There's a lot of people doing this now. I think ios7 will purposely 'kill' the iphone 4. Call me a cynic
Is the iPhone 5s really upgrading from the 5
- Thread starter ben12321
- Start date
There's a lot of people doing this now. I think ios7 will purposely 'kill' the iphone 4. Call me a cynic
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 78,785
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
There's a lot of people doing this now. I think ios7 will purposely 'kill' the iphone 4. Call me a cynic
I don't think i'll be updating ! it runs like a dog as it is.
To be fair, if this time last year I said the NSA were hoovering up the internet and sabotaging encryption to spy on everyone I probably would have been put in the tin foil hat category as well.
It's not really about having anything to hide, and it's not necessarily down to whether a vendor is in cahoots. We've already seen how bugs in Apple software have been exploited by government spies - who is to say their fingerprint reader implementation isn't perfect either?
Is it enough to put me off? No, not really. But equally I don't think it's a topic to be brushed off either. Biometrics are a good solution to the password problem and are likely to gain a lot of traction over the next decade, and it's a good thing that some people are sceptical.
Additionally, I can pretty much guarantee that we're going to see some interesting ways this system can be defeated that might make a lot of people think twice about enabling it at all.
I think people should be open minded, not too cynical and not too accepting.
Or have visited the USA ...
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2010
- Posts
- 16,511
- Location
- Swimming in a lake
This.
The NSA have my prints.
I had to give them both thumbs, and all fingers when I entered the US.
kd
If I had an iPhone 5, I'd likely wait for the iPhone 6. The only real tangible benefit seems to be the fingerprint sensor saving a bit of a faff when unlocking your phone. In the future it may have more uses but not at launch apparently - another reason to wait for the 6 when hopefully it has widespread 3rd party app support.
As it happens, I have an iPhone 4S and the 5S I think just about qualifies as an upgrade now for my requirements and preferences.
Right now, it's of little concern even if Apple do manage to get your actual fingerprint into NSA hands. The NSA can get it if they really want anyway without you knowing - assuming they don't have it already.
The real issue I think is way down the line. When fingerprint security becomes as common as chip-n-pin, criminals will ultimately seek to replicate your fingerprint and by then your fingerprint will be stored in many more places than it is today thereby increasing the risk of criminals getting their hands on it and using it to steal money or implicate you in their crimes. THAT'S what concerns me - not Apple or the NSA.
As it happens, I have an iPhone 4S and the 5S I think just about qualifies as an upgrade now for my requirements and preferences.
Right now, it's of little concern even if Apple do manage to get your actual fingerprint into NSA hands. The NSA can get it if they really want anyway without you knowing - assuming they don't have it already.
The real issue I think is way down the line. When fingerprint security becomes as common as chip-n-pin, criminals will ultimately seek to replicate your fingerprint and by then your fingerprint will be stored in many more places than it is today thereby increasing the risk of criminals getting their hands on it and using it to steal money or implicate you in their crimes. THAT'S what concerns me - not Apple or the NSA.
Yep, I understand hashing as it's an integral part of a number of things I do (programmer) so you're right in that respect that comparing against a stored hash would in that respect be difficult to access.
What I'm worried (well, interested in) about is whether the path to a hash table from a freshly imaged print is not in any way accessible/interceptable or a request to validate can't suffer the same fate, or be passed over the wire for whatever reason (for 'hashing' remotely) etc etc.
It's all fringe stuff of course, and no doubt gets people asking the usual 'what do you have to hide' questions, but we live in a world where things get increasingly more and more sophisticated in the criminal world. Things like chip and pin were cracked easily, ditto with NFC which anyone with a little bit of kit. I cant wait to see what the next generation of criminals will get away with, now biometrics can be potentially intercepted and re-used (eventually).
Permabanned
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2013
- Posts
- 295
nucastle - the amount of digital data or biometric data that can be obtained on you would disgust you. Having security services find your fingerprint is trivial compared to the other data they could obtain.
Just to add a bit on the whole fingerprint + NSA dialogue.
The security does not need to get anyone's prints from an iphone. They already have them for most people who have passports (many/most people do) plus the people that have got previous arrests etc.
What the security services may be interested in is matching a fingerprint to a phone user. They can already tap on people's conversations and they already collect traffic and log calls etc. So they know which number calls what other number. What they do not know for certainty is who is the owner of the phone.
In most cases where law abiding people purchase their own phones that is not hard to determine, and would not be of interest to the sec.services anyway. Where it is useful is in phones that are used for illegal purposes and are bought off second hand, stolen etc. There is obviously a niche section of the populace (e.g. terrorists) who use mobile phones not registered to their names. It's important to link that phone to a person.
In order to do that they don't really need one's prints, they have that (or can get it through a hundred other ways), what they are interested in is the hash signature which is unique and corresponds to your print. They already have the process of the hashing, so all they need to do is compare the iphone's hash to their database of hashes which is based on the prints they have in their database, converted in the same way that Apple uses (which would have course have shared with them).
Of course that is all a bit fictional and far-fetched, and would take years before all phones are biometric only, but that would be the angle where s.services would come into play (if at all), not to get people's prints.
The security does not need to get anyone's prints from an iphone. They already have them for most people who have passports (many/most people do) plus the people that have got previous arrests etc.
What the security services may be interested in is matching a fingerprint to a phone user. They can already tap on people's conversations and they already collect traffic and log calls etc. So they know which number calls what other number. What they do not know for certainty is who is the owner of the phone.
In most cases where law abiding people purchase their own phones that is not hard to determine, and would not be of interest to the sec.services anyway. Where it is useful is in phones that are used for illegal purposes and are bought off second hand, stolen etc. There is obviously a niche section of the populace (e.g. terrorists) who use mobile phones not registered to their names. It's important to link that phone to a person.
In order to do that they don't really need one's prints, they have that (or can get it through a hundred other ways), what they are interested in is the hash signature which is unique and corresponds to your print. They already have the process of the hashing, so all they need to do is compare the iphone's hash to their database of hashes which is based on the prints they have in their database, converted in the same way that Apple uses (which would have course have shared with them).
Of course that is all a bit fictional and far-fetched, and would take years before all phones are biometric only, but that would be the angle where s.services would come into play (if at all), not to get people's prints.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 12,540
- Location
- London
http://www.geek.com/apple/watch-an-iphone-5s-touch-id-sensor-authenticate-a-cat-paw-1571211/
LOL, awesome - kittymetrics are the future.
LOL, awesome - kittymetrics are the future.
That's the whole point of innovation - if it was obvious what people wanted then it wouldn't be innovative.
True innovation is when a manufacturer comes up with something genuinely new and which we don't realise we want or need until we're given it. No-one knew they wanted a full touch-screen smartphone until the iPhone arrived. No-one knew they wanted a tablet until the iPad arrived.
totally get what your saying, and they have still been doing this. just don't think we'll get big jumps for a while. not with phones anyway. all everybody seems to think with phones at the moment is bigger is better. while I get that some people like this it doesn't suit all. I have iphone4s which to me is a great size that sits well in the pocket, but at the same time I like the Samsung galaxy phones but the note is way to big after all its meant to be a phone. each to there own. Can see the next big advance's coming in the form or wearable tech like the galaxy gear watch. not a huge fan of it at the mo but its got to start somewhere
Battery life is the selling point for me (on wearables) - currently the life just isnt good enough to justify wearing over a normal watch. I mean, 12 - 16 hours of non-use (i.e: time display only) is pathetic.
It was discussed on BBC Click the other night, and some 'insider' from Germany says the word in the industry is that Apple want a device that can last 3-4 days between charges before they release - much better.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 78,785
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Or perhaps they could implement some kind of self charging mechanism like how an automatic/ kinetic watch does it to make the whole watch self sufficient.
The problem however is the unknown factor of how intensive the end user uses it, lots of usage will means self charging is not going to be sufficient.
The problem however is the unknown factor of how intensive the end user uses it, lots of usage will means self charging is not going to be sufficient.