Things that make me laugh

[ameerat42]

Quite relevant generally, AK.

[Plays With Light]

Yep their 3D version of faceID is really well polished, that it failed to work during their presentation.

Here's what actually happened, if you're interested, Rick.

In a statement provided to Yahoo's David Pogue, Apple says the device locked after several people interacted with it ahead of Federighi, causing it to require a passcode to unlock.

Tonight, I was able to contact Apple. After examining the logs of the demo iPhone X, they now know exactly what went down. Turns out my first theory in this story was wrong--but my first UPDATE theory above was correct: "People were handling the device for stage demo ahead of time," says a rep, "and didn't realize Face ID was trying to authenticate their face. After failing a number of times, because they weren't Craig, the iPhone did what it was designed to do, which was to require his passcode." In other words, "Face ID worked as it was designed to."

Oh, and I'm not a fanboy, but I did want to know what actually happened, rather than just jump on the Apple-bashing bandwagon.

[arthurking83]

Good to know the why's and how's here:
Once again my thread wasn't an apple bashing attempt .. just the comments made by Thom, and how they came across.

But on the topic of the FaceID thing .. it'd make more sense to me that if others tried to log into the device using their faces .. you think the simpler setup would be for the device to simply ignore them a trillion times if need be .. but then just work for the right face!

I don't understand the need for the passcode.

I can understand the need for one if the security was pin number of pattern based .. you could probably try to hack this way in some elite hacker way using some elite hacker methodology.
But FaceID only supposedly uses real faces .. and to try to hack into it with real faces requires real faces .. I can't imagine any elite hacker tools that can present a trillion real faces until an acceptable one is realised by the device!

ie. to me it's sounding like BS .. in that there must be a way to 'hack into it' using some other method .. if it forces a passcode on multiple failed attempts!
Take into account that they're saying that they're confident that it only works on real faces not photos ... or caricatures or whatever.
Apples PR firm comments smells like the output of a sewer to me .. but that's me!.. predominantly ignorant of Apple's wares, but also a non fanboy.

[Plays With Light]

But on the topic of the FaceID thing .. it'd make more sense to me that if others tried to log into the device using their faces .. you think the simpler setup would be for the device to simply ignore them a trillion times if need be .. but then just work for the right face!

I don't understand the need for the passcode.

Me neither, I agree, that it would be far more effective to just ignore other peoples faces, rather than locking you out and forcing you to enter your security PIN again.

I reckon it will be a right royal pain in the bum, to borrow your catch phrase, Arthur, for all those new owners who are going to experience meddling from friends, coworkers, family, etc... wanting to see if it works on their faces. What a nightmare!

Obviously it hasn't been thought out very well thus far. Apple may well change things though, as they are pretty quick to act on mass complaints.

Oh, and Thom really does come off as the ultimate fanboy doesn't he! I'll stick to taking on board his thoughts photographic though.

[arthurking83]

My other thought re FaceID is how it handles changing faces .. not so much over time, but what about having 'bumped into a door' at the local police station!
Bumping into a door at the local lockup (as we've all seen and heard on the news) can result in quite severe facial swelling .. lockup doors are fairly rough inanimate objects!

So question is, lets say a typical Los Angelean middle aged princess has just come out of the clinic having a fair amount of nipping and tucking done to facial areas .. will FaceID still recognise them?


The other aspect that came up when I was listening to the radio a few days back .. the doogooder, leftwing, privacy nazi, hippies are all up in arms because this feature now makes it easier for security forces to easily unlock the phone just by waving it in front of a potential suspect .. whereas before they had to force them to enter an unlock code(pin or whatever).

I'm thinking; are these privacy advocate people on drugs, or just too simple to know better, or have been living on the planet Thnong in the outermost depths of the delta quadrant .. or something(craniums up posteriors kind of situation).

Face recognition security options has existed for years now on phones .. but now Apple has also entered the fray, and all of a sudden it's a privacy issue!

[Tannin]

Once again my thread wasn't an apple bashing attempt

No problem there, I believe you. But apart from that it was quite a good post.

- - - Updated - - -

Seriously now, biometric "security" is a terrible, terrible idea.

I wrote the following a few months back over at another forum I belong to in response to a Federal Minister's idiotic thought bubble. (Presumably it was Dutton, but that doesn't really matter.) It remains as true today as it was back then.

This is a really, really stupid idea. It could only be supported by a Minister with no clue at all about digital recognition technology and how it works. Let's do a quick Digital Biomentrics 101 refresher

For simplicity, assume that the sensors and scanners and all the associated technology work perfectly every time. (They won't, of course. Just assume this anyway.)

Your biometric data is scanned. (Never mind how, we are assuming the scanners are perfect in every way. Never mind what data - fingerprints,retinal patterns, the shape of your head, whatever else, it doesn't matter.)

The scanned data is turned into a set of numbers.(We don't have to know how. It doesn't matter how.)

Those numbers are stored as a digital record, which can then be used to identify you. (We are still assuming perfection in the process such that there are no mistaken identities, no mixed-up records, no false positives, nothing. OK, that is a completely unrealistic assumption, but let's be crazy-generous and assume it anyway.).

Now no-one can pretend to be you. Right? It's not like guessing or stealing a password, 'coz no-one else can have your biometric signature. Right?

Wrong.

You see, the system doesn't compare biometrics with biometric records. It compares the numbers the scanner makes with the numbers in your digital record.

Now what happens when (not if, it's a when) someone obtains access to your biometric record? They can pretend to be you. They have your numbers and there is nothing, repeat nothing, you can do about it. Ever. For the rest of your entire life, the person who stole your data can pretend to be you. So can anyone they sell it to. Or anyone they give it to. Or anyone who hacks their database.

There is no escape. With a stolen passport, you can have it cancelled and get it replaced. With a stolen PIN you can change it. With a stolen password, you can make a new one.

With stolen biometric data, you are screwed. Buggered every way you turn. Well, maybe you could have skin grafts and get a head transplant.

But wouldn't it be easier to do that head transplant on the Minister? Now? Before he enacts this insane policy? Hell, the new head might even have a brain in it.

[Steve Axford]

But, Tony, this assumes that the string of numbers representing you cannot change, that this iPhone 8 will be the only device into the future (Apple will be happy, though maybe not as they rely on new models to make their profit) and that technology and the world will stop with the creation of a biometric for each person. Sounds a bit Sci-Fi to me.

[arthurking83]

.... Sounds a bit Sci-Fi to me.

Phone that scan your face, read your fingerprints, understand your voice .. all in the name of security!! That also sounds a bit sci fi to me, and 10 years ago no one would have ever thought it'd become a reality.

What we think of sci-fi now, is probably going to be a reality in 10years time .. most likely less than that.


When I first tried face security on my Sony experia a few years ago now .. I turned it off basically immediately.
It was too annoying, in that every time you looked at the phone just to check the time, it'd unlock .. and all I wanted what that locked screen that I had configured with the clock on it.

The way it worked: phone in sleep mode, pull it out of pocket, press a button on the side to wake it up to get to the lock screen, look at clock, put it back in pocket.
Doing that (and that's all I wanted to do, not get into the phone) would unlock the phone, so I would have to lock the phone again before I put it in pocket.

I can understand the reasoning behind face ID for other security related tasks, like entering a building, or logging into a desktop computer or something that's not a mobile device type thing tho.

[Steve Axford]

Ah, you mistake my meaning. My mistake. I really meant that assuming a fixed future is reminiscent of Sci-Fi books that are a little too simplistic. I too have ignored face recognition in the past because it was so enreliable, but things change. I am guessing that Apple thinks that they have changed enough to make it work. Time will tell.

[MissionMan]

No problem there, I believe you. But apart from that it was quite a good post.

- - - Updated - - -

Seriously now, biometric "security" is a terrible, terrible idea.

I wrote the following a few months back over at another forum I belong to in response to a Federal Minister's idiotic thought bubble. (Presumably it was Dutton, but that doesn't really matter.) It remains as true today as it was back then.

You could do that without biometric systems. Replace your photo and your identity is largely gone...but IT isn’t always that simply. I work in some of these fields of consulting where we have to look at these types of scenarios. For example, you can use worm (write one, read many) media to lock certain data, so it cannot be changed. I.e. once your identity is validated, it’s impossible to change, if there is an error, they create a new version of the record and the old version cannot be purged and change logs are generated which can’t be deleted, so if you come forward and say someone stole your ID, the old version will still be there along with a record of who changed it.

For these types of scenarios, I have to go to court and prove the data could not be changed, and what mechanisms are in place to prevent change. It’s actually relatively easy to prove. Most tech leaves behind so many breadcrumbs that it’s surprisingly hard to do something without leaving behind a trail, even with the use of proxies.

[ameerat42]

Hmm! I wonder how these things work if you're a nobody?

[arthurking83]

Hmm! I wonder how these things work if you're a nobody?

I'm proof that 'a nobody' can make these systems work!

I recently tested the no brainer theory tho .. need the physical head, as it has the eyes to visualise where I'm going .. and I don't want to be relegated to chook status yet.
But, the other day my no brain theory (head still intact for the visuals, but brain disconnected for a moment) accidentally saw me have a major incident at work where I nearly dropped a very large heavy bit of transport gear(50ft and 10 ton) onto the ground and costing a lot of $s).

So considering all those peripheral bodily elements, I'm sure the device biometrics still work for me.