It's not about getting into your phone. It's about VERY easily getting a VERY high resolution copy of your fingerprint, along with all your other personal info. With 3D printing, it will be very easy to either impersonate you or frame you for anything.
i don't see how this is a big deal. someone can also knock you out and use your fingers to unlock the phone.
While it's not hard to lift a finger print, it is difficult to lift it off your phone where you smudge your face oils, your finger oils all over it.
This says it all. It's yet another major software flaw and why it is becoming hard to trust Apple with your personal information.
![]()
You need only 1 print and then use photoshop to clean it up. Then you have good print of high profile target like Tim Cook or Paris Hilton. Sammy would love to read Timmy's emails.
Seems like everyone is also forgetting that Touch ID stops working the second the phone is locked for more than 2 hours.
Pretty sure this measure is in place to prevent thieves abundant amounts of time to attempt to extract your prints and reproduce it someway.
This says it all. It's yet another major software flaw and why it is becoming hard to trust Apple with your personal information.
![]()
Do you think Schlage pre-informs customers about lock picking, or even more importantly bump keys? Do you think they don't know about it? Most people have no clue how easy it is to bypass the locks. Is it bad faith that they don't pre-inform?
How about that Apple can back door your password? Do they pre-inform you? Bad faith?
I think you judge way too harshly the ethical requirements.
You need only 1 print and then use photoshop to clean it up. Then you have good print of high profile target like Tim Cook or Paris Hilton. Sammy would love to read Timmy's emails.
Next iPhone will incorporate Touch ID and retina scan while the user voices a password over FaceTime that Siri translates into Dutch to a secure server in the Netherlands rerouted to Ed Snowden in Russia for final verification.
On a serious note, I am certain Apple will respond with a software patch.
Given the apparent ease with which it seems to have been broken, one must ask then if such a policy were a necessity rather than a laudable commitment to segregative security.
This is not enough...Apple needs to implement one more security innovation on top of this innovation and that is "blood DNA-quick verification" this will work like a diabetic glucose test machine - Once you give Apple your blood for scan/DNA verification - all your blood signature DNA will be translate into a 500 years old Transylvania language and then sent to Romania for verification and storage![]()
This says it all. It's yet another major software flaw and why it is becoming hard to trust Apple with your personal information.
![]()
which is in itself ridiculous. Phones get stolen and then wiped and sold. You are not that precious a snowflake that someone who steals your phone, wants to read your texts.
arn
The situations are not analogous. No lock-maker suggests that no other key but the original, not even a facsimile of sufficient precision, can open the lock nor permit their product to be reported in such a way without clarification. Second, the variability of lock quality can be combatted by replacing those locks with better locks, equipped with countermeasures, to augmenting them with additional security features. No such options exist with the iPhone, nor is Touch ID intended for combined use with pass code, beyond those instances where it is required and never sequentially. Lastly, the security expected of Touch ID must be commensurate with the amount of sensitive information or financial harm that can be done immediately should it be circumvented. Someone having a key to your house does not immediately mean that someone can have access to your financial information, passwords, etc. The same cannot be said in the case of bypassed Touch ID. Admittedly, Touch ID may only be presently used in direct purchases from the App Store or iTunes. Given the apparent ease with which it seems to have been broken, one must ask then if such a policy were a necessity rather than a laudable commitment to segregative security.