Personally I have zero issues with Franken requesting more detailed info on the security of FaceID. I wish more lawmakers would take a serious interest in some of the challenges introduced with new tech. What's wrong with asking questions? He's not making accusations is he? Geesh is everyone touchy much?
As to Frankenstein, he's hot and bothered that a piece of silicon might discriminate based on a face. Well -- shock, shock -- it DOES discriminate! That's it's whole purpose. The tech picks out 1 face out of 7.442 billion and only allows that 1 face to unlock a given phone.
The presentation mentioned it can only discriminate down to only about 1 per million. So about 7442 other people in the world can unlock your phone with their face.
Whether it was the actual intention of Franken or not, I think this "scrutiny" is going to be a boon for the iPhone X. Some of the questions/concerns may seem dumb or show a lack of understanding of the technology, but guess what, some of them are the very same concerns that a lot of unknowledgeable consumers have as they are considering whether or not the iPhone X is a good choice. Apple has done their work and put out a top notch technology. There's nothing to hide. There aren't secret flaws to be revealed by these questions. Apple will be able to answer all these concerns with flying colors. Franken has thrown Apple a softball and in the response there will be an official statement of the highest level to set everyone's little hearts at ease that they can have confidence in the FaceID technology. As a couple of others have already commented, I don't see this as an attack on Apple, but rather a great opportunity to pile on the confidence and desire for iPhone X.
Personally I have zero issues with Franken requesting more detailed info on the security of FaceID. I wish more lawmakers would take a serious interest in some of the challenges introduced with new tech. What's wrong with asking questions? He's not making accusations is he? Geesh is everyone touchy much?
Because it’s stupud and pointless grandstanding. Most of these questions were answered in the event. Others are dumb questions. Further, there is no obligation for a corporate citizen to respond to his demands. Lastly, nobody asked the google android ripoffs these questions and I don’t remember you advocating for it then. Why now? Oh yeah, Apple. Of course you don’t have an issue with it if it’s Apple and not google.
Personally I have zero issues with Franken requesting more detailed info on the security of FaceID. I wish more lawmakers would take a serious interest in some of the challenges introduced with new tech. What's wrong with asking questions? He's not making accusations is he? Geesh is everyone touchy much?
I actually think this inquiry is positive. Apple clearly has increased the security protections. This is good publicity for Apple.
Fairly, law enforcement will like this upgrade to FaceID because it is physically easier to force an individual to look rather than touch. However, in the US, either action may be equally unconstitutional.
Personally I have zero issues with Franken requesting more detailed info on the security of FaceID. I wish more lawmakers would take a serious interest in some of the challenges introduced with new tech. What's wrong with asking questions? He's not making accusations is he? Geesh is everyone touchy much?
Because it’s stupud and pointless grandstanding. Most of these questions were answered in the event. Others are dumb questions. Further, there is no obligation for a corporate citizen to respond to his demands. Lastly, nobody asked the google android ripoffs these questions and I don’t remember you advocating for it then. Why now? Oh yeah, Apple. Of course you don’t have an issue with it if it’s Apple and not google.
Franken is asking the same kinds of questions that millions of potential buyers might be. By putting the answers out there in a high-profile manner where strict honesty is lawfully required it serves to definitively put those questions to bed. It can only benefit Apple, not harm them. Get all the silliness out of the way before the orders.
On a related note: You tend to take any questions concerning Apple far too personally and the tone of your replies makes that readily apparent. It not just when replying to me but pretty much with everyone. Perhaps you hadn't noticed how personal you tend to make it so it can't hurt to bring it to your attention. There's no attack on Apple when an honest question is asked so at ease there soldier. Readers will be more likely to trust your answers when you aren't framing them in the form of an attack on the questioner.
The real concern is that the bosses that run the retail centers (especially casinos) will now see a reduced risk of project failure and pickup the phone to mutter something like "hey, come 'ear and build me some'n crazy like Apple put in those new Ten phones. you can do that for me, 'eh?"
StrangeDays said: Franken is asking the same kinds of questions that millions of potential buyers might be. By putting the answers out there in a high-profile manner where strict honesty is lawfully required it serves to definitively put those questions to bed.
Can you please provide me with the LAW you speak of that states "By putting the answers out there in a high-profile manner where strict honesty is lawfully required" I'll wait...
StrangeDays said: Franken is asking the same kinds of questions that millions of potential buyers might be. By putting the answers out there in a high-profile manner where strict honesty is lawfully required it serves to definitively put those questions to bed.
Can you please provide me with the LAW you speak of that states "By putting the answers out there in a high-profile manner where strict honesty is lawfully required" I'll wait...
I didn't make you wait long.
"There are separate federal regulations for perjury specifically and lying to the feds generally. Under the United States Code, title 18, section 1001, a person who knowingly or willingly makes a material statement that is false, or fraudulent, to the feds, is guilty of a crime. What comes as a surprise to many is that unlike section 1621, section 1001 does not require that a person be under oath."
For other questions on the matter of a congressional inquiry and why a response might be necessary:
Q: What is contempt of Congress, and why would Congress want to use this power?
A: Congress can hold a person in contempt if that person obstructs proceedings or an inquiry by a congressional committee. Congress has used contempt citations for two main reasons: (1) to punish someone for refusing to testify or refusing to provide documents or answers, and (2) for bribing or libeling a member of Congress.
Q: Where in the Constitution does it say Congress can hold someone in contempt for not testifying?
A: It's not in the Constitution. It is an implied power of Congress, just like executive privilege is an implied power of the presidency.
Q: Is there any legal underpinning for a contempt of Congress citation?
A: Yes. The Supreme Court said as early as 1821 that without the power to hold people in contempt of Congress, the legislative branch would be "exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it."
StrangeDays said: Franken is asking the same kinds of questions that millions of potential buyers might be. By putting the answers out there in a high-profile manner where strict honesty is lawfully required it serves to definitively put those questions to bed.
Can you please provide me with the LAW you speak of that states "By putting the answers out there in a high-profile manner where strict honesty is lawfully required" I'll wait...
I didn't make you wait long.
"There are separate federal regulations for perjury specifically and lying to the feds generally. Under the United States Code, title 18, section 1001, a person who knowingly or willingly makes a material statement that is false, or fraudulent, to the feds, is guilty of a crime. What comes as a surprise to many is that unlike section 1621, section 1001 does not require that a person be under oath."
For other questions on the matter of a congressional inquiry and why a response might be necessary:
Q: What is contempt of Congress, and why would Congress want to use this power?
A: Congress can hold a person in contempt if that person obstructs proceedings or an inquiry by a congressional committee. Congress has used contempt citations for two main reasons: (1) to punish someone for refusing to testify or refusing to provide documents or answers, and (2) for bribing or libeling a member of Congress.
Q: Where in the Constitution does it say Congress can hold someone in contempt for not testifying?
A: It's not in the Constitution. It is an implied power of Congress, just like executive privilege is an implied power of the presidency.
Q: Is there any legal underpinning for a contempt of Congress citation?
A: Yes. The Supreme Court said as early as 1821 that without the power to hold people in contempt of Congress, the legislative branch would be "exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it."
OK, my apologies. I interpreted this in a totally different manner originally. Reading your response I realized I was wrong.
I don't like the Face ID idea not so much for security reasons, but the fact that my phone is often resting on a table and I press the home button to see the CLOCK, or if I missed any notification, or battery status etc... picking the phone up and putting it right in front of my face ( If it works 100%, failed on Fred in the Demo) just for these quick glances seem like a step backward to me... A glass back, if you want to protect it with a case... no wireless charging. I'm really on the fence with this 'upgrade'. I think it's just trying too hard to innovate, not sure Steve would have been proud.
1. You can wake the phone without unlocking it to check that info 2. Face ID didn't fail. 3. I've read wireless charging can be done through a 3 mm case. 4. You know Steve? Stop wondering what he would think.
Franken is a genuine hack. I can't think of a more arrogant, condescending ass than Franken. I'm inferring from this story that Franken believes he's able to determine if Apple has taken sufficient precautions in their planning, development, and testing of this product. It's as if he believes he has the knowledge required to make such an assessment.
I live in MN. If he isn't voted out soon, I'm moving.
Billions posting their faces all over Facebook, Instagram, Snap Chat, etc, nobody bats an eye. Apple releases facial recognition feature that's securely stored on a highly encrypted chip, everyone loses their minds.
3rd party apps using Apple's APIs would be the easier way to get face data. Snapchat is scanning faces for mesh creation so this is different from touch id as 3rd party apps didn't get access to the scanner data. Assuming it's the same resolution, 3rd party apps should be able to get the same data that is going into the secure enclave using ARKit:
and in fact be scanning your face and uploading the data to e.g Russia for future surveillance and identification. It's not much different from photos though and if a criminal network managed to get face data for a lot of people, I don't see what they'd be able to do with it, especially on any kind of large scale. If banks started using it for payment authentication where they have the data and compare it then that could be compromised by sending a copy of the data but it's fine if they keep using device authentication.
One thing people might do is scan people to make things with their faces, especially celebrities. They might meet them at an event, take a selfie with the front camera and be able to use that data to make dolls or 3D models out of them. Fans could upload scans of celebs to share. Again, it's not that much different from normal cameras.
If someone steals a phone then they may be able to unlock it more easily but they'd try to steal it while it was in use so it would be unlocked anyway:
This is how you prevent that from happening:
If they stole a phone that was locked and tried later on to walk near the owner to unlock it, by the time that happened, the phone would likely have tried to authenticate a number of times and fail and revert to locked, the owner might have iCloud locked it, it might have hit the timeout period.
For convenience and security, Face ID is a perfectly good replacement for Touch ID. There are rare instances where Touch ID would work better:
but entering a passcode now and then isn't the end of the world.
Is it just me or did I miss something on the one hand we are being told Apple are late to the party with face ID already on Android devices. Yet now Apple release Face ID and all of a sudden it's a security risk. Yet nothing was said about the devices already on the market?
Is it just me or did I miss something on the one hand we are being told Apple are late to the party with face ID already on Android devices. Yet now Apple release Face ID and all of a sudden it's a security risk. Yet nothing was said about the devices already on the market?
1) This is what happens when do something people care about.
2) Franken did question Samsung on the Galaxy S5's fingerprint lock, which I think was just trying to sound like he cared about Android security, but I can't find any evidence that he questioned Samsung about the Galaxy Note 8.
. Another question asks what safeguards has Apple built into the system to prevent nefarious actors from unlocking iPhone X by simply holding it up to an owner's face.
I don’t watch a lot of news... has there been a lot of actors out stealing people’s phone... are they struggling actors? Or A list stars???
Personally I have zero issues with Franken requesting more detailed info on the security of FaceID. I wish more lawmakers would take a serious interest in some of the challenges introduced with new tech. What's wrong with asking questions? He's not making accusations is he? Geesh is everyone touchy much?
I don't have a problem with the questions per se, but as others have pointed out, Franken's purpose in asking them isn't the same purpose that someone who has an actual interested in privacy and security would have. He's grandstanding and being the attention whore that the vast majority of politicians end up being. That said, while most of the questions could have been answered by watching the presentation, as you point out, there are legal requirements to answering the direct questions of a Federal official.
Somebody was going to ask them, and even if I think Franken's purpose in doing so is self-serving, rather than for the purposes of actually protecting users' privacy, it'll be nice to see official answers in the public record.
Not that I think for an instant that there's any major problems with Apple's implementation, like the idiocy that was Samsung's, but if it reassures some politician's as to privacy, it's a good thing. And if it riles other politicians because it prevents privacy violations by government, so much the better. Apoplexy in politicians can be quite entertaining.
Comments
As a couple of others have already commented, I don't see this as an attack on Apple, but rather a great opportunity to pile on the confidence and desire for iPhone X.
Fairly, law enforcement will like this upgrade to FaceID because it is physically easier to force an individual to look rather than touch. However, in the US, either action may be equally unconstitutional.
On a related note:
You tend to take any questions concerning Apple far too personally and the tone of your replies makes that readily apparent. It not just when replying to me but pretty much with everyone. Perhaps you hadn't noticed how personal you tend to make it so it can't hurt to bring it to your attention. There's no attack on Apple when an honest question is asked so at ease there soldier. Readers will be more likely to trust your answers when you aren't framing them in the form of an attack on the questioner.
I didn't make you wait long.
"There are separate federal regulations for perjury specifically and lying to the feds generally. Under the United States Code, title 18, section 1001, a person who knowingly or willingly makes a material statement that is false, or fraudulent, to the feds, is guilty of a crime. What comes as a surprise to many is that unlike section 1621, section 1001 does not require that a person be under oath."
For other questions on the matter of a congressional inquiry and why a response might be necessary:
Q: What is contempt of Congress, and why would Congress want to use this power?
A: Congress can hold a person in contempt if that person obstructs proceedings or an inquiry by a congressional committee. Congress has used contempt citations for two main reasons: (1) to punish someone for refusing to testify or refusing to provide documents or answers, and (2) for bribing or libeling a member of Congress.
Q: Where in the Constitution does it say Congress can hold someone in contempt for not testifying?
A: It's not in the Constitution. It is an implied power of Congress, just like executive privilege is an implied power of the presidency.
Q: Is there any legal underpinning for a contempt of Congress citation?
A: Yes. The Supreme Court said as early as 1821 that without the power to hold people in contempt of Congress, the legislative branch would be "exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it."
2. Face ID didn't fail.
3. I've read wireless charging can be done through a 3 mm case.
4. You know Steve? Stop wondering what he would think.
I live in MN. If he isn't voted out soon, I'm moving.
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/arkit/creating_face_based_ar_experiences
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/arkit/arfacegeometry
An app could look like it's for adding comedy mustaches ( https://itunes.apple.com/app/mustache-me/id305606631?mt=8 ):
and in fact be scanning your face and uploading the data to e.g Russia for future surveillance and identification. It's not much different from photos though and if a criminal network managed to get face data for a lot of people, I don't see what they'd be able to do with it, especially on any kind of large scale. If banks started using it for payment authentication where they have the data and compare it then that could be compromised by sending a copy of the data but it's fine if they keep using device authentication.
One thing people might do is scan people to make things with their faces, especially celebrities. They might meet them at an event, take a selfie with the front camera and be able to use that data to make dolls or 3D models out of them. Fans could upload scans of celebs to share. Again, it's not that much different from normal cameras.
If someone steals a phone then they may be able to unlock it more easily but they'd try to steal it while it was in use so it would be unlocked anyway:
This is how you prevent that from happening:
If they stole a phone that was locked and tried later on to walk near the owner to unlock it, by the time that happened, the phone would likely have tried to authenticate a number of times and fail and revert to locked, the owner might have iCloud locked it, it might have hit the timeout period.
For convenience and security, Face ID is a perfectly good replacement for Touch ID. There are rare instances where Touch ID would work better:
but entering a passcode now and then isn't the end of the world.
2) Franken did question Samsung on the Galaxy S5's fingerprint lock, which I think was just trying to sound like he cared about Android security, but I can't find any evidence that he questioned Samsung about the Galaxy Note 8.
I don't have a problem with the questions per se, but as others have pointed out, Franken's purpose in asking them isn't the same purpose that someone who has an actual interested in privacy and security would have. He's grandstanding and being the attention whore that the vast majority of politicians end up being. That said, while most of the questions could have been answered by watching the presentation, as you point out, there are legal requirements to answering the direct questions of a Federal official.
Somebody was going to ask them, and even if I think Franken's purpose in doing so is self-serving, rather than for the purposes of actually protecting users' privacy, it'll be nice to see official answers in the public record.
Not that I think for an instant that there's any major problems with Apple's implementation, like the idiocy that was Samsung's, but if it reassures some politician's as to privacy, it's a good thing. And if it riles other politicians because it prevents privacy violations by government, so much the better. Apoplexy in politicians can be quite entertaining.