iPhone X Face ID got fooled by brothers who ARE NOT TWINS

[DrMacintosh]

Just now, Sniperfox47 said:

They're the facial recognition for Windows Hello,

Windows Hello is not a competitor to FaceID in the iPhone. 

 

The two are in completely different markets!

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, Sniperfox47 said:

And no 30000 dots really isn't

edited

[vanished]

3 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

If they did that you would complain how its not secure. So when they make it local you still complain that its not secure......

very true, there's definitely advantages to both but you can imaging the shitstorm if they had made it cloud-computing based

[Sniperfox47]

2 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Windows Hello is not a competitor to FaceID in the iPhone. 

 

The two are in completely different markets!

They're both security products designed to facilitate you logging into a device...? That's entirely seperate markets?

 

The security of a biometric system on a phone and a biometric system on a computer definitely are comparable, even if that system isn't capable of being scaled down to a phone.

 

If a biometric system on a phone is substantially less secure, then it shouldn't even be a force in the market in the first place.

 

Insecurity should never be presented to people as security.

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, Sniperfox47 said:

That's entirely seperate markets?

Yep. Intel can't miniaturize they tech to be in phones for aforementioned hardware limitations and Apple isn't going to scale up FaceID either. 

 

Not competing and are both in different markets. One the laptop, the other smartphones. 

[excitingcrane58]

4 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

 

I think the problem we have with faceID is not about how secure it is in comparison to touchID, the issue that I and many others have with it is that apple chose to remove touchID for a facial recognition software which as of now is really lack luster. Right now nobody has facial recognition that's good enough to completely replace fingerprint sensors.

[Red Hardware]

7 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

very true, there's definitely advantages to both but you can imaging the shitstorm if they had made it cloud-computing based

yeh

data saved on the cloud getting hacked and people getting angry

or people getting worried about their privacy

 It was a wise move to make it offline 

[Sniperfox47]

3 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Yep. Intel can't miniaturize they tech to be in phones for aforementioned hardware limitations and Apple isn't going to scale up FaceID either. 

 

Not competing and are both in different markets. One the laptop, the other smartphones. 

The issue here is not that Intel can't scale it down, but rather than faceid kind of proves they *shouldn't* because, at least currently, scaling it down would compromise the security of the system.

 

If your security system can be fooled by your brother wearing sunglasses, that's a huge screaming security hole in the system.

[Maticks]

Put Touch ID on the power button like Sony and a few others. They copy all the time why not this time....

[DrMacintosh]

Just now, Sniperfox47 said:

that's a huge screaming security hole on the system.

Even if it was a big deal (its really not) Apple already told people. 

 

You don't like it? Don't use it. It really is that simple. 

[Sniperfox47]

Just now, DrMacintosh said:

Even if it was a big deal (its really not) Apple already told people. 

 

You don't like it? Don't use it. It really is that simple. 

Regardless of whether they told people, people are dumb.

 

You should never present an insecure option as a security option. Period.

[vanished]

2 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Yep. Intel can't miniaturize they tech to be in phones for aforementioned hardware limitations and Apple isn't going to scale up FaceID either. 

 

Not competing and are both in different markets. One the laptop, the other smartphones. 

I agree with this to a certain extent.  Even if two things do (or try to do) the same thing, if they're on totally different scales for different applications they can't exactly be seen as competitors.  It's like comparing an F-150 to a massive semi truck.  They are both vehicles that carry goods but...

[DrMacintosh]

Just now, Sniperfox47 said:

You should never present an insecure option as a security option. Period.

Too late I guess. But look, nobody cares! 

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I agree with this to a certain extent.  Even if two things do (or try to do) the same thing, if they're on totally different scales for different applications they can't exactly be seen as competitors.  It's like comparing an F-150 to a massive semi truck.  They are both vehicles that carry goods but...

One was found on the road dead, though... 

[Sniperfox47]

1 minute ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I agree with this to a certain extent.  Even if two things do (or try to do) the same thing, if they're on totally different scales for different applications they can't exactly be seen as competitors.  It's like comparing an F-150 to a massive semi truck.  They are both vehicles that carry goods but...

You're right, but the baseline of security is that it's secure. My whole point is that safe facial recognition is possible, and that until Apple can match that they shouldn't be pushing out a security option for it on phones.

 

1 minute ago, DrMacintosh said:

Too late I guess. But look, nobody cares! 

Again, because people are dumbasses who don't realize the significance of their security.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I agree with this to a certain extent.  Even if two things do (or try to do) the same thing, if they're on totally different scales for different applications they can't exactly be seen as competitors.  It's like comparing an F-150 to a massive semi truck.  They are both vehicles that carry goods but...

I can't. There is no reason Apple woin't try to implement this on a next generation MacBook Pro, iMac Pro, Mac Pro, or iPad Pro. All machines that are of form factor that Intel's RealSense works well with.

 

1 minute ago, ARikozuM said:

One was found on the road dead, though... 

He said F150, a Ford truck. Not a Shitrolet Silveradon't.

[DrMacintosh]

Just now, Sniperfox47 said:

Again, because people are dumbasses who don't realize the significance of their security.

Good enough is good enough. That is why its called good enough. 

 

SALES SALES SALES (in the tone of the song, girls girls girls) 

[vanished]

Just now, Sniperfox47 said:

You're right, but the baseline of security is that it's secure. My whole point is that safe facial recognition is possible, and that until Apple can match that they shouldn't be pushing out a security option for it on phones.

That's my main concern too That's been my point from the start that face ID is not a secure option at all for a variety of reasons, and so long as people realize that, I don't have a problem with it, but for their own good, and the good of anyone they may influence, they need to realize that.

[79wjd]

6 minutes ago, Maticks said:

Put Touch ID on the power button like Sony and a few others. They copy all the time why not this time....

Oh god no. 

[DrMacintosh]

 

LET THE SALT FROM THE HATERS COMMENCE! 

[vanished]

3 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

I can't. There is no reason Apple woin't try to implement this on a next generation MacBook Pro, iMac Pro, Mac Pro, or iPad Pro. All machines that are of form factor that Intel's RealSense works well with.

If they do that they will become competitors, and if the difference in security is really as significant as it's been made out to be, Face ID will be DOA which won't look good for them at all, and so I doubt they would be foolish enough to do that.

[BuckGup]

1 hour ago, terrytek said:

Why can't Apple just stick with something that fucking works?

Because apple isn't afraid to pioneer new technology. Next year this time everyone is going to be complaining why phones don't have facial recognition or how apple's works so well now. Even if you don't like them you gotta give them credit

[Sniperfox47]

3 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

That's my main concern too That's been my point from the start that face ID is not a secure option at all for a variety of reasons, and so long as people realize that, I don't have a problem with it, but for their own good, and the good of anyone they may influence, they need to realize that.

Yeah, if they were to put an android-esque "this option is here as a convenience and may allow individuals with a similar face to access your device, use at your own risk" warning, that's one thing. But presenting it as an option that increases security and then allowing it to grant access to all your payment info seems sketchy...

 

2 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

If they do that they will become competitors, and if the difference in security is really as significant as it's been made out to be, Face ID will be DOA which won't look good for them at all, and so I doubt they would be foolish enough to do that.

Except if they scale it up to desktop form factor they can do exactly what Intel does and it'll be fine.

[Drak3]

Just now, Ryan_Vickers said:

If they do that they will become competitors, and if the difference in security is really as significant as it's been made out to be, Face ID will be DOA which won't look good for them at all, and so I doubt they would be foolish enough to do that.

They know their cult. They won't win the hearts of their reasonable customers with it, but so long as they keep conventional passwords, it's not an issue.

 

Just now, BuckGup said:

Because apple isn't afraid to pioneer new technology. Next year this time everyone is going to be complaining why phones don't have facial recognition or how apple's works so well now. Even if you don't like them you gotta give them credit

Apple didn't pioneer shit. They haven't pioneered a damn thing for decades. They take credit for innovations that were largely unknown before Apple comes out with their variant.

[Red Hardware]

6 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Good enough is good enough. That is why its called good enough. 

 

SALES SALES SALES (in the tone of the song, girls girls girls) 

But "Good enough" is clearly not enough if you can fool it with a similar face and a sunglass