I'd like to know why AppleInsider is putting their indicia on a graphic that is the property of AuthenTec? That is just bizarre. It's AuthenTec's property, not AppleInsider's.
I highly doubt there's any malicious intent. The simplest explanation would be that they're trying to discourage hotlinking.
What's your point? (Other than to try to put Apple down as you do in virtually every one of your posts, of course)
Apple bought Authentec a year ago. They have clearly had something to do with the product. Furthermore, even if they had never bought Authentec, that doesn't mean that they didn't test the technology before using it. THAT is the entire point that Slurpy was making. Apple doesn't release half-baked ideas - they test their products very thoroughly and poor design mistakes are quite rare. They certainly know what they're doing more than some random Apple-hater on AI.
I'm not putting down Apple at all. There's nothing wrong with buying a company and integrating their technology into your own. In fact, it's smart business. You seem to be looking for an argument where there isn't one.
Wrong. A concave polygon is a two dimensional construct. A device like a home button is three dimensional.
You need to start by learning that 'square' does not describe a three dimensional object. Not to mention, of course, that we're not talking about squares in this case, anyway.
But even if the object were flat and square shaped, it would not be 'convex' in the context of the finger contact area. It would be flat.
I live in one of those countries and I can assure you there is no fingerprint or iris scanner information on our passports.
I also have a passport from a second one of those countries and it also has no biometric information on it.
If true, this is just another excellent reason to never go to the USA.
Only some fascist nightmare of a country would require such a thing.
What exactly of the several things I said you don't believe?
That a lot of countries have biometric passports?
That when entering the US, all non-citizens have to have their fingerprints scanned (with a few exceptions like Canadians)?
That the US has essentially required biometric passwords (or alternatively visas with biometric data), though it has given other countries a couple of years to implement it and added a few exceptions like Canadians?
Do you live inside the EU? According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometric_passports#Countries_using_biometric_passports) all have passports with biometric data though in some it is not mandatory. And generally, having a passport without biometric data doesn't mean that your country doesn't have biometric passports. Passports can be valid for up to ten years (maybe more), if the rules changed less than ten years ago, it is perfectly possible to have a passport without biometrics in a country that now issues new passports with biometrics.
If your passport was issued on or after October 26, 2006, you will require a biometric passport. If it was issued between October 26, 2005 and October 25, 2006 it need only be machine readable, and the photograph digital. If issued before October 26, 2005 it need only be machine readable.
With passports valid for ten years, that gave people up to seven years before they had to have biometric passports.
Do you really doubt this quote from a US government website:
For more than five years, Department of State consular officers and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers have been collecting biometrics—two digital fingerprints and a photograph—from all non-U.S. citizens between the ages of 14 and 79, with some exceptions, when they apply for visas or arrive at U.S. ports of entry. (One of the exceptions is for Canadians.)
Further down on the same page we find this:
How does US-VISIT keep international travelers’ personal information, including biometrics, private and secure?
US-VISIT is vigilant about protecting the data it collects and about ensuring the integrity of that data. In fact, protecting the privacy of international travelers is one of the program’s four core goals. US-VISIT’s privacy policies extend to non-U.S. citizens most of the same privacy protections given by law to U.S. citizens. In fact, US-VISIT has a dedicated privacy officer, who is responsible not only for ensuring compliance with privacy laws and procedures, but also for creating a culture within the program where privacy is inherently valued, treated as a fundamental right and obligation, and fully considered in US-VISIT’s planning and development processes.
Personal information collected by US-VISIT will be used only for the purposes for which it was collected, unless specifically authorized or mandated by law.
I think we all know that in times of PRISM, that data likely can be accessed fairly easily by the NSA, since the FISA court has just issue a permission, and voila, it is mandated by law.
I was in Canada last year and I had the option to change planes in the US or once inside Canada, which was a 40% more expensive option at that time but I still chose to not stop in the US, even if just because of the hassle that US immigrations is but also because the very low risk (but still existent) of US government agents acting unpredictable. And they already have my fingerprints, I've been there a couple of times in recent years.
A few years ago, when the US followed through with some tightening of the rules, Brazil required all US citizens to give their fingerprints when entering their country, saying that if Brazilians have to do this in the US, Americans should also have to this in Brazil. The US didn't like that at all, in particular since other nationals, eg, Europeans were not fingerprinted. I think they dropped the fingerprinting but Americans still need visas whereas Europeans don't.
Technically what they claim to do is to check the fingerprints of incoming visitors against a database of unwelcome people.
The sad fact is that people enter the US with malicious intentions many with falsified documents, so while one can buy a birth certificate and a passport they can't buy that person's fingerprints.
It is one thing to check people entering the country against a database of criminals and then delete the scanned fingerprints. It is another thing to keep those fingerprints 'just in case'. Something similar was/is happening in the UK where every person arrested (I think, maybe it was convicted) had to give DNA samples.
And it is not just in the US, by requiring biometrics in passports, the US gives other countries a convenient tool to collect the fingerprints of a large swath of its citizens. Even in privacy and data collection wary country like Germany, the fingerprints are not deleted after they had been put into a passport. You know, just in case they might come handy.
It is one thing to check people entering the country against a database of criminals and then delete the scanned fingerprints. It is another thing to keep those fingerprints 'just in case'. Something similar was/is happening in the UK where every person arrested (I think, maybe it was convicted) had to give DNA samples.
And it is not just in the US, by requiring biometrics in passports, the US gives other countries a convenient tool to collect the fingerprints of a large swath of its citizens. Even in privacy and data collection wary country like Germany, the fingerprints are not deleted after they had been put into a passport. You know, just in case they might come handy.
Criminals very easily bypass databases by assuming identities. The selling of birth certificates was so rampant in Puerto Rico that the government actually issued everybody a new one. How many false identities did they come across in order for a measure like this to be taken?
Criminals very easily bypass databases by assuming identities. The selling of birth certificates was so rampant in Puerto Rico that the government actually issued everybody a new one. How many false identities did they come across in order for a measure like this to be taken?
I can fully understand the argument for biometric identification papers, what I strongly object to building a database of everybody's fingerprints and other things like DNA. They might as well implant a chip in everybody, so at every moment the government knows exactly where each of their citizens is.
It is one thing to check people entering the country against a database of criminals and then delete the scanned fingerprints. It is another thing to keep those fingerprints 'just in case'. Something similar was/is happening in the UK where every person arrested (I think, maybe it was convicted) had to give DNA samples.
And it is not just in the US, by requiring biometrics in passports, the US gives other countries a convenient tool to collect the fingerprints of a large swath of its citizens. Even in privacy and data collection wary country like Germany, the fingerprints are not deleted after they had been put into a passport. You know, just in case they might come handy.
I really don‘t understand all the fuss about fingerprints. I live in a country where everyone has an identity card with their fingerprint on it and I assure you that no one feels their privacy threatened because of it! It identifies you it doesn‘t put a tracker on you. A photo seems far more useful to anyone who wishes to track you
I really don‘t understand all the fuss about fingerprints. I live in a country where everyone has an identity card with their fingerprint on it and I assure you that no one feels their privacy threatened because of it! It identifies you it doesn‘t put a tracker on you. A photo seems far more useful to anyone who wishes to track you
The point is where to draw the boundary. Where do you draw the boundary?
It's also the major reason why competitors rampantly copy Apple's products.
Because they do the hard design, development, testing, re-design, re-development, re-testing, ad nauseam.
Much easier, faster, and cheaper to just copy Apple instead of doing all that work.
It beats me why the Apple competitors don't just hire KDarling!
The point is where to draw the boundary. Where do you draw the boundary?
and what boundary might that be? does your fingerprint in a database put you in prison? Does it persecute you? Does it remove your freedom of expression or of movement?
Can it be used for bad things? yes, but so does a driving license or any other identification, and all of them are necessary in order to live in a organized society. They are instruments!
If you want to draw a line, then you should regulate how those instruments are used, you should keep the government and its agencies in check
but none of this is actually relevant to this technology! The scan is different from an optical image of you fingerprint, which makes it quite useless for other purposes since the only place to get a match is in the phone!
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
I'd like to know why AppleInsider is putting their indicia on a graphic that is the property of AuthenTec? That is just bizarre. It's AuthenTec's property, not AppleInsider's.
I highly doubt there's any malicious intent. The simplest explanation would be that they're trying to discourage hotlinking.
Can someone please shut this guy up?
Assuming any ofthe mods here have a pair....
Wrong. A concave polygon is a two dimensional construct. A device like a home button is three dimensional.
You need to start by learning that 'square' does not describe a three dimensional object. Not to mention, of course, that we're not talking about squares in this case, anyway.
But even if the object were flat and square shaped, it would not be 'convex' in the context of the finger contact area. It would be flat.
Oh, "they" definitely have a pair. I was already surprised today.
Yeah, you said something similarly braggadocio-y about sapphire....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
I still don't believe it.
I live in one of those countries and I can assure you there is no fingerprint or iris scanner information on our passports.
I also have a passport from a second one of those countries and it also has no biometric information on it.
If true, this is just another excellent reason to never go to the USA.
Only some fascist nightmare of a country would require such a thing.
What exactly of the several things I said you don't believe?
That a lot of countries have biometric passports?
That when entering the US, all non-citizens have to have their fingerprints scanned (with a few exceptions like Canadians)?
That the US has essentially required biometric passwords (or alternatively visas with biometric data), though it has given other countries a couple of years to implement it and added a few exceptions like Canadians?
Do you live inside the EU? According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometric_passports#Countries_using_biometric_passports) all have passports with biometric data though in some it is not mandatory. And generally, having a passport without biometric data doesn't mean that your country doesn't have biometric passports. Passports can be valid for up to ten years (maybe more), if the rules changed less than ten years ago, it is perfectly possible to have a passport without biometrics in a country that now issues new passports with biometrics.
Here are rules from 2009 regarding the requirement of biometric passports in the US (http://www.usembassy.org.uk/visaservices/?p=420):
If your passport was issued on or after October 26, 2006, you will require a biometric passport. If it was issued between October 26, 2005 and October 25, 2006 it need only be machine readable, and the photograph digital. If issued before October 26, 2005 it need only be machine readable.
With passports valid for ten years, that gave people up to seven years before they had to have biometric passports.
Do you really doubt this quote from a US government website:
For more than five years, Department of State consular officers and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers have been collecting biometrics—two digital fingerprints and a photograph—from all non-U.S. citizens between the ages of 14 and 79, with some exceptions, when they apply for visas or arrive at U.S. ports of entry. (One of the exceptions is for Canadians.)
Further down on the same page we find this:
How does US-VISIT keep international travelers’ personal information, including biometrics, private and secure?
US-VISIT is vigilant about protecting the data it collects and about ensuring the integrity of that data. In fact, protecting the privacy of international travelers is one of the program’s four core goals. US-VISIT’s privacy policies extend to non-U.S. citizens most of the same privacy protections given by law to U.S. citizens. In fact, US-VISIT has a dedicated privacy officer, who is responsible not only for ensuring compliance with privacy laws and procedures, but also for creating a culture within the program where privacy is inherently valued, treated as a fundamental right and obligation, and fully considered in US-VISIT’s planning and development processes.
Or in a different document (http://www.immihelp.com/visas/usvisit.html):
Personal information collected by US-VISIT will be used only for the purposes for which it was collected, unless specifically authorized or mandated by law.
I think we all know that in times of PRISM, that data likely can be accessed fairly easily by the NSA, since the FISA court has just issue a permission, and voila, it is mandated by law.
I was in Canada last year and I had the option to change planes in the US or once inside Canada, which was a 40% more expensive option at that time but I still chose to not stop in the US, even if just because of the hassle that US immigrations is but also because the very low risk (but still existent) of US government agents acting unpredictable. And they already have my fingerprints, I've been there a couple of times in recent years.
A few years ago, when the US followed through with some tightening of the rules, Brazil required all US citizens to give their fingerprints when entering their country, saying that if Brazilians have to do this in the US, Americans should also have to this in Brazil. The US didn't like that at all, in particular since other nationals, eg, Europeans were not fingerprinted. I think they dropped the fingerprinting but Americans still need visas whereas Europeans don't.
Technically what they claim to do is to check the fingerprints of incoming visitors against a database of unwelcome people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Can someone please shut this guy up?
Assuming any ofthe mods here have a pair....
Rough day? Try to relax, nothing jragosta or I posted there needs censoring. It was a civil exchange all around from where I'm sitting.
Why? Has he broken any rules? He simply doesn't practice positive self deception for any one company.
Nevermind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
The sad fact is that people enter the US with malicious intentions many with falsified documents, so while one can buy a birth certificate and a passport they can't buy that person's fingerprints.
It is one thing to check people entering the country against a database of criminals and then delete the scanned fingerprints. It is another thing to keep those fingerprints 'just in case'. Something similar was/is happening in the UK where every person arrested (I think, maybe it was convicted) had to give DNA samples.
And it is not just in the US, by requiring biometrics in passports, the US gives other countries a convenient tool to collect the fingerprints of a large swath of its citizens. Even in privacy and data collection wary country like Germany, the fingerprints are not deleted after they had been put into a passport. You know, just in case they might come handy.
You must admit if anyone is going to go against technical or practical sense and make it work and seem obvious it will be Apple.
Criminals very easily bypass databases by assuming identities. The selling of birth certificates was so rampant in Puerto Rico that the government actually issued everybody a new one. How many false identities did they come across in order for a measure like this to be taken?
http://www.travel.state.gov/passport/passport_4807.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW
Rough day? Try to relax, nothing jragosta or I posted there needs censoring. It was a civil exchange all around from where I'm sitting.
You're right. Which is why I added you to my block list after giving you the benefit of the doubt for several weeks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Criminals very easily bypass databases by assuming identities. The selling of birth certificates was so rampant in Puerto Rico that the government actually issued everybody a new one. How many false identities did they come across in order for a measure like this to be taken?
http://www.travel.state.gov/passport/passport_4807.html
I can fully understand the argument for biometric identification papers, what I strongly object to building a database of everybody's fingerprints and other things like DNA. They might as well implant a chip in everybody, so at every moment the government knows exactly where each of their citizens is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir
It is one thing to check people entering the country against a database of criminals and then delete the scanned fingerprints. It is another thing to keep those fingerprints 'just in case'. Something similar was/is happening in the UK where every person arrested (I think, maybe it was convicted) had to give DNA samples.
And it is not just in the US, by requiring biometrics in passports, the US gives other countries a convenient tool to collect the fingerprints of a large swath of its citizens. Even in privacy and data collection wary country like Germany, the fingerprints are not deleted after they had been put into a passport. You know, just in case they might come handy.
I really don‘t understand all the fuss about fingerprints. I live in a country where everyone has an identity card with their fingerprint on it and I assure you that no one feels their privacy threatened because of it! It identifies you it doesn‘t put a tracker on you. A photo seems far more useful to anyone who wishes to track you
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Can someone please shut this guy up?
Assuming any ofthe mods here have a pair....
When getting rid of trolls and abusers turns into a demodding, I can't imagine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ppietra
I really don‘t understand all the fuss about fingerprints. I live in a country where everyone has an identity card with their fingerprint on it and I assure you that no one feels their privacy threatened because of it! It identifies you it doesn‘t put a tracker on you. A photo seems far more useful to anyone who wishes to track you
The point is where to draw the boundary. Where do you draw the boundary?
It beats me why the Apple competitors don't just hire KDarling!
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir
The point is where to draw the boundary. Where do you draw the boundary?
and what boundary might that be? does your fingerprint in a database put you in prison? Does it persecute you? Does it remove your freedom of expression or of movement?
Can it be used for bad things? yes, but so does a driving license or any other identification, and all of them are necessary in order to live in a organized society. They are instruments!
If you want to draw a line, then you should regulate how those instruments are used, you should keep the government and its agencies in check
but none of this is actually relevant to this technology! The scan is different from an optical image of you fingerprint, which makes it quite useless for other purposes since the only place to get a match is in the phone!