked the fingerprint sensor on the back why my finger was likely to be. Even samsung eventually saw this was the way to go.
On the front as well souinds fine, but I see them removing the usable one.
And fuck face id, fuck it, waste of fucking time. May as well just remove all access controls.
+----------------- | What is the question!
I got facial recognition working with a VGA webcam hooked up to a Raspberry Pi v1.0. Your argument is invalid, manufacturers... but still don't do it anyway because it's a terrible idea.
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
OnePlus 5T
Huawei Mate 10
Xiaomi Mi A1 - costs around $200. Works with most cellular operators of the world.
The fingerprint thing was [for me] always finicky & unreliable. It created a perceptible sense of dread each time I was about to use it in non-optimal conditions. By comparison FaceID is unobtrusive and accurate.
Best source for your Android news is ofc.... 9to5Mac.
Who the fuck upvotes those submissions?
Apple is going to start bringing FaceID into tablets, laptops, etc.
It's just a vastly better way to authenticate a person than a fingerprint, because it's passive. As others have said before, in practice it feels like you are using an unlocked phone, how it used to be... I look down and see I have notifications on my phone, before I can think about it the phone unlocks and I can see the notification text and press to open them if I like.
It's also more secure and reliable than TouchID (which I still use with other devices so I have a daily direct comparison). Your fingers too dry or wet? No TouchID. And as you get older, your fingerprints get a lot harder to read - the government global entry readers can't even read my mom's fingerprints at all, and TouchID does not work for her as reliably as it does for me.
Fingerprint ID systems are also way easier to spoof than FaceiD, especially behind the screen systems that can't measure some aspects of a finger being used that a direct sensor can. FaceID is about an order of magnitude more secure than fingerprints (even if you do hear the occasional story about a similar face unlocking a device, no-one tries as often with fingerprint sensors or they would find that can happen a lot more often).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
iPhone rules. Android couldn't innovate its way out of a brown paper bag.
I want to factor ID. I don't want only fingerprints ID because courts precedent says I can be compelled to give fingerprint. I would like voiceprint ID added to both fingerprint or face ID. I have the right of silence in this country (USA).
FaceID used infra-red depth-sensing, which makes it a lot more accurate and harder to fool.
FTFY
Active? As in a hand reaches out of the screen and feels the bumps on your face?
Microsoft laptops already have FaceID type authentication
Sigh. Face recognition from images is utterly not the same thing as FaceID which uses a 3D mapping of the face from a variety of sensors.
Image Facial Recognition is about as secure as a TSA approved padlock.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That's just wonderful, said the guy with palmar hyperhydrosis who can never get a fingerprint scanner to work on anything.
I don't want passive authentication. I want active.
Why? FaceID is active when needed (like for conformation of a purchase). But the rest to the time, it works instantly when it knows you are the one looking at the phone.
And I don't want Apple or Google having access to biometric info that I can't change.
Right there with you! Luckily FaceID data is only held on the device (in the Secure Enclave where it remains encrypted) and does not leave it. Apple does not get any biometric data from you.
I'll keep my long passcode, thanks very much
That is more secure than any biometric system, just a lot more annoying. It means you turn off other things like notification text blocking or have larger purchase unlock timeframes because you don't want to have to enter passcodes as often...
And even then, I'm not sure passcodes are realistically more secure.
I mean, realistically how much are you willing to suffer - either physically or legally - before you unlock your phone by whatever means you have? The realistic reason why you have a passcode is so that someone can't unlock your phone you leave on a table by accident, or lose in a cab. In that case FaceID works every bit as well as a long passcode, and is far more convenient the 99.999999999% of the time you have not left your phone in a cab.
Fingerprint scanners are pretty good but with a 1 in 50k chance that someone else's fingerprint will unlock your phone is it more possible some random person might unlock it.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Collecting your fingerprints and faces for the CIA
Don't want face ID, and don't want on-screen fingerprint ID either! My android has on-edge fingerprint today and works perfect, integrated in to the side mounted power button. I'm already pushing it anyway, can touch without messing the screen and don't have to move my hand again since it is where my finger will naturally rest when holding the phone. No need to be an imitator when you are already best!
We are literally slipping down the slope as we read this. Hardly an assurance.
What about years and years of past behavior? There has been no slope; when possible Apple has kept personal data either encrypted or local only.
TouchID fingerprint data was also only ever held on device. You had to re-train for a new phone or tablet, even if you'd backed up the device locally.
Apple doesn't need or crave your data the way Google does. They have no advertisers to feed info to about usage, you just buy your device and that's enough for Apple.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Have you tried it?
The implementation is different, but the end user result is the same.
Incorrect: If you are in a very dark environment it will not work, or if you are wearing glasses when you were not, or lots of other things where FaceID can clearly see and tell it is you when an image recognition cannot... it's not just being able to prevent anyone with a picture of you from unlocking your device we are talking about.
I know you are 100% sold on the Apple marketing
I'm not *sold on Apple marketing*.
The difference between you and me is I KNOW what is and is not marketing. You are just assuming something real is marketing; I use FaceID a hundred times a day or more, and still use TouchID nearly as much. So, I actually know what the hell I am talking about from a practical standpoint, not from any marketing.
I have also done a fair amount of my own work with image/facial recognition so I know exactly how "secure" it is not, and also know the many, many ways it may fail.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Some Android models use iris recognition, which makes it a lot more accurate and harder to fool.
In any case, the main submission is just flamebait.
Face ID / Iris scanning may be great for some security form factors, but they're not the most optimal for phones.
That's the real story, here.
What about years and years of past behavior? There has been no slope
For a hundred thousand years humans did not wallow under a single totalitarian government. Therefore humans will never wallow under a totalitarian government.
My phone cost me $20. It doesn't have any apps. No data plan either. No Internet.
Whoever steals it really isn't getting much.
I do all my Internet-y stuff from my PC. I won't go into details about how I manage authentication there, but I will say that it is both retro and strong.
The infrared depth of field sensor is awesome, it's really too bad it's only used for authentication and to aid in making hilarious face augmentations. I would like to see it used as part of a 3D scanning system. Want an item you have put into a game or virtual reality program? Just scan it in. Want to copy a 3D object, scan it up and get a cad file for your 3-D printer. You can use mosaicking similar to panorama shots to stitch it together. This tech has some really neat possibilities.
You raise good points. I am not in the market for either one.
When New York passes the bill for no official contact after-hours my customers will memorize my land line number =)
I really don't like passive unlocking - and I can't really see anyone who cares about security wanting it.
My MacBook Pro asked me if I wanted it to automatically unlock whenever my Apple Watch was in proximity
But that's totally different. In the case of the Apple Watch, you might be near but not looking at the screen. It has no way to measure intent or true presence.
Witch FaceID the key to such a better usability model is not just that it is passive, the key is that it can perceive attention. It KNOWS if you are looking at the screen, vs. just being around - and it doesn't unlock unless you are paying attention to the screen (there is a setting to disable attention as in some cases like a blind user it's not possible to discern attention).
I do use the Apple Watch unlocking as I'm never close enough for my Apple Watch to unlock my laptop without it being in sight and the Apple Watch will not unlock the Mac unless it is also unlocked (meaning it's on my wrist after I have unlocked it at some point).
I would prefer FaceID on a laptop or desktop because then as I sat down, it could unlock automatically when I looked up at the screen... Again, in practice it would be like I didn't even have a passcode, useful most of the time but still just as secure as a passcode only in practice.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I would guess that GP wants to be the one to activate the authentication process, and for it to not happen automatically at any moment "randomly".
It's not at all random. It's when you are looking at the screen.
Even then for some actions (like payments) it still prompts for confirmation, so it's not always completely automatic - just when that makes sense, like unlocking the phone (unlocking does not go to the home screen).
If you are in some app asking for a password the system can auto-fill, it does so - but does not submit it for you. Again, it's automatic in ways that are handy, but not ways that take some action you might not have wanted.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
claims android phone makers cannot charge apple's premiums. Then why the pixel XL is more expensive that the iphone 8 plus? How about the Galaxy note 8?
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
How do you know? Just because Apple says that doesn't mean they can sneakly do it. Do we believe them?
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
and apple is no way trustworthy.
Some Android models FAKE THE use iris recognition
There I fix it. Not one single Android device has ever done real iris recognition.
Years and years of past behaviour?
- "No reasonable person would believe us"
- bending over releasing cloud data (china or otherwise), instead of encrypting it.
- APL has an advertising interface -- one that bugged out recently and gave other people's app information to the wrong developer. If you actually think APL doesn't have any presence in advertising... I mean, why would anyone even bother using their stuff if the advertising is ineffective?
- Is there any proof that the data isn't sent anywhere? How about a code review? Network sniffing? Apple's straight up lied about functionality of their voice assistant among other things. Don't forget the battery issue that just happened a couple months ago.
Look closer at what they do, not what they say. They are *NOT* a trustworthy company.
Fucking Opie from Mayberry RFD is the master passkey to FaceID.
As an Android fan I'm tired of Android phone manufacturers copying everything the iPhone does (copying also happens the inverse way). It may be nice to copy good ideas but some manufacturers also insist in copying the bad ones. e.g.: Headphone jack removal and, worst of all, the notch.
face ID doesn't work properly anyway, and it is too expensive.
why would you want it?
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
Put this behind the screen, the NSA quarter of the Qualcom chip reads finger print out of band and sends back. Done.
It's super plus good at keeping your kids out of your phone,... kind of... not really.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
All of my BIO data is MY intellectual property and not subject to ANY entity's use.
By collecting or attempting to use it in any form, those that collect it are agreeing to pay me $10,000,000 (Ten Million U.S. Dollars) per incident.
I think it's fairly easy to deduce given what security researchers have been able to pick apart. - And they pick over iOS devices pretty thoroughly considering their popularity and world wide ubiquity.
Also consider Apple's stance on security. They clearly do not want access to your secured biometric data. It's too much trouble. The less they hold, the less they can be subpoenaed for. (And this isn't because they are nice! It's in their best financial interest. It's an expensive process, and it makes their customers trust them less)
They've stated your biometric data stays in a secured enclave and we've been given no reason to belive otherwise. If it were being copied elsewhere someone would notice via meta-analysis. There are millions and millions of iphones in the wild. It would be a huge secret to keep it on all of them.
Because there's a good reason for Apple to not have it?
As in, law enforcement?
There are two ways to not give law enforcement something. One, is to simply not have it. The other, is to say it is not available to them for some reason.
The former is easy to defend - if you don't keep logs, then really, you cannot produce them when asked to. Granted, you may be forced to keep records after the fact if you have access to the data (e.g., you may not log log IP addresses, but you can be forced to simply because that information is given to you). But if you're not given that information, you can't even log it. So Apple does not back up in iCloud stuff like your passwords and all that, either (because that's a nice juicy target for law enforcement). It doesn't pass through Apple's servers at all - so even if law enforcement started tapping every bit, it's your iOS device that simply excludes the password database when backing up. (You can back up your passwords, by doing local iTunes encrypted backup, where they're stored encrypted on your local PC).
The alternative is to have to legally defend why you're not handing over the data, like what Microsoft did by saying the data is not inside the US. This is based on legal procedure, because the data exists, and you have it, but you're arguing there's a reason why you cannot hand it over. I find these arguments less "permanent" since there may be a case where not handing over the data might put you in the position of having to defend your position against public opinion. (Imagine trying to withhold a terrorist's account data just because he stored it outside of the country).
Apple has long learned it's far better to simply not have the data touch its servers at all and thus be unavailable to law enforcement, than to hold onto it and to have to defend why you're not handing it over.
It's also why Apple's privacy policies haven't really allowed them to share data within Apple. Google's privacy policy has expanded the data sharing to not just through Google, but to every Alphabet company as well. So your YouTube viewing data, once only for YouTube, can be mined by the most popular online ad networks as well.
Finally, what can Apple do with that data? If they have it, what are they going to use it for? Apple barely has an advertising business (really meant to allow Google to buy AdMob). So what would Apple do with all that information they aren't selling?
Do you know which theme is this http://ikingrootapk.com/