Not great, but what are the chances that someone who stole your phone has a picture of you?
The threat isn't from muggers on the street, it's from a targeted compromise. very easy to go after someone's device. Here's a common domestic scenario -- unlocking the device of a parent, sibling, or SO.
That might be true (and very serious in some instances), but it's not really what the majority of people are concerned about with phone security. Muggers on the street and identity theft are what I'm concerned about (my patent, sibling or SO are more likely to play a practical joke than look for or find any nefarious materials), and those people are very unlikely to have a readily available quality photograph of me.
Not trying to downplay it, it's a major fu from Samsung, but I doubt the majority of people are going to be that bothered.
Most people that get in other people's phone are not strangers, just like most rapes or child abduction are not done by strangers. So, you're telling me people prefer the illusion of security than actual security? Guess so... Samsung should be set then cause their thing is a complete joke.
I think I have got AirDrop to work just once. Last night I had to transfer a note from an iPad Air 2 and miraculously, my iPad Mini 2 showed up in AirDrop! I nearly fainted. I chose the Mini and the Air 2 said 'waiting'. I was optmistic. Sadly, it sat there 'waiting' until I cancelled the operation. 15 minutes of my life stolen. However, encouraged by just seeing the Mini 2, I retried. This time I got the notification on the Mini 2. Wow! I thought nothing could go wrong from here but then a message popped up: 'to complete this operation, you must download an App from the App Store'.
That would require an AppleID password which I didn't have to hand, so I gave up.
You may be wondering what I was trying to transfer. It was a link, simply copy/pasted into a note. Absolutely nothing else.
That, my friend, is the definition of half baked and if you look this issue up on Google you will see I am not alone and the only real potential solution is complete overkill: a restore.
Of course, exactly why I have to use the half baked AirDrop in the first place (which requires Bluetooth to be on, iCloud and users logged into AppleID etc) is a complete mystery. You can send a file by Bluetooth from a Mac to any other Bluetooth device with the right BT profile in seconds. Same with Android phones. Why can't iDevices do the same and why isn't AirDrop freaking bulletproof years after launch?
Ouch...you obviously like to make things difficult for yourself.
That my friend is the definition of half-baked!
Never heard of Universal Clipboard?
<chuckle>
No. Using universal clipboard definitely would make things difficult for myself as my Mini doesn't support it.
I think I have got AirDrop to work just once. Last night I had to transfer a note from an iPad Air 2 and miraculously, my iPad Mini 2 showed up in AirDrop! I nearly fainted. I chose the Mini and the Air 2 said 'waiting'. I was optmistic. Sadly, it sat there 'waiting' until I cancelled the operation. 15 minutes of my life stolen. However, encouraged by just seeing the Mini 2, I retried. This time I got the notification on the Mini 2. Wow! I thought nothing could go wrong from here but then a message popped up: 'to complete this operation, you must download an App from the App Store'.
That would require an AppleID password which I didn't have to hand, so I gave up.
You may be wondering what I was trying to transfer. It was a link, simply copy/pasted into a note. Absolutely nothing else.
That, my friend, is the definition of half baked and if you look this issue up on Google you will see I am not alone and the only real potential solution is complete overkill: a restore.
Of course, exactly why I have to use the half baked AirDrop in the first place (which requires Bluetooth to be on, iCloud and users logged into AppleID etc) is a complete mystery. You can send a file by Bluetooth from a Mac to any other Bluetooth device with the right BT profile in seconds. Same with Android phones. Why can't iDevices do the same and why isn't AirDrop freaking bulletproof years after launch?
Ouch...you obviously like to make things difficult for yourself.
That my friend is the definition of half-baked!
Never heard of Universal Clipboard?
<chuckle>
No. Using universal clipboard definitely would make things difficult for myself as my Mini doesn't support it.
No. The Mini 2 supports it if it is running continuity requirements. My Mini 2 doesn't support it.
Well, that's certainly splitting hairs.
This is is like saying your Ford F-150 doesn't support pulling a trailer because you've chosen not to add a (free) hitch.
Please don't get me started on the utter crud that iTunes is. Pure voodoo.
I'm wondering who got you started with all the other stuff in the first place. Wish that didn't happen...
To be fair, ITune's pretty much always had a weird UI just its kind of weirdness was much more mainstream in 2002 than now. It just tries to do a bit too much; basically like operator overloading in a programming language :-).
Not great, but what are the chances that someone who stole your phone has a picture of you?
The threat isn't from muggers on the street, it's from a targeted compromise. very easy to go after someone's device. Here's a common domestic scenario -- unlocking the device of a parent, sibling, or SO.
That might be true (and very serious in some instances), but it's not really what the majority of people are concerned about with phone security. Muggers on the street and identity theft are what I'm concerned about (my patent, sibling or SO are more likely to play a practical joke than look for or find any nefarious materials), and those people are very unlikely to have a readily available quality photograph of me.
Not trying to downplay it, it's a major fu from Samsung, but I doubt the majority of people are going to be that bothered.
Most people that get in other people's phone are not strangers, just like most rapes or child abduction are not done by strangers. So, you're telling me people prefer the illusion of security than actual security? Guess so... Samsung should be set then cause their thing is a complete joke.
Where is the illusion of security if the phone itself warns you that security of the feature is less than inter options included on the phone?
Your face should be the username, not the password.
Some days I come to this forum and read single-line comments that make me wonder how the poster manages to feed himself in the mornings.
Other days I come here and read a single-line comment that I feel sure will steer conversations on the forum for the next year or so.
This post is the latter.
"Your face should be the username, not the password."
Well said, sir/madam.
And the reason why Apple is working so hard on facial recognition is now much clearer to me.
One of the big problems with getting iPads into business and education is iOS: it's essentially a single-user operating system from the user's point of view.
If you want to make it multi-user then you need to know who the user is, as well as his thumbprint scan.
Not great, but what are the chances that someone who stole your phone has a picture of you?
The threat isn't from muggers on the street, it's from a targeted compromise. very easy to go after someone's device. Here's a common domestic scenario -- unlocking the device of a parent, sibling, or SO.
That might be true (and very serious in some instances), but it's not really what the majority of people are concerned about with phone security. Muggers on the street and identity theft are what I'm concerned about (my patent, sibling or SO are more likely to play a practical joke than look for or find any nefarious materials), and those people are very unlikely to have a readily available quality photograph of me.
Not trying to downplay it, it's a major fu from Samsung, but I doubt the majority of people are going to be that bothered.
Most people that get in other people's phone are not strangers, just like most rapes or child abduction are not done by strangers. So, you're telling me people prefer the illusion of security than actual security? Guess so... Samsung should be set then cause their thing is a complete joke.
Where is the illusion of security if the phone itself warns you that security of the feature is less than inter options included on the phone?
There is no illusión of security.
Yes, it's rather like Samsung's warning that their retina scanner could cause eye damage. I have to wonder if it would be better to make it safe before putting it in the phone at all.
Not great, but what are the chances that someone who stole your phone has a picture of you?
The threat isn't from muggers on the street, it's from a targeted compromise. very easy to go after someone's device. Here's a common domestic scenario -- unlocking the device of a parent, sibling, or SO.
That might be true (and very serious in some instances), but it's not really what the majority of people are concerned about with phone security. Muggers on the street and identity theft are what I'm concerned about (my patent, sibling or SO are more likely to play a practical joke than look for or find any nefarious materials), and those people are very unlikely to have a readily available quality photograph of me.
Not trying to downplay it, it's a major fu from Samsung, but I doubt the majority of people are going to be that bothered.
Most people that get in other people's phone are not strangers, just like most rapes or child abduction are not done by strangers. So, you're telling me people prefer the illusion of security than actual security? Guess so... Samsung should be set then cause their thing is a complete joke.
Where is the illusion of security if the phone itself warns you that security of the feature is less than inter options included on the phone?
There is no illusión of security.
Yes, it's rather like Samsung's warning that their retina scanner could cause eye damage. I have to wonder if it would be better to make it safe before putting it in the phone at all.
I've never owned a Samsung and didn't know they had retina scanners ( which would seem very complicated without dilating your pupils) but this is about security, not safety and my point stands.
Just as you use a weak passcode at your own risk, you use facial recognition in the same way. You are even informed of this when you activate the feature. No illusion, no promises, nothing. Just a convenience option. You can take it or leave it. You have the iris scanner and the fingerprint scanner to use as alternatives, but as governments begin to expand their biometric databases we may end up falling back on the passcode and skipping biometrics altogether.
i'm as game to bash samsung as anyone. lots of hype, but little follow through. you'd think these things would be tested with actual customers. multi factor login isn't the answer either. last thing i want to do is double the time to login or access an app. as for touchid, ever tried to login to your iphone after washing your hands? or when its cold? or when you just got out of the gym and are sweating? doesn't exactly work like a charm. and my son can log me in with a fruit roll up print of my finger. not sure i'm ready to let an ex dig into every account i own with this level of security. people are testing better stuff every day that will be fast and secure. can't be long.
Your face should be the username, not the password.
Some days I come to this forum and read single-line comments that make me wonder how the poster manages to feed himself in the mornings.
Other days I come here and read a single-line comment that I feel sure will steer conversations on the forum for the next year or so.
This post is the latter.
"Your face should be the username, not the password."
Well said, sir/madam.
And the reason why Apple is working so hard on facial recognition is now much clearer to me.
One of the big problems with getting iPads into business and education is iOS: it's essentially a single-user operating system from the user's point of view.
If you want to make it multi-user then you need to know who the user is, as well as his thumbprint scan.
Or a retina scan, which is the same as a single function security mechanism -- identify user looking at the phone, then scan that user's retina to compare to secure enclave, then unlock or not. No secondary effort required by the user.
Your face should be the username, not the password.
Some days I come to this forum and read single-line comments that make me wonder how the poster manages to feed himself in the mornings.
Other days I come here and read a single-line comment that I feel sure will steer conversations on the forum for the next year or so.
This post is the latter.
"Your face should be the username, not the password."
Well said, sir/madam.
And the reason why Apple is working so hard on facial recognition is now much clearer to me.
One of the big problems with getting iPads into business and education is iOS: it's essentially a single-user operating system from the user's point of view.
If you want to make it multi-user then you need to know who the user is, as well as his thumbprint scan.
Or a retina scan, which is the same as a single function security mechanism -- identify user looking at the phone, then scan that user's retina to compare to secure enclave, then unlock or not. No secondary effort required by the user.
That's also a possibility, but only if they have a retina scan mechanism that is 100% safe to use so they don't have to display a warning about eye damage.
Not great, but what are the chances that someone who stole your phone has a picture of you?
The threat isn't from muggers on the street, it's from a targeted compromise. very easy to go after someone's device. Here's a common domestic scenario -- unlocking the device of a parent, sibling, or SO.
That might be true (and very serious in some instances), but it's not really what the majority of people are concerned about with phone security. Muggers on the street and identity theft are what I'm concerned about (my patent, sibling or SO are more likely to play a practical joke than look for or find any nefarious materials), and those people are very unlikely to have a readily available quality photograph of me.
Not trying to downplay it, it's a major fu from Samsung, but I doubt the majority of people are going to be that bothered.
Most people that get in other people's phone are not strangers, just like most rapes or child abduction are not done by strangers. So, you're telling me people prefer the illusion of security than actual security? Guess so... Samsung should be set then cause their thing is a complete joke.
Where is the illusion of security if the phone itself warns you that security of the feature is less than inter options included on the phone?
There is no illusión of security.
Yes, it's rather like Samsung's warning that their retina scanner could cause eye damage. I have to wonder if it would be better to make it safe before putting it in the phone at all.
I've never owned a Samsung and didn't know they had retina scanners ( which would seem very complicated without dilating your pupils) but this is about security, not safety and my point stands.
Just as you use a weak passcode at your own risk, you use facial recognition in the same way. You are even informed of this when you activate the feature. No illusion, no promises, nothing. Just a convenience option. You can take it or leave it. You have the iris scanner and the fingerprint scanner to use as alternatives, but as governments begin to expand their biometric databases we may end up falling back on the passcode and skipping biometrics altogether.
Oh I agree, your point does stand. If you are happy with compromised security then that's okay, but it's not okay with Apple. This the difference between Apple and Samsung. Apple would not introduce something that they know is insecure even if it provides an added convenience. It's a question of priorities. Putting a warning on the screen is, to Apple's mind, a cop-out. It is either secure or it's not.
foggyhill said: To be fair, ITune’s pretty much always had a weird UI just its kind of weirdness was much more mainstream in 2002 than now. It just tries to do a bit too much; basically like operator overloading in a programming language :-).
I don’t think it does too much, but iTunes needs a complete UI overhaul. Yet again. They’ll get it right eventually, but they sure as fuck haven’t done so yet. AND BRING BACK THE ABILITY TO RESIZE MY ARTWORK. I DIDN’T GO TO THE TROUBLE OF FINDING HIGH RES IMAGES JUST TO HAVE THEM MAX OUT AT 170x170 ON MY 27” MONITOR, APPLE.
Comments
So, you're telling me people prefer the illusion of security than actual security? Guess so... Samsung should be set then cause their thing is a complete joke.
I'm wondering who got you started with all the other stuff in the first place. Wish that didn't happen...
It just tries to do a bit too much; basically like operator overloading in a programming language :-).
There is no illusión of security.
Some days I come to this forum and read single-line comments that make me wonder how the poster manages to feed himself in the mornings.
Other days I come here and read a single-line comment that I feel sure will steer conversations on the forum for the next year or so.
This post is the latter.
"Your face should be the username, not the password."
Well said, sir/madam.
And the reason why Apple is working so hard on facial recognition is now much clearer to me.
One of the big problems with getting iPads into business and education is iOS: it's essentially a single-user operating system from the user's point of view.
If you want to make it multi-user then you need to know who the user is, as well as his thumbprint scan.
Just as you use a weak passcode at your own risk, you use facial recognition in the same way. You are even informed of this when you activate the feature. No illusion, no promises, nothing. Just a convenience option. You can take it or leave it. You have the iris scanner and the fingerprint scanner to use as alternatives, but as governments begin to expand their biometric databases we may end up falling back on the passcode and skipping biometrics altogether.