Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Privacy Experts Raise Concerns Over iOS Developer Access to Certain Pieces of Facial Data
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Facebook would love to get real-time emotional responses to what you're reading in their app. Calculating what kind of content makes you happy or angry would let advertisers be able to target you more precisely, and would help Facebook pick what kind of your friends' stories to show or not show.
This is getting into Black Mirror territory. Apple needs to get more fine-grained privacy restrictions into iOS asap to restrict these facial detection features.
This is getting into Black Mirror territory. Apple needs to get more fine-grained privacy restrictions into iOS asap to restrict these facial detection features.
Here we go again...
Your face is not private information unless you wear a mask 24/7
No matter where we go, there will be street cameras, traffic cameras, security cameras, etc., collecting our faces and doing whatever they want with them. Specially the government, analyze your face against their databases.
So... what's the panic?
Your face is not private information unless you wear a mask 24/7
No matter where we go, there will be street cameras, traffic cameras, security cameras, etc., collecting our faces and doing whatever they want with them. Specially the government, analyze your face against their databases.
So... what's the panic?
before you use the word big data, gist here is IF the data is anonymised then it is not a privacy concern period. if someone is targeting an individual to see how many times he smiles makes a f face then it is not big data (privacy is individual concern then).
You can first subtract all the data, analyse the data and then use it in individual cases. I'm sure you know that we aren't as unique as we all think? Don't underestimate the patters they can find in big data.
The same Apple that made the tiny hockey puck mouse, 1-button mice, the Mightymouse with a trackball that would jamb / stop functioning, the iPod Shuffle with no buttons, and the original iPod Nano that scratched if you looked at it wrong?
Not much has changed in either hardware or software. Apple, like any tech company is capable of mistakes, and did so even with Jobs at the helm.
Lots of people put a piece of tape over the camera on their laptops and faceid may get us doing the same with our phones. This is creepy tech that’s sure to be abused by all the bad actors in the world, but my tinfoil hat protects me from almost everything so I’m not too worried.
Hmmm. This is actually a real potential issue for privacy. I don’t have a solution, but I’m sure some MR readers do.
The more fun part is the idea that advertisers will suddenly know how we react to ads. Well, I see those stats quite a lot. Banner ads done well tend to have around a 1% conversion rate. So the hard truth that Media sellers already know is that we react by generally ignoring them because we are focusing on the content we came to see. Any data would be tainted by this, reaction is almost definitely to extraneous things to the ad. No, this data and level of stalking is more useful for social I.E. Facebook where the ads merge with the content. Yep, they will definitely be doing this.
The more fun part is the idea that advertisers will suddenly know how we react to ads. Well, I see those stats quite a lot. Banner ads done well tend to have around a 1% conversion rate. So the hard truth that Media sellers already know is that we react by generally ignoring them because we are focusing on the content we came to see. Any data would be tainted by this, reaction is almost definitely to extraneous things to the ad. No, this data and level of stalking is more useful for social I.E. Facebook where the ads merge with the content. Yep, they will definitely be doing this.
I understand the technology completely. I also understand the human race quite well and many of them can't be trusted.
Perhaps you don't understand Apple? You really think Apple would squander their industry-leading security and privacy modus operandi this way?
Every new software update fixes security holes that the bad guys found first. Apple does their best, but they mistakes just like everyone else.
Why should Apple be let off the hook? They will give developers access to data on your facial security but we shouldn't worry?
Is that because it’s ‘Apple’? I mean if this story was about Google or Samsung we would have 10 pages of racist slur (against Samsung), and complaining of how Google steals your information by now.
Last edited:
Advertising, developers, it doesn't really matter weather those experts are concerned not for the government snooping, it doesn't exactly reduce the privacy factor.. either way.... we would be still concern regardless if a third party app could have access.
However, if Apple does give FaceID third party app access for whatever reason, it would behave like giving third party access to TouchID... that is, you'd have restrictions in place so developers can't do things which or reduce privacy.
FaceID may be automatically and no resting finger, but that doesn't make it any less secure. Even with that camera in use and using FaceID to automatically detect in third part camera/photo app, Apple would do it right.
However, if Apple does give FaceID third party app access for whatever reason, it would behave like giving third party access to TouchID... that is, you'd have restrictions in place so developers can't do things which or reduce privacy.
FaceID may be automatically and no resting finger, but that doesn't make it any less secure. Even with that camera in use and using FaceID to automatically detect in third part camera/photo app, Apple would do it right.
I was actually trying to remember if there was something in the book about 1990, lol
[doublepost=1509657596][/doublepost]
As the "article" says doesn't make it a reality, I tend to be very skeptical of what I read when they start throwing around FUD like this - and like the other things you think I may have read.
They can pick up a depth map for use with facial expressions. We're not really talking software nor bulletproof here, this is a security function and these people will have the same access to FaceID (the array, not the actual data used for FaceID authentication) that your average gaming company had to Xbox Kinect.
It's not clear to me what the article is even talking about. Face ID is available as part of biometric authentication. It doesn't provide a face or any biometric data; it provides a result of whether the user has successfully authenticated.
The article probably refers to ARKit, which on the iPhone X lets you create a depth model in a similar (identical?) vein as what Animoji does. But that's pretty much the same thing as the camera, just with an added third dimension. And I don't see what that has to do with Face ID.
I'm assuming Face ID and the TrueDepth camera are being conflated.
[doublepost=1509661107][/doublepost]
You cannot access the fingerprint with Touch ID. The OS cannot, and apps cannot either.
The article probably refers to ARKit, which on the iPhone X lets you create a depth model in a similar (identical?) vein as what Animoji does. But that's pretty much the same thing as the camera, just with an added third dimension. And I don't see what that has to do with Face ID.
I'm assuming Face ID and the TrueDepth camera are being conflated.
[doublepost=1509661107][/doublepost]
You cannot access the fingerprint with Touch ID. The OS cannot, and apps cannot either.
Or Apple's patent a few years back on using facial recognition to help determine a person's current mood... so Apple could serve up the best ad for how the person is feeling.
Once you get down to crying about typos, you already lost.
My point is Franken didn't care about Apples respond. He just wanted one. Hence, his inquiry was grandstanding.
And hence they can apply patterns found in big data to individuals thus privacy concern, don't you agree?
applying a pattern still means making an educated guess. its like saying i will take finger prints of 5bil individuals apply a pattern to it and guess/crack finger prints for rest of the circa 2bil population. naah not gonna work.
Some cases you will be very close at getting a trend - what people prefer to wear during peak winter in Europe. Get data from shops, looks at past years, whats in fasion what selling fast. you can get a very good trend but will neevr be able to decode an inividuals wardrobe 100%. and that what is big data. never can u single out an individual and make a 100% match - u could be lucky but still a guess.
Well, there's a bigger reason why using biometrics is of grave concern.. See/read this.
Stick to pin/password combo.
Stick to pin/password combo.