U.S. Senator Raises Questions About Security and Privacy of Face ID

Franken actually tries to put energy into privacy issues (however behind the curve he might be) and as cmChimera noted, this will give Apple some additional publicity with their answers (that won't be like anyone else's).

Yes, its all mostly answered, but its good to give some additional publicity on this stuff and it gets to be on the record - to prevent future attacks by reps who favor more monitoring... JMHO...
 
I figured Apple may be doing something fishy as well with face ID. Is all of that processor speed helping with their probable spyware? I don't believe Apple stats either such as 1 in 1 million can't be hacked. It only takes a few people to hack it and Face ID would be over. We will see soon once this device gets released.

Apple has given people more reason to hack them as well. Any company against them could use this as a advantage. A hacked Face ID would completely blow up in Apple's face and change the world's perception of them. I don't want to lose my privacy.

Touch ID hasn't been hacked, they have done an excellent job securing their devices and keeping people's information safe. Unlike the government (hacked), Equifax, and many others including Google.
 
But it looks bad that the government is questioning the security of their products. Even if in the end they prove to be secure, there's still a negative light brought on by the questioning. More people hear about the government questioning the security of the product than people hear the answer at the end.
I see where you're coming from, but it sure doesn't seem to be affecting Apple negatively. Plus, Apple's very public fight with the FBI seems to have really propelled their reputation with privacy advocates and general population.
 
wow the pollies in your nation are as bad as ours, they can't read or listen to what was said yesterday which answered all these questions...

also if you don't believe the stats of face id over face id being hacked you don't work in biometrics and don't know what you are on about. Apple have this down pat it seems, and once again all the poor implementations done by microsoft or android in this area are about to be surpassed by apples attention to detail and perfection, they they often always do.
 
Wow. I get to offer a response to a U.S. Senator.

- Can Apple extract Face ID data from a device, will Apple ever store Face ID data remotely, and can Apple confirm that it has no plans to use faceprint data for purposes other than Face ID?

The system works identically to the current Touch ID system featuring the secure enclave technology. To date, it hasn't been compromised in a meaningful way. That is security that speaks for itself.

- Where did the one billion images that were used to train Face ID come from, and what steps did the company take to ensure the system was trained on a diverse set of faces?

Apple's technology does not work based on images the way we generally think of the the term. With a mix of 3D face mapping technology first used in the motion capture industry and an infrared camera, the system can easily work with any face even in the dark. This is an important step beyond earlier systems that attempted to process raw image data for analysis. The darker skin tone made this difficult in low light environments. It was generally never about training data or diversity. It was simply a limitation of using an ordinary imaging camera sensor and analysis software for face unlock.

- Does Face ID perpetually search for a face, and does Apple locally retain the raw photos of faces used to unlock the device? Will Apple retain the faceprints of individuals other than the owner of the device?

Apple's Face ID waits for the raise to wake or button press before attempting to unlock the phone. It wouldn't be "searching" when it is off in your pocket. That would drain the battery unnecessarily. After raise to wake, the phone will search for a face if Face ID is activated.

The Face ID "faceprint" isn't stored in any form as we would understand it. A hash of data is stored in the secure enclave similar to how a hash of a fingerprint is stored. This means the data stored securely on the processor can't be back engineered into a "faceprint". It is one way encryption.

- What safeguard has Apple implemented to prevent the unlocking of the iPhone X when someone other than the owner holds the device up to the owners face? How does it distinguish a user's face from a photo or mask?

The Amimoji system showcases the leap forward in 3D face mapping that the iPhone X uses. This allows it to map over 50 facial muscle movements making it very hard for a mask or artificial prosthesis to mimic. Facial movement itself is the key. That is why the system improves on Touch ID's security to 1:1000000. Adding an infrared camera to that mapping makes it even more challenging to defeat as your skin is a lot warmer than photo paper.

- How will Apple respond to law enforcement requests to access Apple's faceprint data or the Face ID system itself?

This would also be handled similar to Touch ID. Apple is unable to process any requests for the data due to the security built into the system. If Apple could access it, anyone could potentially access it. Backdoors are bad design.

The questions are generally answered in the documents. Face ID is neat, but it isn't magic. The face capture technology pioneered a long time ago has just been made smaller and cheaper. Welcome to the future.
 
But it looks bad that the government is questioning the security of their products. Even if in the end they prove to be secure, there's still a negative light brought on by the questioning. More people hear about the government questioning the security of the product than people hear the answer at the end.

Apple's financial reports don't support what you're trying to claim.
 
Touch ID hasn't been hacked, they have done an excellent job securing their devices and keeping people's information safe. Unlike the government (hacked), Equifax, and many others including Google.

Touch ID can be hacked with play doh. SMH. Face ID may be simpler.
 
Was Samsung or any-other company using facial recognition asked the same questions?

Samsung did not make facial recognition a prime feature. They made infrared retina scanning and fingerprint unlocking their main and most secure biometric devices. They even announced that face recognition may not be the most secure compared to the others. The face recognition on a Samsung devices has been on Android devices for several years already. It's just a useful tool that can be used in certain situations.
 
I'm guessing it needs to see real eyes, and that's why a mask with the same points as the person's face wouldn't be able to fool it? But I would like to know more specifics as well. Also how did they come up with their number of 1:1,000,000 - I'm assuming they haven't tested a million faces, so how big of an extrapolation of the numbers are we talking. It isn't easy to fool Samsung's version, but theirs often rejects your own face and becomes a hassle to use.
 
At least someone in government is still a sceptic and asking questions.
The cult followers knee-jerk defence of anything Apple does and says is the reason the surveillance state is becoming reality.

Scary how so many are happy to be sheep.
 
Most of the answers are known already. How apple prevents that an evil person just holds the device in front of you is however a question which is valid.
 
Some of the replies here are hilarious. He's the ranking member on the sub-committee that specifically oversees this exact thing. It's his job to get on-the-record answers to these kinds of questions so that the sub-committee can be dialed into what's going on in this area in case they want to pursue regulation. Even if the info is out there, a keynote address is not an on-the-record answer.
 
Folks, the "answered in the keynote" response is not what Senator Franken is after here. He (or his staffers) may very well have watched most of the keynote, as I did, and yet still posit the same questions. Please understand that there is a difference between the explanations that a company like Apple will offer at an event like yesterday's keynote (it was essentially an hour-and-a-half commercial) and the nitty-gritty technological and legal answers which do not lend themselves to soundbite form. I expect that Apple will respond with a relatively in-depth letter to Sen. Franken which will nevertheless gloss over some of the more difficult truths that the senator is probing at.

It's a ball game, friends, and the buck stops nowhere.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top