FaceID is 2.5 years ahead of the competition

[DrMacintosh]

4 minutes ago, mrchow19910319 said:

I've seen a lot of people saying you shouldn't use Face ID because police will force you to unlock your phone. 

or something like that. 

Hit the power button 5 times to disable. That is apparently going to be thing soon. So the police can't do anything.  

[79wjd]

9 minutes ago, mrchow19910319 said:

I've seen a lot of people saying you shouldn't use Face ID because police will force you to unlock your phone. 

or something like that. 

So historically passwords have generally been protected by the fifth amendment whereas fingerprints have NOT been. So that would extend to FaceID for the same reason. However, I vaguely recall a couple cases where individuals were forced to (or thrown in jail) unlock password protected content as well. So, technically, right now, a password is still safer in terms of hiding from law-enforcement, I don't know how much longer that will be the case (although, you could certainly argue that being thrown in jail for contempt/perjury is a hell of a lot better than being convicted of the crime(s) you're trying to hide from).

 

Regardless, if you're going to get involved in criminal activities, then it is probably best to not be walking around with a tracking device that has sensitive information on it.

[DrMacintosh]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

So historically passwords have generally been protected by the fifth amendment whereas fingerprints have NOT been. So that would extend to FaceID for the same reason.

Apple is planning on implementing a feature to disable FaceID and probably TouchID in the instance police want to search your phone without a warrant. 

[mynameisjuan]

9 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

These types of analysis ignore easily guessable passcodes and patterns. FaceID and TouchID eliminate those risks. 

I can also guess that their house key is under the mat, in the flower pot or above the door. 

 

But the point isnt the stupidity of the people use this security. Passwords are still stronger and can be changed

[Sniperfox47]

3 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

And you think your local phone thief is going to make those? 

And your local phone thief is going to stalk you, steal your fingerprint, lift it, create a copy out of some capacitive material, and use that to get into your phone? If you use any finger other than your thumbs for the fingerprint scanner the chances of successfully lifting a print off your phone is negligible.

 

7 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Yes. The A11 Bionic and the Neural Engine aren't going to give a crap about anything. Apple overpowers their phones for good reason. 

What the hell does the CPU, GPU and TPU have to do with the power design of the actual biometrics hardware? Regardless of how good your mapping software is, you still need to collect the information to map, and high bandwidth cameras aren't exactly power friendly.

[vanished]

11 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Hit the power button 5 times to disable. That is apparently going to be thing soon. So the police can't do anything.  

 

6 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Apple is planning on implementing a feature to disable FaceID and probably TouchID in the instance police want to search your phone without a warrant. 

 

So wait, there'll be a way to fall back to a password anyway?  Is this optional or forced, because if it's forced, I have to remind you of the fact that security is only as good as the weakest link, and therefore any argument about face ID being a better option since it protects people form using stupid passwords like 123456 is rendered null and void...

[mynameisjuan]

1 minute ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

So wait, there'll be a way to fall back to a password anyway?

The fact that security would have to fall back to a method that is more secure really speaks for the security of passwords.

[Sniperfox47]

Just now, Ryan_Vickers said:

 

 

So wait, there'll be a way to fall back to a password anyway?  Is this optional or forced, because if it's forced, I have to remind you of the fact that security is only as good as the weakest link, and therefore any argument about face ID being a better option since it protects people form using stupid passwords like 123456 is rendered null and void...

Even now, if you have touch ID enabled it's as a bypass for your passcode, not to replace it (Just like Android's Smart Lock and Imprint). And someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe iOS let's you use it two-factor, only as a bypass (since there's the chance it fails).

[Mira Yurizaki]

10 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

I can also guess that their house key is under the mat, in the flower pot or above the door. 

 

But the point isnt the stupidity of the people use this security. Passwords are still stronger and can be changed

You can change your face too, if you really want.

[mynameisjuan]

Just now, M.Yurizaki said:

You can change your face too, if you really want.

lol well I cant argue that. 

[Mira Yurizaki]

Just now, mynameisjuan said:

lol well I cant argue that. 

"Aw dammit, hackers stole my face. Better get into a fight and hope someone breaks my nose or something"

[JoostinOnline]

9 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

It can’t be done. FaceID requires a 3D map of a face and alert eyes. Both these things are impossible to rellicate with a photo. 

Not even Apple said it was impossible.  But beating it doesn't necessarily mean using a photo.

 

Your fanboy is starting to show.

[Sniperfox47]

4 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

Not even Apple said it was impossible.  But beating it doesn't necessarily mean using a photo.

 

Your fanboy is starting to show.

They were saying it's impossible to beat using a photo >.> Way to take things out of context 

[JoostinOnline]

Just now, Sniperfox47 said:

They were saying it's impossible to beat using a photo >.> Way to take things out of context 

I didn't see that.  But still, don't say something is impossible.

[bob345]

Decent tech, very poor implementation and use case. You would be surprised how easy it is to fool a system like this. Sure, its not as simple as printing out a picture, but its damn close.

[Commodus]

5 minutes ago, bob345 said:

Decent tech, very poor implementation and use case. You would be surprised how easy it is to fool a system like this. Sure, its not as simple as printing out a picture, but its damn close.

"Very poor implementation."  So how would you improve on it?  And did you not actually pay attention to how Apple tested the system precisely to prevent even sophisticated attempts at fooling it?  If a 3D mask doesn't fool it, I'd like to know what does.

 

I'm not saying it's a perfectly airtight system, but please don't pretend you're an expert on biometric authentication... you clearly aren't.

[DrMacintosh]

19 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Is this optional or forced,

Optional 

[DrMacintosh]

8 minutes ago, bob345 said:

You would be surprised how easy it is to fool a system like this.

Would love to see you try and fool it with anything other than the actual persons face. 

[79wjd]

33 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Apple is planning on implementing a feature to disable FaceID and probably TouchID in the instance police want to search your phone without a warrant. 

How the hell will that not fall under destruction of evidence.....

 

12 minutes ago, bob345 said:

Decent tech, very poor implementation and use case. You would be surprised how easy it is to fool a system like this. Sure, its not as simple as printing out a picture, but its damn close.

Can I borrow your crystal ball?

[DrMacintosh]

5 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

How the hell will that not fall under destruction of evidence.....

Evidence isn’t evedicne if it isn’t legally obtained. Any illegally obtained evidence cannot be admitted. 

 

Me disabling FaceID is within my legal right, and they don’t have a legal right to prevent me from doing it unless they had a legal document on the spot that says otherwise. 

 

Also evidence that hasn’t been admitted isn’t evidence, it’s potential evidence. 

[mynameisjuan]

9 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Evidence isn’t evedicne if it isn’t legally obtained. Any illegally obtained evidence cannot be admitted. 

If they arrested you, you most likely had it on you and would be part of legal evidence.

 

But if you have have to disable that feature in fear of them gaining access then that is evidence enough that you have something you reallllly want to hide from them. 

[bob345]

2 minutes ago, Commodus said:

"Very poor implementation."  So how would you improve on it?  And did you not actually pay attention to how Apple tested the system precisely to prevent even sophisticated attempts at fooling it?  If a 3D mask doesn't fool it, I'd like to know what does.

 

I'm not saying it's a perfectly airtight system, but please don't pretend you're an expert on biometric authentication... you clearly aren't.

It being used a security solution is poor implementation. Depth mapping with a projected ir grid is great for tracking detailed motion and scanning objects in 3d, but for a security solution i would not trust it. I have already messed with fooling an xbox kinect which uses the same kind of depth mapping technique as face id. All you need is to know the ir grid spacing at a known distance, an image of the subject. With the 2d image (preferably 2 a side profile and front profile to more easily interpolate your own depth map in a software like blender) all you then need is something like ITO coated PET film, an inkjet printer, and a laser cutter to laser drill holes in the printed image on the ito coated film that match up with you interpolated depth map based on the devices ir grid spacing. All you need then is an ir source that you shine in from behind. All these systems do to identify an object is look at the way the projected grid is deformed paired with traditional 2d imaging to interpolate distance and shape. Like i said before, not as easy as just printing a picture, but its easily within a days work if you have access to the required tools.

[79wjd]

10 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Evidence isn’t evedicne if it isn’t legally obtained. Any illegally obtained evidence cannot be admitted. 

 

Me disabling FaceID is within my legal right, and they don’t have a legal right to prevent me from doing it unless they had a legal document on the spot that says otherwise. 

 

Also evidence that hasn’t been admitted isn’t evidence, it’s potential evidence. 

Me flushing a bag of cocaine down my toilet is also my legal right.....but I'll still get reamed for destruction of evidence.

[DrMacintosh]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

you reallllly want to hide from them. 

Or you know your Constitutional rights......

 

that is if you are a U.S. Citizen. I don’t live in a police state and I’m not going to submit to authority willingly. 

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

Me flushing a bag of cocaine down my toilet is also my legal right.....but I'll still get reamed for destruction of evidence.

If you got caught and they knew you had drugs. 

 

They have no reason to search your phone without a warrant and I’m damn well going to make them get one if they want to search mine.