Wired is running a story of hackers claiming to have broken Face ID on the new iPhone X.
When Apple released the iPhone X on November 3, it touched off an immediate race among hackers around the world to be the first to fool the company's futuristic new form of authentication. A week later, hackers on the actual other side of the world claim to have successfully duplicated someone's face to unlock his iPhone X—with what looks like a simpler technique than some security researchers believed possible.
On Friday, Vietnamese security firm Bkav released a blog post and video showing that—by all appearances—they'd cracked Face ID with a composite mask of 3-D-printed plastic, silicone, makeup, and simple paper cutouts, which in combination tricked an iPhone X into unlocking.
On a similar note Apple has repeatedly fought working with governments to unlock phones, if the police have a dead or detained criminal what is to stop them from just pointing the phone at their face and getting all the juicy data bits inside? Does Face ID *help* police/governments?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Tuesday November 14 2017, @07:34PM (3 children)
You started out wrong, and it went down hill from there.
There's absolutely no justification for the police to have all evidence that exists.
With that as your standard, there is nobody who is innocent. You've just called for a real world "Go to Jail, go directly to jail" card.
You, sir, are an idiot.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday November 14 2017, @11:36PM (2 children)
That nobody is innocent is a fault in our laws, not a fault in the powers of law enforcement. It unfortunately leads to selective enforcement, targeted at people the police are already otherwise interested in.
But don't miss the "as part of due process" part of my argument. Due process does not allow anybody to broadly sweep all evidence of criminal activity. It only allows for a targeted search based on existing suspicion. And when there is an existing suspicion, the best way to prove whether that suspicion is correct or whether the police need to look elsewhere is if they can look at all evidence that exists.
But think for a moment about what you misinterpreted in my argument. Nobody wants to put everybody in jail. Who would pay taxes? Who would guard the prison? If law enforcement were truly omniscient, we would be having some interesting conversations about all those laws that are technically being broken but don't hurt anybody. We might even have the information to say for sure that certain activities currently illegal are good for society. Granted, we'd also have some serious corruption problems that would probably tank any real reform of our legal system pretty quickly.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday November 15 2017, @01:54AM (1 child)
"Nobody wants to put everybody in jail. "
But there are people who may want to put YOU in jail: give them the power to, and it may happen.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Wednesday November 15 2017, @08:03PM
You're remarkably naïve to think that they couldn't already lock you or me away if they wanted to. The vast majority of evidence can already be obtained through warrants, and even if all they have is "reasonable suspicion" they can still use that to make your life unlivable.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?