I get the impression that the NFC in the patent is a [I]generic[/I] term for communication over short distances using electric fields, not the thing that is [I]branded[/I] as NFC, which is a specific application. The patent even mentions using capacitative effects for transmission. The thing branded as NFC is purely inductive. Also Apple is going all out on Bluetooth 4, part of which is Bluetooth Low Energy, which has a huge functional overlap with NFC, but is more modern and has native crypto.
And how many people would be frustrated because it doesn't work as they forgot to turn on Bluetooth? I'd prefer something more foolproof.
The same would apply for NFC.
Bluetooth Low Energy is low energy. It was designed to last months on a small battery, (for simple things like identification, proximity detection, or temperature sensors), it will be always on.
The same would apply for NFC.
Bluetooth Low Energy is low energy. It was designed to last months on a small battery, (for simple things like identification, proximity detection, or temperature sensors), it will be always on.
I see. I assumed the whole point of applying NFC was to make things easier and smoother, an "it just works" kind of thing.
Or better yet, biometric authentication can be triggered as part of the NFC transaction. Just as it can be triggered by over the internet.
It's just an authentication factor like user ID and password. For example:
1. Push the power button to login using fingerprint authentication.
2. Wave phone in front of receiver to initiate NFC communication.
3. Use the in-display fingerprint reader to authenticate the NFC transaction.
The Question is who is going to own the huge fingerprint DB ?
1. Apple?
2. Banks / Credit card issuers? (Visa, MC, Amex, Discover)
3. Government Agencies?
4. ID card issuers? (Corporations, Agencies, etc... )
I really wish Apple Insider would stop with the damn "FINGERPRINT SCANNER nonsense, so we won't have people thinking there's gonna be a frickin' fingerprint being recorded and bringing on ridiculous question like this last one. We can also avoid the dim-witted phone thieves escaping with a person's finger along with their phone!!!
It's only a biometric sensor, not a fingerprint scanner!!!
I see. I assumed the whole point of applying NFC was to make things easier and smoother, an "it just works" kind of thing.
Could work that way, but the carriers, being in denial of their true destiny as dumb pipes, saw NFC as a chance to escape.
They have kept NFC imprisoned in their jail of ridiculous fees and key escrow nastiness for a long time. Now NFC has peer-to-peer, enabling use of NFC without carrier interference. But, I think it's too late. NFC will have 2 or 3 death spasms that people will mistake for life and then die.
Here's a question for anyone that would know the answer:
Could a Bluetooth 4 based signal communicate with an NFC terminal? I'm sure if the frequency of the signal were calibrated that could work, no?
The problem I see with Apple going in a different direction than the rest of the industry is lack of compatibility with current payment terminals at global retailers today.
Also Square doesn't have great penetration either. I've mainly only seen Square used at small businesses.
Here's a question for anyone that would know the answer:
Could a Bluetooth 4 based signal communicate with an NFC terminal? I'm sure if the frequency of the signal were calibrated that could work, no?
The problem I see with Apple going in a different direction than the rest of the industry is lack of compatibility with current payment terminals at global retailers today.
Also Square doesn't have great penetration either. I've mainly only seen Square used at small businesses.
No way. NFC is 13.5 MHz Bluetooth is 2.4-2.5 GHz with frequency hopping.
How many times does it have to be repeated that living tissue is required?
I bet for the first few minutes after the finger's been removed the sensor wont be able to tell it and dead tissue apart. The thieve should be able to change authentication details in that timeframe
I bet for the first few minutes after the finger's been removed the sensor wont be able to tell it and dead tissue apart. The thieve should be able to change authentication details in that timeframe
He'd have to know the right finger too. You could setup the device to lock up when it sees one of your wrong fingers.
You'll get to a point where thieves have to be so smart they won't bother with stealing phones.
Two things, an NFC phone could be tracked at government checkpoints EVEN WITHOUT cellular or wifi or bluetooth on!
2nd, there is concern around the ways different hardware features can be turned on via software, remotely, without your approval, possibly via a gov't backdoor, vulnerability, etc. Without having a jailbroken device w/root access, you could never know for certain if these types of things were happening behind the scenes. How could you know if the FaceTime front camera was turned on w/out your permission, there is no LED to show it on, and even if there was, the LED could be commanded off while the camera was on. Same thing with a fingerprint sensor -- how do you know if it is not capturing yours w/out your authorization when you touch the home button?!! There are plenty of reasons for jailbreaking to continue.
Remember, when the people fear the government there is tyranny, and when the government fears the people there is liberty.
"Paranoia will destroy yaaaa...."
Why is it paranoia? Given all the NSA revelations we've heard of during the past few weeks, I have to admit that even I am feeling a tad nervous.
I get the impression that the NFC in the patent is a generic term for communication over short distances using electric fields, not the thing that is branded as NFC, which is a specific application. The patent even mentions using capacitative effects for transmission. The thing branded as NFC is purely inductive. Also Apple is going all out on Bluetooth 4, part of which is Bluetooth Low Energy, which has a huge functional overlap with NFC, but is more modern and has native crypto.
I've done demo software for NFC, NFC is a bag of hurt.
Remember that other bag of hurt?
Apple specifically limited this patent's application and the US one to near field communication, NFC, which is not the same as Bluetooth. Someone using Bluetooth LE to do the exact same thing would not be infringing as I read it. That doesn't mean that Apple hasn't also filed another patent application addressing it tho. This one wouldn't be it.
Now it makes sense why Apple has resisted integrating NFC until now. Maybe tomorrows iPhone 5S will incorporate NFC functionality in addition to the finger-print tech (finally!).
Comments
And how many people would be frustrated because it doesn't work as they forgot to turn on Bluetooth? I'd prefer something more foolproof.
It was gold.
Tallest Sauron
As far as I read it was stated that it might contain the logic to process the sensor input.
http://arstechnica.com/staff/2013/02/mobile-world-congress-is-mean-girls-and-nfc-isnt-going-to-happen/
I've done demo software for NFC, NFC is a bag of hurt.
Remember that other bag of hurt?
And how many people would be frustrated because it doesn't work as they forgot to turn on Bluetooth? I'd prefer something more foolproof.
The same would apply for NFC.
Bluetooth Low Energy is low energy. It was designed to last months on a small battery, (for simple things like identification, proximity detection, or temperature sensors), it will be always on.
I see. I assumed the whole point of applying NFC was to make things easier and smoother, an "it just works" kind of thing.
I really wish Apple Insider would stop with the damn "FINGERPRINT SCANNER nonsense, so we won't have people thinking there's gonna be a frickin' fingerprint being recorded and bringing on ridiculous question like this last one. We can also avoid the dim-witted phone thieves escaping with a person's finger along with their phone!!!
It's only a biometric sensor, not a fingerprint scanner!!!
I see. I assumed the whole point of applying NFC was to make things easier and smoother, an "it just works" kind of thing.
Could work that way, but the carriers, being in denial of their true destiny as dumb pipes, saw NFC as a chance to escape.
They have kept NFC imprisoned in their jail of ridiculous fees and key escrow nastiness for a long time. Now NFC has peer-to-peer, enabling use of NFC without carrier interference. But, I think it's too late. NFC will have 2 or 3 death spasms that people will mistake for life and then die.
Could a Bluetooth 4 based signal communicate with an NFC terminal? I'm sure if the frequency of the signal were calibrated that could work, no?
The problem I see with Apple going in a different direction than the rest of the industry is lack of compatibility with current payment terminals at global retailers today.
Also Square doesn't have great penetration either. I've mainly only seen Square used at small businesses.
Or better yet, biometric authentication can be triggered as part of the NFC transaction. Just as it can be triggered by over the internet.
It's just an authentication factor like user ID and password. For example:
1. Push the power button to login using fingerprint authentication.
2. Wave phone in front of receiver to initiate NFC communication.
3. Use the in-display fingerprint reader to authenticate the NFC transaction.
The Question is who is going to own the huge fingerprint DB ?
1. Apple?
2. Banks / Credit card issuers? (Visa, MC, Amex, Discover)
3. Government Agencies?
4. ID card issuers? (Corporations, Agencies, etc... )
That's not how it works.
Just like nobody (with any sense) puts passwords in a database, but just the hashes, nobody puts fingerprints in a database.
Fingerprint scanners usually do not store entire fingerprints, but extract details.
To authenticate a finger the details must match.
You cannot reconstruct the fingerprint from the details.
And. Just like the PIN code, there is no reason to store fingerprint (details) anywhere but on the device.
(and maybe in a backup on PC or in the cloud (which would be encrypted) )
Here's a question for anyone that would know the answer:
Could a Bluetooth 4 based signal communicate with an NFC terminal? I'm sure if the frequency of the signal were calibrated that could work, no?
The problem I see with Apple going in a different direction than the rest of the industry is lack of compatibility with current payment terminals at global retailers today.
Also Square doesn't have great penetration either. I've mainly only seen Square used at small businesses.
No way. NFC is 13.5 MHz Bluetooth is 2.4-2.5 GHz with frequency hopping.
How many times does it have to be repeated that living tissue is required?
I bet for the first few minutes after the finger's been removed the sensor wont be able to tell it and dead tissue apart. The thieve should be able to change authentication details in that timeframe
I bet for the first few minutes after the finger's been removed the sensor wont be able to tell it and dead tissue apart. The thieve should be able to change authentication details in that timeframe
He'd have to know the right finger too. You could setup the device to lock up when it sees one of your wrong fingers.
You'll get to a point where thieves have to be so smart they won't bother with stealing phones.
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
Or maybe:
50 million Rings to rule them all, 50 million Rings to find them,
50 million Rings to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
Or maybe:
50 million Rings to rule them all, 50 million Rings to find them,
50 million Rings to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
Not to mention 50 million hobbits to cast them into the fiery chasms from whence they came.
Do Androids have hairy feet?
Why is it paranoia? Given all the NSA revelations we've heard of during the past few weeks, I have to admit that even I am feeling a tad nervous.
Apple specifically limited this patent's application and the US one to near field communication, NFC, which is not the same as Bluetooth. Someone using Bluetooth LE to do the exact same thing would not be infringing as I read it. That doesn't mean that Apple hasn't also filed another patent application addressing it tho. This one wouldn't be it.