The point of the article is that many people are complaining about FaceID's security in abstract. The alternatives, like the relatively common 'no password' or '123456 pin' are much LESS secure than FaceID.
The other arguments people are making tend to be very fanciful scenarios that don't apply to normal people (state actors, high quality makeup shops with a perfect face mold of your face, etc).
It may not be perfect but like TouchID it's probably way better than the alternative.
At the same time, the system needs to be judged as to if it's secure or not, not if it's the best possible implementation of FaceID or not. After all, something like a fingerprint reader on the back is a valid alternative.
At the end of the day, a system where it's likely you'll find someone who can unlock it isn't very secure.
But that’s all we’ve seen in EVERY thread about FaceID.
“Biometrics are evil because you can’t change them.” Or “They’re usernames/passwords/whatever.” Or “FaceID can be subverted by a nation state with 3 years and $75 trillion”. Or “You can just unlock it with a single picture from Twitter.”
And of course “If only they added an esoteric and complex method of unlocking a fake environment under duress by winking the word tomato backward in French Morse code...”
None of it seems helpful. Using a FaceID discussion to argue TouchID is insecure... seems pointless. The arguments about how it can be bypassed (supposedly) with JUST a 3D printer and thousands of high resolution photos and a video of you looking into a camera and........ come on. This stuff would be unbelievable in an Oceans 11 sequel.
And people argue as if FaceID has to be perfect when it replaces a fingerprint (which is easier to fake) or basically nothing. We’re not securing the Crown Jewels here. We’re trying to keep the guy next to you at the bar from tweeting as you.
So in the end there is no useful on top discussion. It’s just a irrelevant story that people can use to tell about their pet biometric issues even when they don’t fit.
People are still arguing about things Apple said during the initial keynote. The only one I don’t see from before is the ‘will it work in the dark’ question which Apple explicitly mentioned in the keynote.
I want to know more about FaceID from people who know more about security. Instead we’re discussing how the technology it replaced is bad and fringe internet conspiracy theory level nonsense.
Edit to add one more thing: maybe this is rose colored glasses but I don’t remember the threads around TouchID being anywhere near this bad. People argued over how easy it was to get a fingerprint, sure. That’s fair. But the rest of the discussion seemed much more relevant.
It's hard to take seriously because they take a story about Apple getting the phone out a year early as somehow demonstrating that Apple hadn't properly studied how the security of Face ID compares with Touch ID. It's a total non sequitur.
There's no such thing as "a secure device." There are devices which offer various levels and types of security. If you're a CIA officer carrying classified secrets on your device, you probably don't want to use Face ID. For the average user, it's a nice increase in security.
I misread the upthread comment as implying that FaceID “passwords” were more legally secure than regular passwords, not just more legally secure than plain FaceID.
I agree that the description you provide is generally correct.
Oh oops, I didn't read carefully enough. Regardless, I think if you're interested in real security, both TouchID and FaceID are terrible (easy to use your body, by force if necessary, to bypass those), and passcode is the only secure option. FaceID and TouchID are just conveniences not affordable to those who have something to lose.
For a consumer, it's fine -- way better than the bullshit passwords that people use.
Once you start getting into higher security areas, you still need multiple identity factors to authenticate people. I'd guess that a bigger potential risk factor for systems like FaceID is intent -- entry of a passcode or fingerprint being placed on a button is a more explicit expression of intent as opposed to glancing at a device.
TouchID and FaceID are like setting the door to auto-lock when you leave your apartment. Sure, setting the second lock is more secure. But most people won't bother with that. Because for most people, it isn't worth the bother ex ante. TouchID and FaceID have enabled broad-population security practices in a way preaching passwords-only never could have.
> Perhaps you’ve forgotten how many usability compromises you’ve made in using Face ID, but I guarantee it’s slower
Counterpoint: with Face ID, if my phone is facing me I can interact with it just by looking in its direction.
Got a message while I'm at my desk? I look at it, it unlocks and shows me the notification. Cooking and a timer goes off? I look at it, it lowers the volume of the alarm.
Everything has trade-offs and different people use stuff in different ways, but I personally prefer Face ID to Touch ID.
That article doesn’t make the claims seem credible at all. And certainly doesn’t support your claim that the security is terrible.
As far as I can see you are in fact lending credibility to a racist meme to support your own assertion about the security of Face ID.
> For what it's worth, the face recognition unlock is probably the most insecure unlock there is on the phone (and unsettling to me when I've tried it).
>Few people are high value enough to merit the effort required to capture a face from CCTV, generate a mask from the image, get physical access to their device, and use the mask to unlock. So for almost everyone, faceid is fine.
I feel like this point misses the first point you made, about things being a lot more circumstantial and nuanced. It all depends on what you have to hide and on what device. Someone may need to go to the level of effort you mentioned to access someone's iPhone, while someone else may need to just print out a mugshot and hold it in front of a laptop webcam to unlock their computer.
Edit: I'll also second schoen's point about someone forcefully holding your own face up to the device.
I strongly disagree. Bad security is worse than no security. It's better to disable FaceID when the security of the system has been breached rather than to limp on regardless.
The problem with phone security nowadays isn't merely the data people have on the phones, its the data people have in the cloud as well with passwords being saved on the device.
> If you are so concerned about security that you think there is a good chance someone is going to physically attack you to get into your phone, you should just assume someone will get into your phone eventually, and don't keep any sensitive data on it. For the other 99.9999% of the population, face id is good enough.
I don't understand this statistic. Are you arguing 99.9999% of all phones aren't a potential target of being stolen? Are you arguing 99.9999% of all people's data isn't interesting to authorities? You're being overly optimistic about FaceID.
In terms of security vs convenience though, I'm not going to enter a decent passphrase into my phone many times per day. A short passcode can trivially be shoulder-surfed, so FaceID is still better security than what I otherwise would be using, even if it's not perfect. The convenience also lets me have more apps individually locked, meaning I can hand an unlocked device to someone knowing they still have somewhat limited access.
The other arguments people are making tend to be very fanciful scenarios that don't apply to normal people (state actors, high quality makeup shops with a perfect face mold of your face, etc).
It may not be perfect but like TouchID it's probably way better than the alternative.
reply