Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo. https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/cpsprodpb/07f9/live/65b1da70-07be-11ef-8533-c557f743cc78.png
Says so here:
From teenage cyber-thug to Europe’s most wanted https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyxe9g4zlgpo
And this bizarre story has exactly what to do with iOS or Android?
Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo.
On 05.05.24 20:47, Mickey D wrote:
Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo.
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/cpsprodpb/07f9/live/65b1da70-07be-11ef-8533-c557f743cc78.png
Says so here:
From teenage cyber-thug to Europe’s most wanted
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyxe9g4zlgpo
And this bizarre story has exactly what to do with iOS or Android?
Completely OT here.
Mickey,
Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo.
And thats just one of the more complex methods there are.
You touch surfaces almost every day without even realizing it - hey, that is what hands and fingers are for, right ? - effectivily broadcasting that feature of yourself to everyone around you.
Same goes for "faceprints". Even easier, as your faceprint can be "taken" from literally tens of meters away.
To me whomever thought of using finger and faceprints for locks wasn't very bright.
On 2024-05-05 15:23, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 05.05.24 20:47, Mickey D wrote:
Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo.
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/cpsprodpb/07f9/live/65b1da70-07be-11ef-8533-c557f743cc78.png
Says so here:
From teenage cyber-thug to Europe’s most wanted
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyxe9g4zlgpo
And this bizarre story has exactly what to do with iOS or Android?
Completely OT here.
Interesting nonetheless and some connection to smart phones (they have cameras, after all - indeed more people use the camera than the "phone").
Please note: We don't need you as net cop Jörg.
Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-05-05 15:23, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 05.05.24 20:47, Mickey D wrote:
Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo. https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/cpsprodpb/07f9/live/65b1da70-07be-11ef-
8533-c557f743cc78.png
Says so here:
From teenage cyber-thug to Europe’s most wanted https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyxe9g4zlgpo
And this bizarre story has exactly what to do with iOS or Android? Completely OT here.
Interesting nonetheless and some connection to smart phones (they have cameras, after all - indeed more people use the camera than the "phone").
Please note: We don't need you as net cop Jörg.
Don't worry. I don't think he has arrest power, but he *is* the moderator here,
so we should show him the due respect.
On May 5, 2024, WolfFan wrote
(in article<0001HW.2BE86E980020D285700006E6738F@news.supernews.com>):
On May 5, 2024, Hank Rogers wrote
(in article <v196qb$24t86$1@dont-email.me>):
Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-05-05 15:23, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 05.05.24 20:47, Mickey D wrote:
Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo.
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/cpsprodpb/07f9/live/65b1da70-07be-11ef
-
8533-c557f743cc78.png
Says so here:
From teenage cyber-thug to Europe’s most wanted
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyxe9g4zlgpo
And this bizarre story has exactly what to do with iOS or Android?
Completely OT here.
Interesting nonetheless and some connection to smart phones (they have >> > > cameras, after all - indeed more people use the camera than the "phone").
Please note: We don't need you as net cop Jörg.
Don't worry. I don't think he has arrest power, but he *is* the moderator >> > here,
No, he isn’t.
so we should show him the due respect.
I show him all the respect that a trolling, sliming, stalking, serial
homosexual sexual harasser deserves.
Hey, David, you arsenugget, how goes your attempt to ‘report’ me to
Supernews?
Oops. it’s the other twit, Jorg, not the supertwit David. Jorg’s bad. He’s not David Brooks bad. Ignore that post, bad aim.
Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo. https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/cpsprodpb/07f9/live/65b1da70-07be-11ef-8533-c557f743cc78.pngYou didn't understand the story. They got the fingerprints because he
Says so here:
From teenage cyber-thug to Europe’s most wanted https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyxe9g4zlgpo
On May 5, 2024, Hank Rogers wrote
(in article <v196qb$24t86$1@dont-email.me>):
Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-05-05 15:23, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 05.05.24 20:47, Mickey D wrote:
Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo. https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/cpsprodpb/07f9/live/65b1da70-07be-11ef
-
8533-c557f743cc78.png
Says so here:
From teenage cyber-thug to Europe’s most wanted https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyxe9g4zlgpo
And this bizarre story has exactly what to do with iOS or Android? Completely OT here.
Interesting nonetheless and some connection to smart phones (they have cameras, after all - indeed more people use the camera than the "phone").
Please note: We don't need you as net cop Jörg.
Don't worry. I don't think he has arrest power, but he *is* the moderator here,
No, he isn’t.
so we should show him the due respect.
I show him all the respect that a trolling, sliming, stalking, serial homosexual sexual harasser deserves.
Hey, David, you arsenugget, how goes your attempt to ‘report’ me to Supernews?
On 05/05/2024 19:47, Mickey D wrote:
Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo.
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/cpsprodpb/07f9/live/65b1da70-07be-11ef-8533-c557f743cc78.png
Says so here:
From teenage cyber-thug to Europe¢s most wanted
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyxe9g4zlgpo
They got the fingerprints because he
posted an image of his fingers online and this was compared with his
fingers when he was in custody. That's how they proved that the anon
chap is the same person they have got in their custody. So moral of the
story is don't be stupid to post images of your body parts if you are
going to commit any cyber crimes hoping to get away by being anonymous.
Yet trying to unlock an iPhone with its owner's photo will not work
and you have to go through a lot of contortions if you happen to have
their fingerprint.
Mickey,
Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo.
And thats just one of the more complex methods there are.
You touch surfaces almost every day without even realizing it - hey, that is what hands and fingers are for, right ? - effectivily broadcasting that feature of yourself to everyone around you.
Same goes for "faceprints". Even easier, as your faceprint can be "taken" from literally tens of meters away.
To me whomever thought of using finger and faceprints for locks wasn't very bright.
R.Wieser, 2024-05-05 22:20:
Mickey,
Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo.
And thats just one of the more complex methods there are.
You touch surfaces almost every day without even realizing it - hey, that is >> what hands and fingers are for, right ? - effectivily broadcasting that
feature of yourself to everyone around you.
Same goes for "faceprints". Even easier, as your faceprint can be "taken" >> from literally tens of meters away.
Except that unlocking with your face in iOS is *not* only using an image
of your face but also the three dimensional shape of it. That's the
reason why the "notch" in the iPhone displays is bigger since there is
not only a camera but also a 3D sensor to capture the shape of your face.
Yet trying to unlock an iPhone with its owner's photo will not work
They said the same about fingerprints. Yet, here we are ...
The point is not about how easy it (now!) is to reproduce something like that, but that anyone can "take" from you what's supposed to be only yours.
and you have to go through a lot of contortions if you happen to have
their fingerprint.
As long as you don't need the owner of said fingerprints to be present, who cares ?
And do yourself a favour and look up some YouTube stuff about "hacking" fingerprint locks. You might be surprised how easy some of them are fooled.
Yes, yes. IPhone fingerprint locks are superior and noone can bypass them. Go pull my other finger.
Except that unlocking with your face in iOS is *not* only using an image
of your face but also the three dimensional shape of it.
Yes, in Android using *images* of a face to unlock a phone is indeed
not a good idea.
Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo.
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/cpsprodpb/07f9/live/65b1da70-07be-11ef-8533-c557f743cc78.png
Says so here:
From teenage cyber-thug to Europe¢s most wanted
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyxe9g4zlgpo
They got the fingerprints because he
posted an image of his fingers online and this was compared with his
fingers when he was in custody. That's how they proved that the anon
chap is the same person they have got in their custody. So moral of the
story is don't be stupid to post images of your body parts if you are
going to commit any cyber crimes hoping to get away by being anonymous.
Thank you for explaining the story for those who haven't read it yet.
What's not in that story is that they can also often identify which camera >> an original photo came from (which means they can cross correlate photos
that you post to various sites on the net if they want to do that).
That is, if you post a photo to forum 1 and another photo to forum 2, in
some cases they can correlate the sensor fingerprint to your unique camera.
Not quite. Last I looked at this, which was a few years ago now, it was limited to the make and model of the camera. Not the capability to
identify your particular camera. e.g. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/24751839.2022.2058252
This is of limited utility as I imagine 95% of photos are taken by
iphones, galaxys and pixels. Plus the sensors are commodity items which
are shared between models.
Just to be clear, I'm not talking about metadata as sensor fingerprints
work for all photo formats - as the forensics identify the camera through
unique repetitive imperfections in each camera sensor's digital output.
https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-law-enforcement-decodes-your-photos-78828
https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/7254/1/Large-scale-test-of-sensor-fingerprint-camera-identification/10.1117/12.805701.short
"This paper presents a large scale test of camera identification
from sensor fingerprints."
This is quite an old reference.
However, if you modify that original image substantially, their forensics
are increasingly less than perfect depending on how well you modify them.
On 2024-05-06 10:04, Arno Welzel wrote:
R.Wieser, 2024-05-05 22:20:
Mickey,
Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo.
And thats just one of the more complex methods there are.
You touch surfaces almost every day without even realizing it - hey,
that is
what hands and fingers are for, right ? - effectivily broadcasting that
feature of yourself to everyone around you.
Same goes for "faceprints". Even easier, as your faceprint can be
"taken"
from literally tens of meters away.
Except that unlocking with your face in iOS is *not* only using an image
of your face but also the three dimensional shape of it. That's the
reason why the "notch" in the iPhone displays is bigger since there is
not only a camera but also a 3D sensor to capture the shape of your face.
What is a "3D sensor" actually? :-)
And do yourself a favour and look up some YouTube stuff about "hacking" fingerprint locks. You might be surprised how easy some of them are fooled.
Arno,
Except that unlocking with your face in iOS is *not* only using an image
of your face but also the three dimensional shape of it.
Yes, and ? 3D printers exist.
And do yourself a favour and look up some YouTube stuff about "hacking"
fingerprint locks. You might be surprised how easy some of them are
fooled.
Easy when presented as a YT video.
Not many people will actually:
- lift the print from something
- make the 'fake' print
- get access to the physical phone or other device
- get in
And as a more contemporary example just take a look at Madame Tussauds
in New York. (and others like it).
They are universally shit. I don't understand how waxworks museums are
still a thing. I'm sure they were amazing in Victorian times.
Except that unlocking with your face in iOS is *not* only using an image >>> of your face but also the three dimensional shape of it.
Yes, and ? 3D printers exist.
That also express the thermal (IR) "print" that FaceID is looking for?
These trolls are just replying the same lines they used back when Face
ID was first announced. They were wrong then, and they're just as wrong
now.
On 2024-05-06 05:51, R.Wieser wrote:
Arno,
Except that unlocking with your face in iOS is *not* only using an
image of your face but also the three dimensional shape of it.
Yes, and ? 3D printers exist.
That also express the thermal (IR) "print" that FaceID is looking for?
Alan,
Except that unlocking with your face in iOS is *not* only using an image >>>> of your face but also the three dimensional shape of it.
Yes, and ? 3D printers exist.
That also express the thermal (IR) "print" that FaceID is looking for?
You mean you have never heard of wire that will emit heat when a current is passed thru it ?
Or maybe even just flexible plastic tubing where a bit of warm water is pushed thru ?
And do excuse me if I take that "thermal (IR) faceprint" as a hogwash. It would mean that if you would be outside in changing weather conditions (changing the heat patterns in your face) you would not be able to unlock your phone.
Jolly,
These trolls are just replying the same lines they used back when Face
ID was first announced. They were wrong then, and they're just as wrong
now.
And according to you, which of the pro/con parties is trolling ?
... or should I just presume that you are the one trying to troll us both ?
Alan,
And do yourself a favour and look up some YouTube stuff about "hacking"
fingerprint locks. You might be surprised how easy some of them are
fooled.
Easy when presented as a YT video.
Yes, its always looks easy when its done by someone who knows he's doing.
On a YT video or IRL.
Not many people will actually:
- lift the print from something
- make the 'fake' print
- get access to the physical phone or other device
- get in
Not many people wil break into houses. Yet, you have a lock on your outside doors. Your point ?
But now you have acknowledged its possible, all we would be discussing about is how easy/hard it would be. Thats a large step forward, padawan. :-)
R.Wieser wrote on Mon, 6 May 2024 09:04:57 +0200 :
Yet trying to unlock an iPhone with its owner's photo will not work
They said the same about fingerprints. Yet, here we are ...
The point is not about how easy it (now!) is to reproduce something like
that, but that anyone can "take" from you what's supposed to be only yours. >>
and you have to go through a lot of contortions if you happen to have
their fingerprint.
As long as you don't need the owner of said fingerprints to be present, who >> cares ?
And do yourself a favour and look up some YouTube stuff about "hacking"
fingerprint locks. You might be surprised how easy some of them are fooled. >>
Yes, yes. IPhone fingerprint locks are superior and noone can bypass them. >> Go pull my other finger.
Fingerprint biometric unlocks on most phones are only a marketing gimmick.
Mainly you'll see the Apple religious nutjob zealots defending its use.
That's because Apple zealots always believe everything Apple tells them to. Apple religious nutjob zealots have no capacity to think on their own.
Arno,
Except that unlocking with your face in iOS is *not* only using an image
of your face but also the three dimensional shape of it.
Yes, and ? 3D printers exist.
And thats the buget solution. People who created 3D heads (and full body representations) have existed since *forever* - statues anyone? And as a more contemporary example just take a look at Madame Tussauds in New York. (and others like it).
Yes, in Android using *images* of a face to unlock a phone is indeed
not a good idea.
Its a *very good* idea. It should *not ever* happen though. :-)
Coming up with a new locking mechanism (mechanical or software) isn't all that hard. What is is to make sure that only the key designed for it can actually open it.
If you want to see examples of how locks, even expensive ones, can be bypassed with the proverbial paperclip I would like to refer you to the "Lockpicking Lawyer" clips on YouTube. Those are enlighting.
Chris,
And as a more contemporary example just take a look at Madame Tussauds >>> in New York. (and others like it).
They are universally shit. I don't understand how waxworks museums are
still a thing. I'm sure they were amazing in Victorian times.
Well, I do seem to remember when a certain actor took the place of his wax counterpart. The people walking by didn't even notice his different appearance from the wax puppets next to him.
Always funny to see people jump when such a "wax figure" suddenly comes to life. :-)
Also, its not how such wax figures look exactly like the person they are supposed to represent, its about the possibility of creating a topographically close enough faximile of a persons head. You know, for
those face-ID scanners
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
What is a "3D sensor" actually? :-)
In the case of iPhone the 'shape' of the face is determined as described here:
https://support.apple.com/en-ca/102381
The term Apple uses is "depth map of your face"
Further: "and also captures an infrared image of your face."
You misunderstood. It's all about identifying the EXACT camera.
Like I said, it's been a while. Things might have improved.
There are many forensic techniques which take advantage of the unique
errors inherent in any camera sensor, all of which improve over time.
https://www.mdpi.com/2313-433X/10/2/31
Thanks.
Not sure I see what you're seeing. The review is not very precise in its language. Looking at a couple of specific papers, they still are
comparing make/model not specific cameras.
This one - not peer-reviewed - supposedly labelled as "individual
camera" with an accuracy of 99.15%, is actually only six different
devices (two phones and four cameras). https://repository.derby.ac.uk/download/45e22f10d5dfc1d211a4392c591cd80d392237fa032ccc9f37f772a325fc91f5/922645/DIGITAL%20VIDEO%20SOURCE%20IDENTIFICATION%20BASED%20ON%20GREEN-CHANNEL%20PHOTO%20RESPONSE%20NON-UNIFORMITY%20%28G-PRNU%29.pdf
And this one - peer-reviewed - has 11 smartphones from six difference manufacturers is similarly labelled as "individual camera" with an
accuracy of 96.18%. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1742287616300998
I don't understand how either of those studies can be called
individual-level identification of cameras?
The evidence (sorry!) just isn't there. A study needs to be done with
15-20 examples of each camera across multiple models and brands and see
if they can be individualised.
There are even companies that sell this software already.
https://www.mobiledit.com/camera-ballistics
Don't ask me how they do it though as it uses sophisticated math.
Sorry, but the forensic market is not very healthy with plenty of
products which sell a dream. If a product cannot back itself with
published scientific research - rather than hide behind math - then it's snake oil. It's notable that the software has not been updated since 2017!
There are articles out there on how to defeat it if you care to look.
https://duckduckgo.com/&q=how+to+defeat+camera+photo+forensics
Which is probably why things haven't moved on: it's simply of academic interest with little applicability in practice.
B&E is trivial compared to the fingerprint hack.
But now you have acknowledged its possible, all we would be discussing
about is how easy/hard it would be. Thats a large step forward, padawan.
:-)
Get over yourself. You're nobody's teacher.
You mean you have never heard of wire that will emit heat when a current
is
passed thru it ?
Or maybe even just flexible plastic tubing where a bit of warm water is
pushed thru ?
Then you would need to know what the pattern was as the iPhone encoded it from its "learning" session.
And do excuse me if I take that "thermal (IR) faceprint" as a hogwash.
It
would mean that if you would be outside in changing weather conditions
(changing the heat patterns in your face) you would not be able to unlock
your phone.
Differences (not to mention the device's ML) are a thing. You dwell in absolutes and fud. (And not very good at it either).
These trolls are just replying the same lines they used back when Face
ID was first announced. They were wrong then, and they're just as wrong
now.
And according to you, which of the pro/con parties is trolling ?
... or should I just presume that you are the one trying to troll us both
?
You fail again. I suggest you take leave of the field, declare victory
for yourself (another white ribbon as when you were a child) and find something more in line with your meagre talents.
On Mon, 6 May 2024 10:59:27 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
What is a "3D sensor" actually?� :-)
In the case of iPhone the 'shape' of the face is determined as described
here:
https://support.apple.com/en-ca/102381
The term Apple uses is "depth map of your face"
Further: "and also captures an infrared image of your face."
Phone biometrics are nothing more or less than a marketing gimmick.
On 2024-05-06 10:04, Arno Welzel wrote:
R.Wieser, 2024-05-05 22:20:
Mickey,
Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo.
And thats just one of the more complex methods there are.
You touch surfaces almost every day without even realizing it - hey, that is
what hands and fingers are for, right ? - effectivily broadcasting that
feature of yourself to everyone around you.
Same goes for "faceprints". Even easier, as your faceprint can be "taken" >>> from literally tens of meters away.
Except that unlocking with your face in iOS is *not* only using an image
of your face but also the three dimensional shape of it. That's the
reason why the "notch" in the iPhone displays is bigger since there is
not only a camera but also a 3D sensor to capture the shape of your face.
What is a "3D sensor" actually? :-)
Alan,
These trolls are just replying the same lines they used back when Face >>>> ID was first announced. They were wrong then, and they're just as wrong >>>> now.
And according to you, which of the pro/con parties is trolling ?
... or should I just presume that you are the one trying to troll us both >>> ?
You fail again. I suggest you take leave of the field, declare victory
for yourself (another white ribbon as when you were a child) and find
something more in line with your meagre talents.
All I see is someone who claims stuff, but brings nothing forward to support it. A hot-air balloon.
Alan,
You mean you have never heard of wire that will emit heat when a current >>> is
passed thru it ?
Or maybe even just flexible plastic tubing where a bit of warm water is
pushed thru ?
Then you would need to know what the pattern was as the iPhone encoded it
from its "learning" session.
No, I don't. Thats the lock. The face would be the key. You would only
have to
make an acceptable faximile of the key.
Feel free to disagree - but I do expect a bit more than "I don't believe
you" responses.
On 5/6/2024 4:23 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
What is a "3D sensor" actually? :-)
Stereoscopic imaging is a start.
On 2024-05-06 11:24, Andrew wrote:
On Mon, 6 May 2024 10:59:27 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
What is a "3D sensor" actually?� :-)
In the case of iPhone the 'shape' of the face is determined as described >>> here:
https://support.apple.com/en-ca/102381
The term Apple uses is "depth map of your face"
Further: "and also captures an infrared image of your face."
Phone biometrics are nothing more or less than a marketing gimmick.
Biometric unlocking is a way to make phones convenient for the user
while sufficiently inconvenient for miscreants.
Jolly,
These trolls are just replying the same lines they used back when
Face ID was first announced. They were wrong then, and they're just
as wrong now.
And according to you, which of the pro/con parties is trolling ?
... or should I just presume that you are the one trying to troll us
both ?
On 2024-05-06 16:28, Paul wrote:
On 5/6/2024 4:23 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
What is a "3D sensor" actually? :-)
Stereoscopic imaging is a start.
Which, alas is not what the iPhone does in FaceID. To be clear, stereo requires at least two points of view (say two cameras a little bit apart, or images taken from a slightly different position. This is a passive process as well (in most cases).
What FaceID does is project a pattern onto the face and then measure the positions to generate a depth map from a single POV sensor (therefore not stereoscopic).
Alan,
And do yourself a favour and look up some YouTube stuff about "hacking"
fingerprint locks. You might be surprised how easy some of them are
fooled.
Easy when presented as a YT video.
Yes, its always looks easy when its done by someone who knows he's doing.
On a YT video or IRL.
Not many people will actually:
- lift the print from something
- make the 'fake' print
- get access to the physical phone or other device
- get in
Not many people wil break into houses. Yet, you have a lock on your outside doors. Your point ?
On Mon, 6 May 2024 10:59:27 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
What is a "3D sensor" actually?� :-)
In the case of iPhone the 'shape' of the face is determined as described
here:
https://support.apple.com/en-ca/102381
The term Apple uses is "depth map of your face"
Further: "and also captures an infrared image of your face."
Phone biometrics are nothing more or less than a marketing gimmick.
On 2024-05-06 16:28, Paul wrote:
On 5/6/2024 4:23 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
What is a "3D sensor" actually? :-)
Stereoscopic imaging is a start.
Which, alas is not what the iPhone does in FaceID. To be clear, stereo requires at least two points of view (say two cameras a little bit
apart, or images taken from a slightly different position. This is a
passive process as well (in most cases).
What FaceID does is project a pattern onto the face and then measure the positions to generate a depth map from a single POV sensor (therefore
not stereoscopic).
not a good idea.
Its a *very good* idea. It should *not ever* happen though. :-)
If you want to see examples of how locks, even expensive ones, can be bypassed with the proverbial paperclip I would like to refer you to the "Lockpicking Lawyer" clips on YouTube. Those are enlighting.
These trolls are just replying the same lines they used back when
Face ID was first announced. They were wrong then, and they're just
as wrong now.
And according to you, which of the pro/con parties is trolling ?
The ones who are beating a dead horse about things we discussed when
Face ID first hit the market and umpteen times after, always trying
to claim it's "insecure" and so on, and never knowing or acknowledging
how it differs from other smartphone facial identification designs.
They know who they are. Either you don't, or you are one of them and
are now offended that anyone should dare to call them out. Which is it?
Not many people wil break into houses. Yet, you have a lock on
your outside doors. Your point ?
That's the reason why banks have safes and do not only rely on
the security of simple door locks.
Yes, in Android using *images* of a face to unlock a phone is
indeed not a good idea.
Its a *very good* idea. It should *not ever* happen though. :-)
I know the Lockpicking Lawyer quite well.
You fail again. I suggest you take leave of the field, declare victory
for yourself (another white ribbon as when you were a child) and find
something more in line with your meagre talents.
All I see is someone who claims stuff, but brings nothing forward to
support
it. A hot-air balloon.
Well, it seems that your mirror is polished to perfection, at least.
You've got that.
No, I don't. Thats the lock. The face would be the key. You would only
have to make an acceptable faximile of the key.
Completely wrong and proving you don't understand the issue. At all - not
an iota.
Feel free to disagree - but I do expect a bit more than "I don't believe
you" responses.
My responses are not based on my not believing you - they are based on you not understanding the basic problem at all.
Alan Browne, 2024-05-06 23:02:
On 2024-05-06 16:28, Paul wrote:
On 5/6/2024 4:23 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
What is a "3D sensor" actually? :-)
Stereoscopic imaging is a start. [AAA] <-------
Which, alas is not what the iPhone does in FaceID. To be clear, stereo
requires at least two points of view (say two cameras a little bit
apart, or images taken from a slightly different position. This is a
passive process as well (in most cases).
I did not state, that Apple uses steroscopic imaging,
Alan,
You fail again. I suggest you take leave of the field, declare victory >>>> for yourself (another white ribbon as when you were a child) and find
something more in line with your meagre talents.
All I see is someone who claims stuff, but brings nothing forward to
support
it. A hot-air balloon.
Well, it seems that your mirror is polished to perfection, at least.
You've got that.
:-) You can't "win" your argument
[...]Yes, in Android using *images* of a face to unlock a phone is
indeed not a good idea.
You misunderstood : Its a very good idea to *try*. If it works you know
that it failed its primary duty. :-)
Too many people build stuff that does {this} when you do {that} - but forget to check if {this} cannot also be gotten by doing {something else}.
Jolly,
These trolls are just replying the same lines they used back when
Face ID was first announced. They were wrong then, and they're just
as wrong now.
And according to you, which of the pro/con parties is trolling ?
The ones who are beating a dead horse about things we discussed when
Face ID first hit the market and umpteen times after, always trying
to claim it's "insecure" and so on, and never knowing or
acknowledging how it differs from other smartphone facial
identification designs.
Ah, now I see where you are coming from. One of Alans compadres, no ?
Feel free to explain/underbuild why that that face-ID was secure than,
and than how its still secure now - even with technology going
forward.
And if you want to claim that what was once secure(?) still must be
so, let me point out to you how cracking several kinds of, now
discarded, SSL encryptions has changed from not in your lifetime to
less than a day (and even shorter than that) is now a thing.
Andrew, 2024-05-06 20:24:
On Mon, 6 May 2024 10:59:27 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
What is a "3D sensor" actually?� :-)
In the case of iPhone the 'shape' of the face is determined as described >>> here:
https://support.apple.com/en-ca/102381
The term Apple uses is "depth map of your face"
Further: "and also captures an infrared image of your face."
Phone biometrics are nothing more or less than a marketing gimmick.
Scanning the *shape* of a face and not just the *image* is still a
different approach than just using the image and that's one of the main reasons why Google does not include "face unlock" in their Pixel phones, since just using an image of someones face is way to simple.
Besides that you can call most "real" biometrics a "marketing gimmick"
since you can *always* make a copy of the images which are used for fingerprint scanners, eye scanners and so on. The question is not, if something is absolutly secure and can never be broken at all but how
much effort is needed to break something.
When I got my last passport I also had to provide biometric scans of my fingers. The way how that fingerprint scanner worked was just taking an *image* of my fingerprints:
<https://www.dermalog.com/products/hardware/fingerprint-scanners/f1>
"DERMALOG F1 – One of the World’s Smallest Optical Fingerprint Scanners
Its compliance to international standards make the F1 suitable for a
wide range of biometric documents and application possibilities -
capturing fingerprints for ePassports, ID Cards and
verification-processes within the blink of an eye. The self-explanatory DERMALOG solution meets international standards defined for biometric workflows."
They even advertise the use of their fingerprint scanners for biometric
ID cards:
<https://www.dermalog.com/turnkey-solutions/government/biometric-id-cards>
And yes, it is just optical, nothing else. So anyone can fake the fingerprints, even those which are included scanned with an "official"
device used by authorities.
Feel free to explain/underbuild why that that face-ID was secure
than, and than how its still secure now - even with technology
going forward.
Is that supposed to be English?
"SSL can be cracked, therefore Face ID is insecure" is a new sentence
I hadn't anticipated reading this morning. Thanks for the giggle.
You're clearly not a sincere person.
I see no need to continue wasting my time with you.
You misunderstood : Its a very good idea to *try*. If it works you
know that it failed its primary duty. :-)
Ok, that makes more sense.
Of course. And this is the reason why unlocking a phone just providing
a picture of the owner is not possible with a Google Pixel 6a.
Getting a picture of a persons face is much easier than getting the fingerprints and replicating them in a way that the fingerprint sensor
will accept them.
Jolly,
Feel free to explain/underbuild why that that face-ID was secure
than, and than how its still secure now - even with technology
going forward.
Is that supposed to be English?
What ? Thats too hard for you to understand ? Not "English" enough for
your taste ?
Feel free to explain/underbuild why that that face-ID was secure
than, and than how its still secure now - even with technology
going forward.
Not to support Jolly Roger, but there are many, probaby too
many, errors in your sentence.
You're mixing up 'then' [1] and 'than' [2]. In this case, the
'than's should have been 'then's.
And (AFAIK), "underbuild" is not an English word/verb. You're
probably looking for the equivalent of Dutch 'onderbouwen'.
These are not the only errors in your sentence,
but with these errors, the sentence is indeed hard to parse for
an English 'speaker'. (As a Dutchman, I can quite easily parse this.)
Jolly,
Feel free to explain/underbuild why that that face-ID was secure
than, and than how its still secure now - even with technology going
forward.
Is that supposed to be English?
What ? Thats too hard for you to understand ? Not "English" enough
for your taste ?
"SSL can be cracked, therefore Face ID is insecure" is a new sentence
I hadn't anticipated reading this morning. Thanks for the giggle.
Oh well, someone "doesn't understand" a simple example. How
delightfully new.
You're clearly not a sincere person.
Goodness! After having read that "I can't understand a word of what
you're saying" drivel that was exactly what I was thinking about you.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
And as the intended victim is showing off his key every moment of the day I cannot escape the feeling that a few pictures (from diferent angles) would
be enough for a 'puter (or a person) to construct a 3D model from it. Take few more pictures with an heat (IR?) camera and you likely have the
mentioned heatmap for that face too.
Did I forget anything ?
No, I didn't say it would be easy. But I don't think its impossible either. Just, for the first few times(!), a lengthy and costly job.
On 06/05/2024 09:23, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2024-05-06 10:04, Arno Welzel wrote:
R.Wieser, 2024-05-05 22:20:
Mickey,
Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo.
And thats just one of the more complex methods there are.
You touch surfaces almost every day without even realizing it - hey,
that is
what hands and fingers are for, right ? - effectivily broadcasting that >>>> feature of yourself to everyone around you.
Same goes for "faceprints". Even easier, as your faceprint can be
"taken"
from literally tens of meters away.
Except that unlocking with your face in iOS is *not* only using an image >>> of your face but also the three dimensional shape of it. That's the
reason why the "notch" in the iPhone displays is bigger since there is
not only a camera but also a 3D sensor to capture the shape of your
face.
What is a "3D sensor" actually? :-)
It's an infrared projection of a known pattern onto your face which
provides a 3D map of the shape of your face. By comparing the
distortions of the pattern between known and unknown faces you can check whether a person is able unlock the phone.
*Nothing* is impossible to break. It is *always* a question of how much effort is needed to break a thing. If anyone claims to have an
"unbreakable" solution he lies.
On 5/6/2024 4:23 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2024-05-06 10:04, Arno Welzel wrote:
R.Wieser, 2024-05-05 22:20:
Except that unlocking with your face in iOS is *not* only using an image >>> of your face but also the three dimensional shape of it. That's theWhat is a "3D sensor" actually? :-)
reason why the "notch" in the iPhone displays is bigger since there is
not only a camera but also a 3D sensor to capture the shape of your face. >>
Stereoscopic imaging is a start.
For an encyclopedic article, you have to do a lot of guessing here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_RealSense
Frank,
Feel free to explain/underbuild why that that face-ID was secure
than, and than how its still secure now - even with technology
going forward.
Not to support Jolly Roger, but there are many, probaby too
many, errors in your sentence.
Enough *not* to convey the meaning of what I tried to say ?
You're mixing up 'then' [1] and 'than' [2]. In this case, the
'than's should have been 'then's.
I realized only after posting that I made that error. But are you sure, *both* of them ? I though only the first one.
The second is indicating a moment after having done something else. In that case I though that a "than" was in order. ( https://www.grammarly.com/blog/than-then/ )
But ok, I made a mistake there.
And (AFAIK), "underbuild" is not an English word/verb. You're
probably looking for the equivalent of Dutch 'onderbouwen'.
You hit the nail on the head. A too-literal translation. Strange, I've
been using it for a while now (as in: years), but as far as I remember
you're to the first one to remark upon it.
And I see (a quick google) that the word I *should* (I think) have used is "support". I'll have to remember that.
These are not the only errors in your sentence,
Pray tell. You might not believe it, but I've got zero problems with being told wrong as part of an attempt to help me better myself (upto a point ofcourse :-) ).
Feel free to explain/underbuild why that that face-ID was secure
than, and than how its still secure now - even with technology
going forward.
but with these errors, the sentence is indeed hard to parse for
an English 'speaker'. (As a Dutchman, I can quite easily parse this.)
I can understand that. Ill try to keep the "steenkolen Engels" outof my writings.
Thanks for the heads-up.
Feel free to explain/underbuild why that that face-ID was secure
than, and than how its still secure now - even with technology
going forward.
I realized only after posting that I made that error. But are you sure,
*both* of them ? I though only the first one.
Yes, both of them. Neither of them is a comparison, which would call
for 'than'.
And (AFAIK), "underbuild" is not an English word/verb. You're
probably looking for the equivalent of Dutch 'onderbouwen'.
You hit the nail on the head. A too-literal translation. Strange, I've
been using it for a while now (as in: years), but as far as I remember
you're to the first one to remark upon it.
Yes, you use it frequently and already for a long time.
I think in most cases it was not a problem, because what you meant
could be 'guessed' from the context,
And I see (a quick google) that the word I *should* (I think) have used
is "support". I'll have to remember that.
Yes, 'support' suits here. I sometimes use 'substantiate'.
It's the syntaxis ('zinsbouw') of your sentence. It looks like you
more or less translated a Dutch sentence word-for-word to English.
These are not the only errors in your sentence,
Pray tell. [snip]
Let me try to change it to how I think it would be 'good'/better:
Feel free to explain/substantiate why face-ID was secure
then, and how it's still secure now - even with technology
going forward.
I deleted "that that", which we Dutch would say ('dat dat', or
just 'dat'), but English speakers won't.
I also deleted the second 'than'/'then'.
I think the first 'then' should be changed, because it refers to the
past, but not in a very clear way. So probably something like this is
better:
Feel free to explain/substantiate why face-ID was secure
in the past, and how it's still secure now - even with [cracking]
technology going forward.
but with these errors,
R.Wieser, 2024-05-07 19:07:
[...]
And as the intended victim is showing off his key every moment of the day I >> cannot escape the feeling that a few pictures (from diferent angles) would >> be enough for a 'puter (or a person) to construct a 3D model from it. Take >> few more pictures with an heat (IR?) camera and you likely have the
mentioned heatmap for that face too.
Did I forget anything ?
No, I didn't say it would be easy. But I don't think its impossible either. >> Just, for the first few times(!), a lengthy and costly job.
*Nothing* is impossible to break. It is *always* a question of how much effort is needed to break a thing. If anyone claims to have an
"unbreakable" solution he lies.
Not a comparision ?
R.Wieser, 2024-05-07 19:07:
[...]
And as the intended victim is showing off his key every moment of the
day I cannot escape the feeling that a few pictures (from diferent
angles) would be enough for a 'puter (or a person) to construct a 3D
model from it. Take few more pictures with an heat (IR?) camera and
you likely have the mentioned heatmap for that face too.
Did I forget anything ?
No, I didn't say it would be easy. But I don't think its impossible
either. Just, for the first few times(!), a lengthy and costly job.
*Nothing* is impossible to break. It is *always* a question of how
much effort is needed to break a thing. If anyone claims to have an "unbreakable" solution he lies.
On 5/8/24 6:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
  I deleted "that that", which we Dutch would say ('dat dat', or just
'dat'), but English speakers won't.
Yes we do, or at least I do. "I believe that that is the truth." Carry on.
On 5/8/24 6:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
  I deleted "that that", which we Dutch would say ('dat dat', or just
'dat'), but English speakers won't.
Yes we do, or at least I do. "I believe that that is the truth." Carry on.
Frank,
I think the first 'then' should be changed, because it refers to the past, but not in a very clear way. So probably something like this is better:
Feel free to explain/substantiate why face-ID was secure
in the past, and how it's still secure now - even with [cracking] technology going forward.
Yes, the sentence certainly flows better.
But you changed the subject with that "[cracking]" part. I really tried to refer to the Face-ID technology - as I assume it has, just as the "cracking" methods, also progressed.
but with these errors,
Truly errors ? As in syntax errors ? Man ... :-(
Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate it.
now the only thing I need to do is to remember to apply them ...
On 5/8/24 6:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
I deleted "that that", which we Dutch would say ('dat dat', or just 'dat'), but English speakers won't.
Yes we do, or at least I do. "I believe that that is the truth." Carry on.
But you changed the subject with that "[cracking]" part. I really tried
to refer to the Face-ID technology - as I assume it has, just as the
"cracking" methods, also progressed.
Apparently I guessed wrong. I thought you were referring to the
"cracking" methods,
Apple's Face-ID technology hasn't changed all that much.
But I could be (totally) wrong about that, as I've not be
following/studying that technology over time.
now the only thing I need to do is to remember to apply them ...
Don't worry, I have my share of common - mostly spelling - errors and
you should see what some of the native English 'speakers' emit without
even blinking!
On 08/05/2024 17:39, Alan wrote:
On 2024-05-08 09:05, The Real Bev wrote:
On 5/8/24 6:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
  I deleted "that that", which we Dutch would say ('dat dat', or just >>>> 'dat'), but English speakers won't.
Yes we do, or at least I do. "I believe that that is the truth."
Carry on.
Jim where John had had had had had had had had had had had a better
effect on the teacher.
😎
Or picture a sign painter redoing the sign at the George and Dragon pub.
The publican comes out to see the progress and spots a problem: "There's
too much space between George and And and And and Dragon."
On 5/8/24 10:23 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
In comp.mobile.android The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/8/24 6:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
I deleted "that that", which we Dutch would say ('dat dat', or just >>> > 'dat'), but English speakers won't.
Yes we do, or at least I do. "I believe that that is the truth." Carry >>> on.
I *said* "English speakers", didn't I!? :-)
All my life, and certainly in the top 1% -- I've been tested!
But seriously, in the relevant context, at most it would be a single
'that':
No. People frequently leave out the 'that' in sentences like "I'm sure he did it" but I regard that as sloppy at best. If it occasionally requires double thats, so be it.
I would like to read an explanation of Alan's "Jim where John had had had
had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher." though,
On 5/8/24 10:23 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
In comp.mobile.android The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/8/24 6:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
   I deleted "that that", which we Dutch would say ('dat dat', or just >>> > 'dat'), but English speakers won't.
Yes we do, or at least I do. "I believe that that is the truth."
Carry on.
  I *said* "English speakers", didn't I!? :-)
All my life, and certainly in the top 1% -- I've been tested!
  But seriously, in the relevant context, at most it would be a single
'that':
No. People frequently leave out the 'that' in sentences like "I'm sure
he did it" but I regard that as sloppy at best. If it occasionally
requires double thats, so be it.
I would like to read an explanation of Alan's "Jim where John had had
had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher."
though,
On 2024-05-08 12:10, The Real Bev wrote:
On 5/8/24 10:23 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
In comp.mobile.android The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/8/24 6:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
   I deleted "that that", which we Dutch would say ('dat dat', or >>>> just
'dat'), but English speakers won't.
Yes we do, or at least I do. "I believe that that is the truth."
Carry on.
  I *said* "English speakers", didn't I!? :-)
All my life, and certainly in the top 1% -- I've been tested!
  But seriously, in the relevant context, at most it would be a single >>> 'that':
No. People frequently leave out the 'that' in sentences like "I'm
sure he did it" but I regard that as sloppy at best. If it
occasionally requires double thats, so be it.
I would like to read an explanation of Alan's "Jim where John had had
had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher."
though,
I'll give everyone a little longer to ruminate on it...
On 2024-05-09 01:21, Alan wrote:
On 2024-05-08 12:10, The Real Bev wrote:
On 5/8/24 10:23 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
In comp.mobile.android The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/8/24 6:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
   I deleted "that that", which we Dutch would say ('dat dat', or >>>>> just
'dat'), but English speakers won't.
Yes we do, or at least I do. "I believe that that is the truth."
Carry on.
  I *said* "English speakers", didn't I!? :-)
All my life, and certainly in the top 1% -- I've been tested!
  But seriously, in the relevant context, at most it would be a single >>>> 'that':
No. People frequently leave out the 'that' in sentences like "I'm
sure he did it" but I regard that as sloppy at best. If it
occasionally requires double thats, so be it.
I would like to read an explanation of Alan's "Jim where John had had
had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher."
though,
I'll give everyone a little longer to ruminate on it...
I gave up on it on first sight.
On 5/9/24 8:57 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-05-09 05:01, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2024-05-09 01:21, Alan wrote:
On 2024-05-08 12:10, The Real Bev wrote:
On 5/8/24 10:23 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
In comp.mobile.android The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/8/24 6:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
   I deleted "that that", which we Dutch would say ('dat dat', >>>>>>> or just
'dat'), but English speakers won't.
Yes we do, or at least I do. "I believe that that is the truth." >>>>>>> Carry on.
  I *said* "English speakers", didn't I!? :-)
All my life, and certainly in the top 1% -- I've been tested!
  But seriously, in the relevant context, at most it would be a >>>>>> single
'that':
No. People frequently leave out the 'that' in sentences like "I'm
sure he did it" but I regard that as sloppy at best. If it
occasionally requires double thats, so be it.
I would like to read an explanation of Alan's "Jim where John had
had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the
teacher." though,
I'll give everyone a little longer to ruminate on it...
I gave up on it on first sight.
Alright, alright.
This is not a word. In the same category as 'irregardless'. Ignorant
and sloppy.
Jim, where John had had "had", had had "had had". "Had had" had had a
better effect on the teacher.
OK. Punctuation, at least periods, should have been included.
On 5/9/24 8:57 AM, Alan wrote:
Alright, alright.
This is not a word.
On 5/9/24 9:32 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-05-09 09:13, The Real Bev wrote:
On 5/9/24 8:57 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-05-09 05:01, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2024-05-09 01:21, Alan wrote:
On 2024-05-08 12:10, The Real Bev wrote:
On 5/8/24 10:23 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
In comp.mobile.android The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/8/24 6:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
   I deleted "that that", which we Dutch would say ('dat >>>>>>>>> dat', or just
'dat'), but English speakers won't.
Yes we do, or at least I do. "I believe that that is the
truth." Carry on.
  I *said* "English speakers", didn't I!? :-)
All my life, and certainly in the top 1% -- I've been tested!
  But seriously, in the relevant context, at most it would be a >>>>>>>> single
'that':
No. People frequently leave out the 'that' in sentences like
"I'm sure he did it" but I regard that as sloppy at best. If it >>>>>>> occasionally requires double thats, so be it.
I would like to read an explanation of Alan's "Jim where John had >>>>>>> had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the
teacher." though,
I'll give everyone a little longer to ruminate on it...
I gave up on it on first sight.
Alright, alright.
This is not a word. In the same category as 'irregardless'.
Ignorant and sloppy.
Who appointed you grammarian to the internet?
I did. Weren't you paying attention? Please try to keep up.
Is "already" a word? "Always"? Maybe "already" is almost a word?
I agree, there are a lot of proper al- words. Nonetheless, during my literacy the expression has been "all right" and "alright" appeared at
about the same time as thumb-spelling, indicating either laziness or ignorance.
Bite me.
:-)
Jim, where John had had "had", had had "had had". "Had had" had had a
better effect on the teacher.
OK. Punctuation, at least periods, should have been included.
No. That was the POINT: to find how to punctuate it.
OK, I concede. I failed miserably. It happens now and again.
In reality, this isn't something most people
who use Face ID worry about happening.
Jolly Roger wrote on 8 May 2024 16:22:42 GMT :
In reality, this isn't something most people
who use Face ID worry about happening.
These marketing gimmicks make iPhone uses only *feel* safe, because the
truth is the iPhone is by far the most exploited smartphone on the planet.
https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog
On 5/9/24 11:24 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-05-09 11:07, The Real Bev wrote:
On 5/9/24 9:32 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-05-09 09:13, The Real Bev wrote:
On 5/9/24 8:57 AM, Alan wrote:
Alright, alright.
This is not a word. In the same category as 'irregardless'.
Ignorant and sloppy.
Who appointed you grammarian to the internet?
I did. Weren't you paying attention? Please try to keep up.
Is "already" a word? "Always"? Maybe "already" is almost a word?
I agree, there are a lot of proper al- words. Nonetheless, during my
literacy the expression has been "all right" and "alright" appeared
at about the same time as thumb-spelling, indicating either laziness
or ignorance.
Bite me.
Language evolves. Learn to deal with it. "Already" came straight from
"all ready", and the meaning is not subtly different.
Similarly "alright" doesn't mean precisely what "all right" means.
No, it means EXACTLY the same. There's a difference between evolution
and sloppiness/ignorance.
You brought up several examples of your utter lack of understanding of
how Face ID works.
The Intel projects a pattern too.
https://dev.intelrealsense.com/docs/projectors
On 5/9/24 5:43 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-05-09 17:31, The Real Bev wrote:
On 5/9/24 11:24 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-05-09 11:07, The Real Bev wrote:
On 5/9/24 9:32 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-05-09 09:13, The Real Bev wrote:
On 5/9/24 8:57 AM, Alan wrote:
Alright, alright.
This is not a word. In the same category as 'irregardless'.
Ignorant and sloppy.
Who appointed you grammarian to the internet?
I did. Weren't you paying attention? Please try to keep up.
Is "already" a word? "Always"? Maybe "already" is almost a word?
I agree, there are a lot of proper al- words. Nonetheless, during
my literacy the expression has been "all right" and "alright"
appeared at about the same time as thumb-spelling, indicating
either laziness or ignorance.
Bite me.
Language evolves. Learn to deal with it. "Already" came straight from
"all ready", and the meaning is not subtly different.
Similarly "alright" doesn't mean precisely what "all right" means.
No, it means EXACTLY the same. There's a difference between
evolution and sloppiness/ignorance.
No. It doesn't.
I say that something is "all ready", it means that it is "ready in every
respect".
"Already" clearly means:
'before or by now or the time in question'
Similarly, "all right" means "correct in ever respect", and while
"alright" is closer in meaning, it is clearly used to ask whether
something is just ACCEPTABLE as opposed to the former.
"All right" SHOULD mean everything ship-shape and Bristol fashion, but
it doesn't. It's just assent. Similar to okay (OK), but different.
These marketing gimmicks make iPhone uses only *feel* safe, because the
truth is the iPhone is by far the most exploited smartphone on the planet. >>>
https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog
Are locks on your front door just "marketing gimmicks" because they can
be defeated, Arlen?
You misunderstood. If you understood, you would have asked "Are BIOMETRIC locks on your front door just marketing gimmicks?" (which they would be).
Jolly Roger wrote on 8 May 2024 16:22:42 GMT :
In reality, this isn't something most people
who use Face ID worry about happening.
These marketing gimmicks make iPhone uses only *feel* safe, because the
truth is the iPhone is by far the most exploited smartphone on the planet. >>
https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog
Are locks on your front door just "marketing gimmicks" because they can
be defeated, Arlen?
These marketing gimmicks make iPhone uses only *feel* safe, because the >>>> truth is the iPhone is by far the most exploited smartphone on the planet. >>>>
https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog
Are locks on your front door just "marketing gimmicks" because they can
be defeated, Arlen?
You misunderstood. If you understood, you would have asked "Are BIOMETRIC
locks on your front door just marketing gimmicks?" (which they would be).
Do they even make biometric locks for an average homeowner's front door?
On Thu, 9 May 2024 17:28:59 -0700, Alan wrote:
Jolly Roger wrote on 8 May 2024 16:22:42 GMT :
In reality, this isn't something most people
who use Face ID worry about happening.
These marketing gimmicks make iPhone uses only *feel* safe, because the
truth is the iPhone is by far the most exploited smartphone on the
planet.
https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog
Are locks on your front door just "marketing gimmicks" because they
can be defeated, Arlen?
You misunderstood. If you understood, you would have asked "Are BIOMETRIC locks on your front door just marketing gimmicks?" (which they would be).
On 5/10/2024 1:24 PM, Jan K. wrote:
These marketing gimmicks make iPhone uses only *feel* safe,
because the truth is the iPhone is by far the most exploited
smartphone on the planet.
https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog
Are locks on your front door just "marketing gimmicks" because they
can be defeated, Arlen?
You misunderstood. If you understood, you would have asked "Are
BIOMETRIC locks on your front door just marketing gimmicks?" (which
they would be).
Do they even make biometric locks for an average homeowner's front
door?
Apple would.
W Fri, 10 May 2024 19:16:48 +0200, Bill Powell napisal:
These marketing gimmicks make iPhone uses only *feel* safe, because the >>>> truth is the iPhone is by far the most exploited smartphone on the
planet.
https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog
Are locks on your front door just "marketing gimmicks" because they
can be defeated, Arlen?
You misunderstood. If you understood, you would have asked "Are BIOMETRIC
locks on your front door just marketing gimmicks?" (which they would be).
Do they even make biometric locks for an average homeowner's front door?
On Thu, 9 May 2024 17:28:59 -0700, Alan wrote:
Jolly Roger wrote on 8 May 2024 16:22:42 GMT :
In reality, this isn't something most people
who use Face ID worry about happening.
These marketing gimmicks make iPhone uses only *feel* safe, because the
truth is the iPhone is by far the most exploited smartphone on the
planet.
https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog
Are locks on your front door just "marketing gimmicks" because they
can be defeated, Arlen?
You misunderstood. If you understood, you would have asked "Are BIOMETRIC locks on your front door just marketing gimmicks?" (which they would be).
More like a bad allegory. Nobody here has claimed Face ID is the most
secure thing on the planet.
Jolly Roger wrote on 8 May 2024 02:08:45 GMT :
More like a bad allegory. Nobody here has claimed Face ID is the most
secure thing on the planet.
It's even worse when you learn iOS is the most exploited phone OS in
history. https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog
*No phone has ever had more zero-day holes than the iPhone.*
Which is why the phrase "To own an iPhone is to already be hacked" is true.
Jolly Roger wrote on 8 May 2024 02:08:45 GMT :
More like a bad allegory. Nobody here has claimed Face ID is the most
secure thing on the planet.
It's even worse when you learn iOS is the blah blah blah
You're a broken record. Literally useless.
Jolly Roger wrote on 10 May 2024 22:21:27 GMT :
You're a broken record. Literally useless.
And yet, [more broken record bullshit]
His trolls are *that* weak and feeble.
On 2024-05-11, Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:
Jolly Roger wrote on 10 May 2024 22:21:27 GMT :
You're a broken record. Literally useless.
And yet, [more broken record bullshit]
It's literally all little Arlen has at his disposal. His trolls are
*that* weak and feeble. Sad.
Jolly Roger wrote on 11 May 2024 04:38:22 GMT :
His trolls are *that* weak and feeble.
Notice that the Apple religious zealots
Why do you think that is the case?
On 11.05.24 06:38, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2024-05-11, Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:
Jolly Roger wrote on 10 May 2024 22:21:27 GMT :
You're a broken record. Literally useless.
And yet, [more broken record bullshit]
It's literally all little Arlen has at his disposal. His trolls are
*that* weak and feeble. Sad.
*You* are the Troll, little Roger.
"Apple religious zealots"
YAWN
Jolly Roger wrote on 11 May 2024 15:51:55 GMT :
"Apple religious zealots"
The facts [more repitious deflection and trolling]
Jolly Roger wrote on 11 May 2024 19:39:21 GMT :
YAWN
Notice
has nothing but trolls to offer.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 361 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 123:27:36 |
| Calls: | 7,716 |
| Files: | 12,861 |
| Messages: | 5,727,955 |
