Apple Responds to Senator's Request for Info on Face ID Privacy and Security

[psac]

He's questioned TouchID and other technologies too. He has shown on many occasions that he cares about security.

When national rules changed to allow ISPs to sell your data, Minnesota was quick to vote an block them from doing so within the state (the first state to do so and do it nearly the same day the relaxed law passed nationally).

Why muddy up this thread with actual facts? Come on.

 

[FrenchRoasted]

Extremely disheartening that you read an article with a mature correspondence between a company and a politician who is on a committee concerning the very nature of the company's technology and you get this foolishness in the comments immediately.

Yes, how dare we, the unwashed, not give deference to our superiors. I am quite pleased with the derision heaped upon this political gas bag, at least we still have the freedom to do so. The market will be 100x more discerning and critical of Apple's security than any politician.

 

[Appleaker]

You’re thinking too simplistically here. They’re writing algorithms to Train their neural network based on sample data.

So they got “thousands” of volunteers, and took (probably) thousands of pictures of each of them under various conditions (lighting, hair changes, glasses, and all of the conceivable camera angles).

The camera angles part is especially important, since not everyone will hold their phone exactly the same way, plus, the AI can “stitch” the 2D photos into a 3D version of the face via computer magic.

So, yeah, billions of images. What’s not to understand?
[doublepost=1508231137][/doublepost]

Like closing your eyes? It won’t work if you close your eyes.

No, I completely understand that. I was not asking how 2D images would help train the system, I was asking how people could think using online profile pictures would be used to completely train the system. As you said, thousands of people under various lighting conditions, not to mention it would also have to be tested for the 3D scanning aspect.
The only use online pictures would have is recognising facial features, however Apple already has systems to do that not to mention it’s unnecessary and unethical given their own resources.
Did you end on a rhetorical question or did you think I misunderstood the billions of images (despite also explaining it).

 

[jimbobb24]

Power is amazing. I wish I was a Senator and had the threat of legal and financial ruin behind me. I could just wake up and ask random questions about things I don't understand and companies would feel compelled to respond. That type of raw power and intimidation is amazing.

Dear Sony,
I have a bunch of VCR tapes but I no longer have a VCR. Can I convert them to digital or instead download a pirated 4K version as a substitute or do I have to buy new versions?

Dear Apple,
Is it true you could not get under the screen touchID to work or did you really think faceID was better?

Dear Microsoft,
Why did you kill Nokia? Can you justify trashing a whole phone making company for your WindowsPhone? What do you think this did for foreign relations?

Dear Amazon,
Why did the Man in the High Castle season 2 suck so bad? Did the idea just not have enough gas for season 2?

Dear Netflix,
Can you keep the Disney contract going? I really love those Disney movies? How about getting HBO on their?

Please all respond in a timely fashion and publicly prostrate yourself before my power.

 

[santaliqueur]

You've got all the parts. Do you not see how thing 1 would directly result in thing 2 happening? Seems pretty obvious.

I hear you, and I don't really disagree with what you say. I'm calling out Franken as a hypocrite because Apple is not the first to come up with a face scanner (as all the Android followers are quick to point out). So where was he when the first Android fingerprint and face scanners were released on phones? If Apple "doesn't really invent anything", then why is he all over Apple with this one?

It's the reason Apple's name is used in headlines. They are the most valuable company in the world, the most valuable brand, and people want to read about them. Franken is latching onto that.

It is scary though. Privacy is pretty much gone.
[doublepost=1508258079][/doublepost]

What makes you think he's spending a lot of time on this? He politely asked a short list of questions, Apple gave a polite list of answers. Apple doesn't have to defend themselves, because Franken isn't accusing them of anything - he's part of a committee the keeps tabs on security/privacy/tech issues for the congress, and he heard Apple was releasing new technology with potential privacy and security implications - it's entirely reasonable for him, as part of the job to which he was elected, to ask Apple officially to answer some questions about their new tech. I don't think Franken is trying to keep himself in the news, I think he's trying to do his job as a senator. You seem to be trying to derail the reporting of a simple question/answer session by using whataboutism.

Fair enough, I don't know how much time he spent. I think Franken is a hypocrite because he didn't make a peep when the first Android fingerprint and face scanners debuted on phones. Or maybe they did and news outlets didn't pick it up because...it's Android.

Disclosure: I don't really like Franken, so I may be biased here. My main point is, if Face ID is worthy of publicly (key word here, this could have been done in private) asking questions of a company, why not do it to all other companies before Apple? And if that is a big deal enough to do it publicly, then why is Equifax leaking 60% of American adults SSNs not an INCREDIBLY HUGE DEAL to him?

I just smell fish here.

Edit:

as part of the job to which he was elected

Pardon my ignorance, but what job is this? He's a Senator, is he part of an advisory board or something? Going to look it up, but perhaps this would explain everything for me.
[doublepost=1508258397][/doublepost]United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law

Jurisdiction: (1) Oversight of laws and policies governing the collection, protection, use and dissemination of commercial information by the private sector, including online behavioral advertising, privacy within social networking websites and other online privacy issues; (2) Enforcement and implementation of commercial information privacy laws and policies; (3) Use of technology by the private sector to protect privacy, enhance transparency and encourage innovation; (4) Privacy standards for the collection, retention, use and dissemination of personally identifiable commercial information; and (5) Privacy implications of new or emerging technologies.

Seems his actions were fair towards Apple, my apologies. I didn't realize he was on a committee like this, I thought he was just some Senator on a political mission. Leaving my replies intact.

I maintain that he (the committee) should be more vigilant towards all companies employing these security techniques, especially ones that have much weaker stances than Apple. Not that Apple should be exempt, but that all other companies should be included.

 

[NT1440]

Al Franken is a total waste of Senate resources.

I take it you've NEVER watched even one Senate hearing he was a part of. It takes a former comedian to actually demand answers to tough questions, rather than most of the rest of the lot who preface any hearing with someone powerful by verbally kissing the ring.

 

[CarlJ]

Pardon my ignorance, but what job is this? He's a Senator, is he part of an advisory board or something? Going to look it up, but perhaps this would explain everything for me.

You've figured out the details already, but I really have to point out the first sentence of this very article:

Shortly after the iPhone X was unveiled, United States Senator Al Franken, who is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, sent a letter to Apple CEO Tim Cook to ask several questions about the security and the privacy of Face ID.​

I happened to know he was asking because he's on this committee, but everyone posting about this article should have known that too - it's in the first sentence of this article. No need to do research on this one, just read the article on which you're commenting. And he's looking to get official on-the-record answers for the committee, rather than reading marketing literature.

As to Samsung, I don't have an answer - perhaps he has asked them similar questions and the press simply didn't make a big deal out of it (it's not like he scheduled a news conference to ask Apple these questions, and releasing the information is a matter of public record, since, as a member of congress, he works for we the citizens). It might also have to do with the difference that Samsung is a Korean company, while Apple is an American company. Maybe he's more interested because he and his staffers use iPhones (that's a supposition, I have no idea what phones they use). The point being, you were chiding him for treating Apple unequally, when you don't know if he treated Samsung similarly. It's not on him to disprove your accusations against him, it's up to you to do the research to prove them.

For that matter, it's entirely likely that the "Senate Judiciary Committee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law", is deep in the middle of dealing with the Equifax debacle, and perhaps one of the other committee members said, "oh, hey, Al, you use iPhones, can you fire off a letter to them about this new FaceID thing?" He sent a letter a month ago, took perhaps half an hour, and now they've answered.
[doublepost=1508269288][/doublepost]

Al Franken has been using this as his shtick for YEARS now- literally any time any new tech comes out, he immediately... without understanding it whatsoever, condemns it on account of his “privacy” concerns.

Please quote the place in his questions where he condemns FaceID (since that's what you are claiming). I must have missed that bit.

Then, go read the first sentence of this article and tell me what committee he is on and how that might not merely allow but actually necessitate him asking questions about new tech that has privacy implications. And the committee needs direct on-the-record answers, rather than sifting through marketing literature.

If it's just that you don't like him, then have the honesty to simply post a fact-free whine about that, but don't try to twist the facts at hand to fit your grudge.

 

[santaliqueur]

No need to do research on this one, just read the article on which you're commenting.

A good point, and that one's on me.

As to Samsung, I don't have an answer - perhaps he has asked them similar questions and the press simply didn't make a big deal out of it

If true, then it's nobody's fault really, apart from the fact that Apple gets people excited, and Samsung not as much (although their phones are quite popular, but nobody drives excitement like Apple).

It might also have to do with the difference that Samsung is a Korean company, while Apple is an American company

If you are selling devices in the USA, you should be subject to its laws and scrutinies.

The point being, you were chiding him for treating Apple unequally, when you don't know if he treated Samsung similarly. It's not on him to disprove your accusations against him, it's up to you to do the research to prove them.

Again, as I have admitted, I don't know. Although I am attempting to figure it out. Looking on the Committee on the Judiciary site, I find it very difficult to find relevant information. I'm sure the information I'm looking for is there, but shouldn't a taxpayer be able to find what the Committee is talking about? Searches for "Samsung" returns 32 documents, not dated or organized in any way. Searching for "Apple" returns 247 documents, and "Face ID" returns 1 document (from 2009, unrelated). No way to sort the results, just a word-salad of whatever they have. Random webpages and Word documents.

How can I determine what they are doing if they aren't providing a way for taxpayers to read it? This is a larger issue, but I'd like a LOT more transparency regarding my tax dollars at every level.

 

[Lestdog]

MMMM eating all this cynicism with a knife and fork today.. these comments don't disappoint one bit.

 

[skywalkerr69]

I take it you've NEVER watched even one Senate hearing he was a part of. It takes a former comedian to actually demand answers to tough questions, rather than most of the rest of the lot who preface any hearing with someone powerful by verbally kissing the ring.

Haha you’re beyond ignorant if you think he asks tough questions. He’s the laughing stock of the senate.

Anybody should share a fair amount of suspicion when it comes to privacy and mass processing of user data/faces. It's part of the Congress job. Even Apple makes mistakes and takes risks at an unprecedented scale. You appear to have missed or ignored on what scale Apple shared customer specifics to Uber.
Your apprehension of a specific person - whether right or wrong - is of atomic relevance in this domain.

Oh really? Does he press the same issues with wireless companies? How about web cam manufacturers? How about private security companies and what they do with their information. Of course not. You sound like one of the zombies that elected that fool.

It’s not congresses job to press the private market on their products, especially when they don’t violate any laws. He sends his useless letters and has his useless press conferences and for what? He can’t block the sale of the phone nor can be regulate it. Like I said, he’s a joke.

 

[NT1440]

Haha you’re beyond ignorant if you think he asks tough questions. He’s the laughing stock of the senate.




Oh really? Does he press the same issues with wireless companies? How about web cam manufacturers? How about private security companies and what they do with their information. Of course not. You sound like one of the zombies that elected that fool.

This was easily one of the most technical and hardest hitting questioning during Gorsuch’s confirmation. Every hearing I watch (and I watch at least a dozen a month) that Franken is in he consistently proves to be one of the best educated (on the given topic of the hearing) and deepest studied of any of the lot.

If you think this man isn’t deeply involved in learning the nuances of the topics before his committee you simply aren’t paying attention to any of the actual things our legislators are doing in their governance role (meaning, not in front of cameras). There are hordes of disinterested members stating, verbatim, the talking points from the industry PR firms a given hearing might impact.

It seems to me like you have a superficial TV news perception of how our government, and its members, operate in their official roles day to day. Franken has shown himself to be far more than an entertainer who parlayed his social capital into government (there are dozens of examples through history, two of whom currently serve in the White House), the man actually does his homework.

 

[chucker23n1]

Franken seems to be really concerned with privacy, surprised he's got that much time to spare with the whole "Equifax leaking the personal information of 143 million Americans" thing. Weird how Apple has to defend themselves to Franken when a multibillion dollar company can release the names, addresses and SSNs of 60% of adults in the whole country.

Mayyyyybe Franken is trying to keep himself in the news? Just maybe.

You know, you have a point here: why didn't Franken criticize Equifax?

Oh. He did!

He informed consumers

He introduced a bill for consumer protection

He led a complaint about Equifax's forced arbitration clause

He participated in a hearing with Equifax's outgoing CEO

But yeah, man, he's just trying to keep himself in the news!

I found all that with five minutes of googling.

[doublepost=1508297552][/doublepost]

Haha you’re beyond ignorant if you think he asks tough questions. He’s the laughing stock of the senate.




Oh really? Does he press the same issues with wireless companies?

Yes, actually.

That example took me, like, two seconds of googling, so what on earth are you talking about?

It’s not congresses job to press the private market on their products, especially when they don’t violate any laws.

Um, part of the point of such inquiries is to find out if existing laws are being upheld and/or new laws are required. Duh?

 

[CarlJ]

You know, you have a point here: why didn't Franken criticize Equifax?

Oh. He did!

• He informed consumers
• He introduced a bill for consumer protection
• He led a complaint about Equifax's forced arbitration clause
• He participated in a hearing with Equifax's outgoing CEO

Thank you. Well said.

 

[santaliqueur]

You know, you have a point here: why didn't Franken criticize Equifax?

Oh. He did!

Weird, I missed the part where I said he never did anything! Oh right I never said that.

I said that I'm surprised he had so much free time to spend on Apple with all the Equifax stuff going on. I also apologized for being to harsh on Franken himself, as I didn't realize he was the head of a committee that is designed to investigate this type of thing. But nah, you'd rather quote the first post I made without reading the rest of the stuff where I retracted most of my criticisms. Agenda much? Yikes.

You could have found all that with 5 minutes of reading my posts. I await your apology for quoting me out of context.

 

[NT1440]

Weird, I missed the part where I said he never did anything! Oh right I never said that.

I said that I'm surprised he had so much free time to spend on Apple with all the Equifax stuff going on. I also apologized for being to harsh on Franken himself, as I didn't realize he was the head of a committee that is designed to investigate this type of thing. But nah, you'd rather quote the first post I made without reading the rest of the stuff where I retracted most of my criticisms. Agenda much? Yikes.

You could have found all that with 5 minutes of reading my posts. I await your apology for quoting me out of context.

What is with this "free time" canard? The man is a ****ing senator, he has a team.

 

[DoctorTech]

Al Franken is a total waste of Senate resources.

LOL, I never thought I would find myself defending Al Franken (I never thought he was funny as a comedian and I disagree with him on nearly everything political). However, he has been consistent on privacy issues. His letters to Apple make the biggest news but he has sought similar information from other companies.

I agree with many of the comments on here that nearly all of his questions were already publicly addressed by Apple either in the iPhone X announcement or the subsequent documents Apple made available. I can only assume that Franken's office either had not looked for the information they were requesting or they wanted an official corporate response (as opposed to marketing materials that emphasize the "magic" of FaceID).
[doublepost=1508354011][/doublepost]

Tell us how you really feel about Al Franken, Trump voters.

I just did a few minutes ago in response to a different post. I stated that I never expected to defend Franken because I didn't like him as a comedian and I disagree with him on nearly all political topics - but I did defend him. I gave him the credit I think he deserves for being a consistent voice on privacy issues which is one of the very few topics where I agree with Franken. Being a Trump voter doesn't mean I hate anybody - I still disagree with Franken on a lot more issues than I agree with him but I am not calling him names or questioning his motives.

 

[brentsg]

Big Brother is looking out for us. How sweet.

Big Brother just wants us all for himself.

 

[lowendlinux]

I hear you, and I don't really disagree with what you say. I'm calling out Franken as a hypocrite because Apple is not the first to come up with a face scanner (as all the Android followers are quick to point out). So where was he when the first Android fingerprint and face scanners were released on phones? If Apple "doesn't really invent anything", then why is he all over Apple with this one?

This isn't directed at you so much but your was the last post to bring up much the same thing

There are no US based handset manufacturers IIRC that maybe why Apple get all the love, heck I'm not even sure they'd respond and I don't think he could compel them to.

 

[kdarling]

There are no US based handset manufacturers IIRC that maybe why Apple get all the love, heck I'm not even sure they'd respond and I don't think he could compel them to.

I would add that a one second Google search showed that he did ask Samsung about their fingerprint reader.

I didn't see anything about their iris reader, but as everyone keeps noting, the tech press tends to only repeat Apple click-worthy headlines.

What's astonishing to me is how many people are too lazy to even look up why Franken might want to ask these questions. I mean, it's the first thing I did a while back. If they had, they'd have found out why. It's his job. I'm sure his office fires off letters to many companies that we never hear about.

And to the obvious kiddies on this forum, guess what? It's possible for a Senator to do more than one thing at a time

 

[chucker23n1]

I said that I'm surprised he had so much free time to spend on Apple with all the Equifax stuff going on.

Which is a silly thing to say. Whataboutism, fallacy of relative privation, yadda yadda. I'm not even sure what your point is here. He shouldn't spend another second on Apple until Equifax's senior management is behind bars?

I also apologized for being to harsh on Franken himself, as I didn't realize he was the head of a committee that is designed to investigate this type of thing. But nah, you'd rather quote the first post I made without reading the rest of the stuff where I retracted most of my criticisms.

Fair, but if he weren't a member of the committee and still took an interest in privacy issues, I still don't see how that would be problematic. It also strikes me as a weird causality. Surely he is head of the committee precisely because he cares about that issue?

He's also on almost a dozen other subcommittees that have nothing to do with privacy, FWIW.

Agenda much? Yikes.

No?

You could have found all that with 5 minutes of reading my posts. I await your apology for quoting me out of context.

Touché.

 

[santaliqueur]

What is with this "free time" canard? The man is a ****ing senator, he has a team.

Yes, when I talk about him in that way, I refer to his team. I'm surprised his team has any time to even think about Apple (or any phone company that is not making small pocket bombs) when there is such a huge threat to personal identity security going on right now. A little information would be nice. A report, whatever. What's being done? Where can we find this information?

I'm sure you could get your point across without resorting to censored swearing, btw.
[doublepost=1508390142][/doublepost]

Which is a silly thing to say. Whataboutism, fallacy of relative privation, yadda yadda. I'm not even sure what your point is here. He shouldn't spend another second on Apple until Equifax's senior management is behind bars?

Behind bars? I had no idea you had so many extra words...just put them in my mouth, maybe I won't notice!

This is the same thing as making sure the bathroom mirror is clean when the entire house is engulfed in flames. The Equifax leak is probably the worst leak of personal information in the history of recorded data, yet if I bring up Apple, it's whataboutism and fallacy of relative privation? I think you just wanted an excuse to use those words. The Equifax leak is BAD, and you should treat it as such. My opinion is that all resources in his office (or any other similar government agency) should be focused on Equifax and how to keep American citizens' information safe.

Fair, but if he weren't a member of the committee and still took an interest in privacy issues, I still don't see how that would be problematic. It also strikes me as a weird causality. Surely he is head of the committee precisely because he cares about that issue?

If there was a committee on privacy issues and he was not on it but he still investigated privacy, I'd consider that a waste of taxpayer money. Weird how nobody really cares about that anymore. Is that how bad it is now?

Touché.

Not an apology. If you intentionally quote me out of context in order to make me look bad (using my words before I investigated more and then I came back to say that I was wrong) and all you say is "Touché"? That speaks more to your character than anything.

If someone calls you out on something you did, you own up to it. Or maybe use some "whataboutism" to get around it. I hear it's popular lately.

 

[chucker23n1]

If there was a committee on privacy issues and he was not on it but he still investigated privacy, I'd consider that a waste of taxpayer money. Weird how nobody really cares about that anymore. Is that how bad it is now?

I know this is shocking to libertarians, but not everyone is a libertarian. Some people, when faced with a politician who investigates something perceived to be a problem, think, "hey, good on them for looking into it". Libertarians apparently think, "well, gee, but we could save some money here".

How is it not dead obvious that saving "taxpayer money" is how Americans got themselves into Equifax being allowed to do what they're doing in the first place?

Not an apology. If you intentionally quote me out of context in order to make me look bad

OK.

If someone calls you out on something you did, you own up to it.

You're right. I literally murdered someone.

 

[0388631]

PRSI outsiders have more bite and pizazz than the insiders.

 

[santaliqueur]

I know this is shocking to libertarians, but not everyone is a libertarian. Some people, when faced with a politician who investigates something perceived to be a problem, think, "hey, good on them for looking into it". Libertarians apparently think, "well, gee, but we could save some money here".

Yeah asking for fiscal responsibility is a real wacky thing huh? So I take it you don't really care how much money is spent? I guess it is that bad where you feel the need to call me a libertarian just to make your point. Or maybe you're not in a high enough tax bracket where you care. I bet I wouldn't have to work until May for the government if there was more fiscal responsibility overall.

You're right. I literally murdered someone.

I'm sure there is some sort of fallacy or logical statement you used here. What's the psychological term for you blowing something way out of proportion to make me forget about your original statement? I'll call it the Chucker Method until you can find it.

But since you brought it up, I called you out on intentionally choosing my posts before I corrected myself in order to make me look bad. You are a liar and you are intentionally chose that post instead of where I corrected myself and apologized for jumping to conclusions. I gave you a chance to apologize and you came back with "touche". The only thing you are literally murdering is your credibility.

 

[chucker23n1]

Yeah asking for fiscal responsibility is a real wacky thing huh?

Not at all.

So I take it you don't really care how much money is spent?

Everyone cares, actually. There just happen to be different degrees.

I guess it is that bad where you feel the need to call me a libertarian just to make your point.

I didn't realize 'libertarian' was a slur now.

I'm sure there is some sort of fallacy or logical statement you used here. What's the psychological term for you blowing something way out of proportion to make me forget about your original statement? I'll call it the Chucker Method until you can find it.

But since you brought it up, I called you out on intentionally choosing my posts before I corrected myself in order to make me look bad. You are a liar and you are intentionally chose that post instead of where I corrected myself and apologized for jumping to conclusions. I gave you a chance to apologize and you came back with "touche". The only thing you are literally murdering is your credibility.

Yeah, I don't know what your issue is, but enjoy.