"A user passcode is also required ... if a user has not unlocked their phone with Face ID in 48 hours. There are also idle time limits, meaning passcode unlock is required if ... Face ID was not used to unlock the device within 4 hours."
These two conditions sound the same to me; I must be missing something. Can anyone clarify the distinction? Thanks.
Every new tech that works takes sometimes for non tech savy to get used to them....even my wife still used pass codes, she ain't got nothing to do with touch ID or 3D touch, she said....hmmmm
I'm sure that Face ID will be secure but I wouldn't use it and prefer Touch ID. It's kind of an irrational fear about a thief waving my phone in front of me. But I'd rather wait for Apple to bring back Touch ID in the new iPhone form factor.
"A user passcode is also required ... if a user has not unlocked their phone with Face ID in 48 hours. There are also idle time limits, meaning passcode unlock is required if ... Face ID was not used to unlock the device within 4 hours."
These two conditions sound the same to me; I must be missing something. Can anyone clarify the distinction? Thanks.
My guess is that the passcode is required 48 hours since last FaceID in the first scenario but not required when the phone is idly after 6 days if it has been FaceID within 4 hours.
AppleInsider said: ... There are limitations to the system's capabilities. Face ID will be unable to recognize a user whose face is obscured by a mask or niqab, the report says. In such cases, users can opt to enter a passcode instead. ...
I wonder if there will be any SJW groups taking to the streets over Apple's obvious Islamophobia. (And, what the heck are bank-robbers to do?)
Correct me... a niqab (or a neck covering head scarf) EXPOSES the face ... so faceid requires a neck? ... REALLY DOUBT THAT... otherwise sounds like niqab really means burka...
As I understand it, a hijab covers only the hair while a niqab is a face veil that leaves only the eyes exposed. A burka hides the whole head with only a mesh piece in front of the eyes to see through.
Every new tech that works takes sometimes for non tech savy to get used to them....even my wife still used pass codes, she ain't got nothing to do with touch ID or 3D touch, she said....hmmmm
I'm sure that Face ID will be secure but I wouldn't use it and prefer Touch ID. It's kind of an irrational fear about a thief waving my phone in front of me. But I'd rather wait for Apple to bring back Touch ID in the new iPhone form factor.
Well, at least you know it's irrational. Most people haven't made it that far yet. I suspect we're going to see yet another class of the "Steve would turn in his grave" club over this. They'll be the same people waiting for the return of the headphone jack.
I'm still not sure if this is an improvement for NFC use. The phone used to switch to wallet mode when you waved it near a terminal. I wonder how long you have between FaceIDing and tapping before the phone makes you authenticate again.
One small advantage of the new way is that you're less likely to pay with the wrong card.
I wonder if sometime in the future a third party could develop a more powerful scanner that could operate at a greater range that could mimic the apple scan and get an equivalent dataset for a face. If so, what would be the implications?
My guess is that the government has had more sophisticated stuff than this for years, it just didn't fit in a tiny secure chip in a phone. If you've flown, or entered gov't buildings, or things like that, you're likely already in their giant database.
bb-15 said: I'm sure that Face ID will be secure but I wouldn't use it and prefer Touch ID.
It's kind of an irrational fear about a thief waving my phone in front of me. But I'd rather wait for Apple to bring back Touch ID in the new iPhone form factor.
Yep, that's where I'm at as well. My issue isn't with it working or not, or fear, but the UX/workflow aspect. It's superior in some situations, I suppose, but seems a downgrade overall. Unfortunately, I think you'll be waiting a long time. Apple wanted that space... they got it... they ain't going back.
Rayz2016 said: Well, at least you know it's irrational. Most people haven't made it that far yet. I suspect we're going to see yet another class of the "Steve would turn in his grave" club over this. They'll be the same people waiting for the return of the headphone jack.
It's the Common Sense Design Club™ Hey, if Apple had come out on stage and said... 'we know you all still use the 3.5mm audio jack, but we simply needed the space. We think we've come up with an acceptable compromise for your loss.' I could have respected that. But, once they went on about superior and legacy ports and all that BS, now I'm just pissed off. Can we make due with out it, I suppose. But, I'll keep buying one with it as long as I possibly can.
Similar thing with Face ID. Apple didn't do this for us. Apple did it for Apple... so they could advertise a bigger screen spec. At least having a bigger screen is bit more of a gain on the user side than losing a standard audio jack (to be replaced with an inferior port and dongle).
Infrared can be washed out by bright ambient light. Does FaceID have any limitations with respect to bright sunlight or bright room light?
That is not accurate, infrared radiation does not reflect as much as it is absorbed. With that said it depends on the material emissivity. Your skin has low emissivity so most of the IR energy from your skin is generated by your skin any background IR energy will be absorbed by your skin.
I believe Apple is using the IR sensor to know object is is scanning is a living object, nothing more.
I still want to know the answer to Franken's question: Where did Apple get a billion faces from exactly?
'Federighi said. "That wasn't just something you could go pull off the internet."'
Ya, no kidding.
To be more accurate he said billions of face images so they could have scanned the same face 1 billion times or scanned 1M faces 100 times. I took that statement as the scanned a group of people's face multiply times which makes total sense. Since they had teach the system who to work if your wearing glasses out a hat.
Apple probably said this to set a high bar for anyone who tries to copy the tech. Also companies with no R&D budget can not knock this off.
I still want to know the answer to Franken's question: Where did Apple get a billion faces from exactly?
'Federighi said. "That wasn't just something you could go pull off the internet."'
Ya, no kidding.
To be more accurate he said billions of face images so they could have scanned the same face 1 billion times or scanned 1M faces 100 times. I took that statement as the scanned a group of people's face multiply times which makes total sense. Since they had teach the system who to work if your wearing glasses out a hat.
Apple probably said this to set a high bar for anyone who tries to copy the tech. Also companies with no R&D budget can not knock this off.
Exactly. And I don't want Apple to answer any questions about how they recruited millions (?) of people for this research. Why help their competitors.
Every new tech that works takes sometimes for non tech savy to get used to them....even my wife still used pass codes, she ain't got nothing to do with touch ID or 3D touch, she said....hmmmm
I'm sure that Face ID will be secure but I wouldn't use it and prefer Touch ID. It's kind of an irrational fear about a thief waving my phone in front of me. But I'd rather wait for Apple to bring back Touch ID in the new iPhone form factor.
Well, at least you know it's irrational. Most people haven't made it that far yet. I suspect we're going to see yet another class of the "Steve would turn in his grave" club over this. They'll be the same people waiting for the return of the headphone jack.
How do you compare Touch ID to the headphone jack...
"A user passcode is also required ... if a user has not unlocked their phone with Face ID in 48 hours. There are also idle time limits, meaning passcode unlock is required if ... Face ID was not used to unlock the device within 4 hours."
These two conditions sound the same to me; I must be missing something. Can anyone clarify the distinction? Thanks.
We'll have to look what Apple says. AI's summary doesn't make sense (as you point out). If Face ID stops after 2 days of not using Face ID, then obviously it stops working if you haven't unlocked your phone for "6.5 days." I'm sure there is some logic to what Apple has implemented, but something got lost in translation.
Hopefully this ease some of those suffering great panic. Yet I see on MR they are still having fits over it and this article.
Well, it is MacRUMORS....
From the article: "passcode unlock is required if an iPhone X has not been unlocked in 6.5 days and Face ID was not used to unlock the device within 4 hours." If it requires a passcode if face ID hasn't been used in 4 hours, what's the point of the 6.5 day limit? (and why 6.5 days?)
Best guess - might have something to do with how long it might take to crack it with some form of brute force attack.
Every new tech that works takes sometimes for non tech savy to get used to them....even my wife still used pass codes, she ain't got nothing to do with touch ID or 3D touch, she said....hmmmm
I'm sure that Face ID will be secure but I wouldn't use it and prefer Touch ID. It's kind of an irrational fear about a thief waving my phone in front of me. But I'd rather wait for Apple to bring back Touch ID in the new iPhone form factor.
Well, at least you know it's irrational. Most people haven't made it that far yet. I suspect we're going to see yet another class of the "Steve would turn in his grave" club over this. They'll be the same people waiting for the return of the headphone jack.
- Phone theft prevention can lead to fears about very unlikely situations which can seem to be irrational. - I don't care about the "what would Steve do" arguments. - If Touch ID is gone for good like the iPhone headphone jack, then my next IP will be in the IP 8 form factor. I use Touch ID on my iPad/iPhone. I like it. And in the unlikely event that my phone is stolen, I think it's much harder to reproduce a fingerprint compared with waving a stolen phone in front of my face.
I still want to know the answer to Franken's question: Where did Apple get a billion faces from exactly?
'Federighi said. "That wasn't just something you could go pull off the internet."'
Ya, no kidding.
To be more accurate he said billions of face images so they could have scanned the same face 1 billion times or scanned 1M faces 100 times. I took that statement as the scanned a group of people's face multiply times which makes total sense. Since they had teach the system who to work if your wearing glasses out a hat.
Apple probably said this to set a high bar for anyone who tries to copy the tech. Also companies with no R&D budget can not knock this off.
Exactly. And I don't want Apple to answer any questions about how they recruited millions (?) of people for this research. Why help their competitors.
While I think Franken is often kind of a dufas, it is part of his job to at least make an attempt to determine if Apple is just blowing smoke.
Every new tech that works takes sometimes for non tech savy to get used to them....even my wife still used pass codes, she ain't got nothing to do with touch ID or 3D touch, she said....hmmmm
I'm sure that Face ID will be secure but I wouldn't use it and prefer Touch ID. It's kind of an irrational fear about a thief waving my phone in front of me. But I'd rather wait for Apple to bring back Touch ID in the new iPhone form factor.
Well, at least you know it's irrational. Most people haven't made it that far yet. I suspect we're going to see yet another class of the "Steve would turn in his grave" club over this. They'll be the same people waiting for the return of the headphone jack.
- Phone theft prevention can lead to fears about very unlikely situations which can seem to be irrational. - I don't care about the "what would Steve do" arguments. - If Touch ID is gone for good like the iPhone headphone jack, then my next IP will be in the IP 8 form factor. I use Touch ID on my iPad/iPhone. I like it. And in the unlikely event that my phone is stolen, I think it's much harder to reproduce a fingerprint compared with waving a stolen phone in front of my face.
It does not unlock if you don't look at it. If you see your phone in the hand of the thief just don't see it, stare away...
Seriously, if incidents previewed here become real and increase, the PD may publish a warning and may suggest disabling Face ID :-/ There are many schemes of street robbery, "won't unlock if no look" is not security.
bb-15 said: I think it's much harder to reproduce a fingerprint compared with waving a stolen phone in front of my face.
What you think doesn't really matter in the face of scientific testing which says otherwise.
Sorry but that is not how the world works (and I know quite a bit about science and human behavior). 1. Looking at something is trivial. 2. By contrast finding out the correct fingerprint, reproducing a rubber/plastic duplicate of it is extremely difficult. I don't recall any in the wild hacking of Touch ID where a completely unknown fingerprint was found on a phone, that fingerprint was duplicated in rubber/plastic and it turned out that it was the right print which could unlock the phone.
Comments
The scan part is just one part of the equation, how the info is reduced to a kind of "hash" and then stored for comparison is also important.
These two conditions sound the same to me; I must be missing something. Can anyone clarify the distinction? Thanks.
It's kind of an irrational fear about a thief waving my phone in front of me.
But I'd rather wait for Apple to bring back Touch ID in the new iPhone form factor.
One small advantage of the new way is that you're less likely to pay with the wrong card.
Yep, that's where I'm at as well. My issue isn't with it working or not, or fear, but the UX/workflow aspect. It's superior in some situations, I suppose, but seems a downgrade overall. Unfortunately, I think you'll be waiting a long time.
It's the Common Sense Design Club™
Hey, if Apple had come out on stage and said... 'we know you all still use the 3.5mm audio jack, but we simply needed the space. We think we've come up with an acceptable compromise for your loss.' I could have respected that. But, once they went on about superior and legacy ports and all that BS, now I'm just pissed off. Can we make due with out it, I suppose. But, I'll keep buying one with it as long as I possibly can.
Similar thing with Face ID. Apple didn't do this for us. Apple did it for Apple... so they could advertise a bigger screen spec. At least having a bigger screen is bit more of a gain on the user side than losing a standard audio jack (to be replaced with an inferior port and dongle).
I believe Apple is using the IR sensor to know object is is scanning is a living object, nothing more.
Apple probably said this to set a high bar for anyone who tries to copy the tech. Also companies with no R&D budget can not knock this off.
- I don't care about the "what would Steve do" arguments.
- If Touch ID is gone for good like the iPhone headphone jack, then my next IP will be in the IP 8 form factor.
I use Touch ID on my iPad/iPhone. I like it. And in the unlikely event that my phone is stolen, I think it's much harder to reproduce a fingerprint compared with waving a stolen phone in front of my face.
Seriously, if incidents previewed here become real and increase, the PD may publish a warning and may suggest disabling Face ID :-/ There are many schemes of street robbery, "won't unlock if no look" is not security.
1. Looking at something is trivial.
2. By contrast finding out the correct fingerprint, reproducing a rubber/plastic duplicate of it is extremely difficult.
I don't recall any in the wild hacking of Touch ID where a completely unknown fingerprint was found on a phone, that fingerprint was duplicated in rubber/plastic and it turned out that it was the right print which could unlock the phone.