Rumor: Apple intends to replace Touch ID fingerprint scanner with advanced facial recognit...

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 91
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,033member
    melgross said:
    Soli said:
    Fingerprints are unique, even among twins. It is crazy to think that Apple will ditch such a unique feature and replace it with the face easily copiable. The face is not unique. TouchID works with body electricity, but the face can be easily recognized with a mask, what is the body electricity of the face, an aura or something? Reminds me of the '60s Kirlian photography pseudoscience…
    1) I agree that the facial recognition for security rumour seems silly.

    2) While Touch ID has been excellent, there are people that can't use the feature.

    3) We can't actually prove that all fingerprints are unique. There is a finite number of pattern combinations plus the inherent issue with biometrics that looks for a "within a margin of error" match, which is not something that's tolerated with passwords. There's also been plenty of arrests and convictions from false fingerprint matches over the decades. DNA helped sort out a lot of false convictions, but I'll let Adam tell you more about it.



    This is the best work on this that I could find quickly. The others are either too vague, or too complex for most to easily understand.

    http://biometrics.cse.msu.edu/Presentations/AnilJain_UniquenessOfFingerprints_NAS05.pdf
    Can you imagine having to use fingerprints as your key evidence and have to educate the jury on all the ways that were measured and the maths to make sure they see that it's defendant's print(s) beyond a "reasonable doubt". No wonder there were so many bad calls.

    I'm so glad we live in a time with DNA evidence. Although, DNA can be obtained if someone was trying to set you up, and we know that you be of your natural DNA but bleed a different DNA if you've had a bone marrow transplant. This makes a testing blood at a crime scene against a hair follicle or cheek squab more daunting,
  • Reply 22 of 91
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,237member
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    Fingerprints are unique, even among twins. It is crazy to think that Apple will ditch such a unique feature and replace it with the face easily copiable. The face is not unique. TouchID works with body electricity, but the face can be easily recognized with a mask, what is the body electricity of the face, an aura or something? Reminds me of the '60s Kirlian photography pseudoscience…
    1) I agree that the facial recognition for security rumour seems silly.

    2) While Touch ID has been excellent, there are people that can't use the feature.

    3) We can't actually prove that all fingerprints are unique. There is a finite number of pattern combinations plus the inherent issue with biometrics that looks for a "within a margin of error" match, which is not something that's tolerated with passwords. There's also been plenty of arrests and convictions from false fingerprint matches over the decades. DNA helped sort out a lot of false convictions, but I'll let Adam tell you more about it.

    That "margin of error" exists in everything science is dealing with. Even in DNA... If the opening statement of this guy's show is "we may not actually prove" then it fails from the beginning. We may not prove what? Is that an undecideable computability problem? The term "unprovable" has a scientific meaning and it makes sense only within a scientific context, not in a layman's show business context. The probability of finding two identical fingerprints is something already defined and we understand it as "unique" only within those limits.
    So wouldn't scientists refer to it as being improbable instead of saying that they are unique, which carries the meaning "being the only one of its kind." I think even "statistically impossible" would've been better than "unique."
    In my quick search, I did find a number that said about 25 trillion. But that number is defined by DNA combinations of the relevant factors. It certainly would seem as though it’s a big enough number to prevent a correct reading, but for the wrong finger. But if you include the slight amount of damage to a fingerprint that people get with cuts, and other injuries that didn’t heal over properly, etc., the number gets quite larger.

    as the article I linked to shows, the resolution of the reader determines just how different a print needs to be before differences can be found. So with the 525 ppi I believe Apple’s reader does, the total,would be smaller than the total possible. From what I got out of the article regarding reading resolution and accuracy, 1,000 ppi would be best.

    but then, they show that fingerprints left in different ways can be different enough in metrics that they might not register as the same even if they’re from the same finger.
    edited July 2017
  • Reply 23 of 91
    dpackmandpackman Posts: 21member
    If you wake up in the morning and your phone doesn't recognize you, go back to sleep.
  • Reply 24 of 91
    anomeanome Posts: 1,474member

    I meant to post this on here, but I posted it on the other thread, where it's still kind of relevant:

    The whole thing smells a bit fishy. I've said before I don't see facial recognition as a replacement for TouchID for the majority of people. There would be some benefits in terms of accessibility for people who might have problems with TouchID, but it would also exclude a number of people who don't have a problem with TouchID but might with facial recognition.

    In addition, I honestly don't see how it could work as well as, let alone better than, TouchID. If any company can make it work, it's Apple, but I'm not convinced. I suppose we'll have to wait and see what Tim holds up on stage.

    I'd add to that my point that Facial Recognition as the sole Identification method is probably inadequate. As an additional method, with TouchID and any other biometric methods they might come up with, it's arguably more useful. Put simply, more options are better, taking one away in favour of another is more problematic. (And before anyone jumps on me for defending taking away legacy ports in favour of the TB3/USB-C connector on the MBP, I will say that that decision didn't actually remove any options since most legacy ports are compatible, albeit with a dreaded dongle in some instances, with the new connector.)

  • Reply 25 of 91
    TomETomE Posts: 168member
    Now that Touch ID is working well, I just don't see switching to facial recognition any time soon.  Not within the next phone or 2.

  • Reply 26 of 91
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,297member
    How do you use Apple Pay at physical retail locations if you have to authenticate via facial recognition?

    I have a feeling the 7S will be a popular phone this year.
    edited July 2017 m_p_w_84
  • Reply 27 of 91
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 2,095member
    melgross said:
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    Fingerprints are unique, even among twins. It is crazy to think that Apple will ditch such a unique feature and replace it with the face easily copiable. The face is not unique. TouchID works with body electricity, but the face can be easily recognized with a mask, what is the body electricity of the face, an aura or something? Reminds me of the '60s Kirlian photography pseudoscience…
    1) I agree that the facial recognition for security rumour seems silly.

    2) While Touch ID has been excellent, there are people that can't use the feature.

    3) We can't actually prove that all fingerprints are unique. There is a finite number of pattern combinations plus the inherent issue with biometrics that looks for a "within a margin of error" match, which is not something that's tolerated with passwords. There's also been plenty of arrests and convictions from false fingerprint matches over the decades. DNA helped sort out a lot of false convictions, but I'll let Adam tell you more about it.

    That "margin of error" exists in everything science is dealing with. Even in DNA... If the opening statement of this guy's show is "we may not actually prove" then it fails from the beginning. We may not prove what? Is that an undecideable computability problem? The term "unprovable" has a scientific meaning and it makes sense only within a scientific context, not in a layman's show business context. The probability of finding two identical fingerprints is something already defined and we understand it as "unique" only within those limits.
    So wouldn't scientists refer to it as being improbable instead of saying that they are unique, which carries the meaning "being the only one of its kind." I think even "statistically impossible" would've been better than "unique."
    In my quick search, I did find a number that said about 25 trillion. But that number is defined by DNA combinations of the relevant factors. It certainly would seem as though it’s a big enough number to prevent a correct reading, but for the wrong finger. But if you include the slight amount of damage to a fingerprint that people get with cuts, and other injuries that didn’t heal over properly, etc., the number gets quite larger.

    as the article I linked to shows, the resolution of the reader determines just how different a print needs to be before differences can be found. So with the 525 ppi I believe Apple’s reader does, the total,would be smaller than the total possible. From what I got out of the article regarding reading resolution and accuracy, 1,000 ppi would be best.

    but then, they show that fingerprints left in different ways can be different enough in metrics that they might not register as the same even if they’re from the same finger.
    There appears to be a matter of "policy" here... The value of fingerprints to "identify" someone and to "accuse" someone may not be the same. As an example, to "identify" someone 1000 ppi may be fairly good, but to "accuse" someone even 1000 ppi may not be enough.
  • Reply 28 of 91
    r00fus1r00fus1 Posts: 65member
    rob53 said:
    I can't see facial recognition working consistently for very many people. I understand how it works but people wear sunglasses and other things that could affect the geometry of the face. I also can't see people holding their phone up to their face and hoping everything works. I thought Samsung's attempt at facial recognition was broken by a simple xerox of the users face. I hope Apple takes their time before they change so they make sure it works all the time and isn't susceptible to even advanced attempts at faking a face to get access. I know people say they're faked fingerprints but they're not as easy as it sounds.
    3d depth information on facial patterns and proprtions solves the probkem of 2d pic trick.
    What about my beard. What if I don't have one next week? What a complete pain in the ass. No one wants face-unlock. I mocked droid owners for it, and I'll mock Apple if they implement it here.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 29 of 91
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,033member
    There appears to be a matter of "policy" here... The value of fingerprints to "identify" someone and to "accuse" someone may not be the same. As an example, to "identify" someone 1000 ppi may be fairly good, but to "accuse" someone even 1000 ppi may not be enough.
    How do you get PPI from someone touching some random, oddshapped object of unstated material in various potential weather conditions and/or hand traffic areas?

    Get someone's prints with the best modern equipment is kind of like "The Telephone Game" where you pass a message along to a bunch a people and the last one says what they through they heard. So many chances for things to not match up… but if that's your only game then it's funny because the connections are there. But now let's have more games with a lot more people and very similar statements and then match them all up correctly after we've done 100 or 1000 of them. That game is no longer funny and that sounds like it could be pretty tough, perhaps even impossible to match all 100 or 1000 pairs of the game without a reasonable doubt.

    PS: Did you know that even DNA can be faked and that they only look for a few basic identifiers?

  • Reply 30 of 91
    tshapitshapi Posts: 352member
    I suspect Apple will implement the facial recognition on the oled phone only with the Touch ID on the power button.  So the facial recognition will work in conjunction with Touch ID 
  • Reply 31 of 91
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Another kuo vomited rumour, funny how hés
    so ""good", yet this in 4th different rumour about this from major dumbass. Of course he'll eventually be "right" the est hés going spitting contradictory rumours every 2 weeks 
    îm tired hearing bs about his accuracy when he's batting less than 200
    Rayz2016radarthekatcali
  • Reply 32 of 91
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    Fingerprints are unique, even among twins. It is crazy to think that Apple will ditch such a unique feature and replace it with the face easily copiable. The face is not unique. TouchID works with body electricity, but the face can be easily recognized with a mask, what is the body electricity of the face, an aura or something? Reminds me of the '60s Kirlian photography pseudoscience…
    1) I agree that the facial recognition for security rumour seems silly.

    2) While Touch ID has been excellent, there are people that can't use the feature.

    3) We can't actually prove that all fingerprints are unique. There is a finite number of pattern combinations plus the inherent issue with biometrics that looks for a "within a margin of error" match, which is not something that's tolerated with passwords. There's also been plenty of arrests and convictions from false fingerprint matches over the decades. DNA helped sort out a lot of false convictions, but I'll let Adam tell you more about it.

    That "margin of error" exists in everything science is dealing with. Even in DNA... If the opening statement of this guy's show is "we may not actually prove" then it fails from the beginning. We may not prove what? Is that an undecideable computability problem? The term "unprovable" has a scientific meaning and it makes sense only within a scientific context, not in a layman's show business context. The probability of finding two identical fingerprints is something already defined and we understand it as "unique" only within those limits.
    So wouldn't scientists refer to it as being improbable instead of saying that they are unique, which carries the meaning "being the only one of its kind." I think even "statistically impossible" would've been better than "unique."
    The problem comes on how you define the fingerprint itself, what microvariance are considered significant enough. If you go deep enough it would indeed be unique but most computer system use abstraction of the actual print. That abstraction is almost certainly unique but the probability of 2 being the same can be defined and that number is small enough to make it good enough. Considering you also have to use the right finger reduces the probability some  more. 

    We also have the to remember that in the case of the iPhone, you physically need access to the phone and they only have 5 tries. 

    All in all, fingerprints as used now are very good





    radarthekat
  • Reply 33 of 91
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,033member
    foggyhill said:

    All in all, fingerprints as used now are very good
    Apple gives it a 1:50,000, which is 5x higher than a 4-digit password, but 1/2 that of a 6-digit password. But that's neither hear nor there since after x-many failed tries it defaults to the passcode, which is a good reason to use an alphanumerical keyboard for a passphrase since you're not inputting it often.

    https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204587

    That's just sensitivity. How easy it is to fake their sensor. Its certainly possible, but probably pretty hard. I'd really love for Apple to have an option that if my iPhone's BT becomes disconnected from my Watch that it will then require my passphrase. This could help on, say, a snatch and grab at the gym or on the subway.
    patchythepirate
  • Reply 34 of 91
    chaickachaicka Posts: 250member
    Errr...Just one of my wild guess at work. Since the supposed ‘iPhone 8’ has glass back, why not embed the entire back to be ‘Touch ID’ I’m such a way that no matter how a person holds up the iPhone, there should be at least one finger on the back of it. That should turn into a ‘Multi-fingerable’ Touch ID and instant enough than placement on specific spot on the phone.

    Just a wild thought...Hahaha
  • Reply 35 of 91
    What About ApplePay ?
    netmagem_p_w_84
  • Reply 36 of 91
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    rob53 said:
    I can't see facial recognition working consistently for very many people. I understand how it works but people wear sunglasses and other things that could affect the geometry of the face. I also can't see people holding their phone up to their face and hoping everything works. I thought Samsung's attempt at facial recognition was broken by a simple xerox of the users face. I hope Apple takes their time before they change so they make sure it works all the time and isn't susceptible to even advanced attempts at faking a face to get access. I know people say they're faked fingerprints but they're not as easy as it sounds.
    For every security system there is a way to defeat it.
  • Reply 37 of 91
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,364member
    foggyhill said:
    Another kuo vomited rumour, funny how hés
    so ""good", yet this in 4th different rumour about this from major dumbass. Of course he'll eventually be "right" the est hés going spitting contradictory rumours every 2 weeks 
    îm tired hearing bs about his accuracy when he's batting less than 200
    What has he previously said in the past 2-3 months that contradicts what he's saying now? Serious question since perhaps I haven't completely kept up with it. 
    edited July 2017
  • Reply 38 of 91
    tommikeletommikele Posts: 583member
    GARBAGE report.
    cali
  • Reply 39 of 91
    facial recognition cannot replace fingerprint scanning; how can one unlock their phone to answer calls by raising their phone to their ear?
  • Reply 40 of 91
    If the technology is good enough, I don't see why facial recognition can't replace Touch ID. It could even be configurable to allow for different levels of security:
    -facial recognition able to see around glasses and facial hair
    -if higher level security is needed, have options to only unlock if:
    -eyes open
    -eyes open and retina scanned

    The only time I could see this being inconvenient is using Apple Pay, which is solved by:
    -get an Apple Watch already
    or
    -slightly inconvenience yourself by holding the phone up to your face for one second after double tapping the digital home button, then tap to register
    edited July 2017
Sign In or Register to comment.