"Face unlock" feature of ICS fail...

[LikeLinus]

I gave you two well-reasoned points in addition, yet you chose to key on the trolling. So yes.

While setting up the face unlock , it says in big bold words:

1. Face recognition is less secure than a pattern, pin or a password.

2. Someone who looks similar to you could unlock your phone.

It's NOT a security feature and Google isn't saying it is. You are apparently another idiot and do not realize that one word can have multiple meanings. The FR provides a precautionary step between having your phone auto active and protected from unintentional actions.

Have you ever heard of a "buttcall". Do you actually believe someone’s ass is trying to make a call to some other booty? No retard, a lock screen can prevent unintentional calls or usage of your phone. But it's NOT security between another individual using your phone and you using your phone. An unlock, but not secure feature, can help from your phone getting activated in your purse, pocket or by small children. But it's not meant to block someone intentionally trying to gain access to your phone.

The advantages of this features is people who have a hard time remembering passwords. People who may not use their hands well (i.e. RA) and the "cool" factor which you will find with any teenageer. It's a simple feature and if you do not like it you do not have to use it. So while it might not make sense to you or I, it does have it's advantages for others. Same with the onscreen keyboard in windows or other features that you may not use.



Warning for mild personal attack
You were doing fine there without all the insults. I'm not sure why you resort to them, but personal attacks are not acceptable. You've been warned.

Moderator PM

 

[Pliablemoose]

http://www.youtube.com/android

32:20 "Why should you have to remember a password or a pin?"

Not "Why should you slide to unlock?"

 

[WelshBloke]

http://www.youtube.com/android

32:20 "Why should you have to remember a password or a pin?"

Not "Why should you slide to unlock?"

OK.

Feel free to use face to unlock as a secure method then, just don't come complaining here after everyone's already told you it isn't.

 

[Pliablemoose]

OK.

Feel free to use face to unlock as a secure method then, just don't come complaining here after everyone's already told you it isn't.

LOL, I give you guys a tweet from koush in writing, the Director of Android operating system User Experience on video, and a video of the system being bypassed, and I'm still wrong for posting any criticism of Android.

LULZ...

 

[lothar]

Easy workaround this...instead of static face, make it face motion and track the person do a facial expression (i.e. smile, etc).

Like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhm-22Q0PuM

 

[makken]

what's the issue here?

1) Anyone with half a brain would've realized 2 seconds after they announced this feature that with only a single FFC, this system would be easily spoofed by a picture.

2) Google, as stated above, have already indicated that this feature is not as secure as a PW or PIN.

3) The system still hasn't been 'hacked.' Saying this feature can be hacked by using a picture is like saying the password lockscreen can be hacked by using a post-it note with the password written on it. You have to be retarded enough to stick a post-it note on the back of your phone with your password on it for that to be the case; and likewise, you have to be stupid enough to use a picture of your face as your lockscreen wallpaper for this feature to be 'hacked.'

 

[Zaap]

Yeah, except the facial recognition unlock requires a whole other factor, namely your FACE.

You're trolling.

Geeze, why does everything become such a poo-slinging fest?

He made a very good point: you just made a big deal about the world 'lock' automatically implying a security feature, but Slide to Unlock is just that- slide a finger across the screen to unlock. ANYONE'S finger. Same thing with either iOS or Android.

Obviously it's not just about security as most lockscreens don't have anything to do with securely locking the phone, just providing a simple way for the owner of the phone not to butt-dial people.

So now there's a new gimmick with a Lockscreen, and we're back to this silly poo-slinging fest again. If someone wants a secure lockscreen on their mobile phones, they certainly have LOADS of choices on either OS.

Oh look at that, I just looked on the App store and there's "Face Detection Lockscreen" for iOS. And of course it costs money. Two stars and user reviews saying it pretty much blows.

Seems iOS has gimmicky stupid stuff too- wow, imagine that.

 

[Red Storm]

Every in depth preview of ICS I read mentioned that the face unlock was a work in progress and definitely not meant (as of right now) to be more secure than a pin or password. In other words, they put it in now for those who wanted to use it now (the convenience and/or cool factor).

At least it's more secure than slide to unlock.

 

[pm]

I spent the day hiking in the mountains with the wife and kids and so I missed most of this. So maybe I'm a bit late to the discussion and we are getting back on topic without me posting anything, but... from where I'm sitting, I don't see any trolling. If you see something you think is trolling, then report the post using the red triangle "!" button in the lower-left.

Let's please get back on topic and stop discussing who is and who isn't a troll, and who may or may not have a secret agenda because it shouldn't really matter what people's motivations are for posting a topic anyway. It's the subject matter, not the people.

Moderator PM

 

[QueBert]

So youre saying that all the ways of locking smartphones should be secure?

Nope, slide to unlock makes no sense in terms of being secure. Now call me crazy, but when I see facial recognition or a bio-metric thumb scanner, the 1st thing that pops in my mind's the word secure. People on this thread are saying "anyone with half a brain will know this is for entertainment and not secure in the least!"

Really? I can't count how many people with Android phones had no idea they could add widgets to the screen by holding their finger on it for a few seconds until I showed them. This would make up far more of the average Android users than the smart ones in Anandtech and such. And I'm going to have to assume those same people who had a phone for 9 months and didn't know sh&t about widgets won't understand this isn't a SECURITY feature.

 

[lothar]

Nope, slide to unlock makes no sense in terms of being secure. Now call me crazy, but when I see facial recognition or a bio-metric thumb scanner, the 1st thing that pops in my mind's the word secure. People on this thread are saying "anyone with half a brain will know this is for entertainment and not secure in the least!"

Really? I can't count how many people with Android phones had no idea they could add widgets to the screen by holding their finger on it for a few seconds until I showed them. This would make up far more of the average Android users than the smart ones in Anandtech and such. And I'm going to have to assume those same people who had a phone for 9 months and didn't know sh&t about widgets won't understand this isn't a SECURITY feature.

Google already tells people that it isn't secure.
If you have half a brain, you'd know this without requiring Google to tell you that.
If you have no brain at all, read Google's warning about how insecure this "face unlock" feature is when you choose to enable this feature and heed the warnings.

What again exactly is the problem?

 

[Bateluer]

Its funny because Koush called this out DURING the ICS launch conference via Twitter.

 

[destrekor]

How many people here actually think facial recognition on a portable device can serve the definitive security feature?

Facial recognition isn't that advanced yet, not with the technology readily available to us with affordable means.

The only way to really get this to be a little more secure is to add a second camera, and require the user to have the software capture the face from 6 or so different angles. Then, when it comes time to unlock, both FFCs turn on for video capture and the user is required to ever so slightly rotate the head (a few degrees at most), which combined with moving the phone in your hand, it would require very minimal movement. The cameras would be capturing different angles and comparing the total face to the data stored. Multiple photos of just one angle would also be invalidated since both cameras would be seeing the exact same angle.

But that's a little more CPU intensive, and requires two sets of optics up front. And still it probably would not be perfect, because this technology isn't exactly ready for portability in terms of hardcore security. That's a mainframe-type authentication system, and typically also includes capturing certain characteristics of the eyes too. Don't even know if this method is looking much at the eyes other than as simply another characteristic of the face.

 

[QueBert]

Google already tells people that it isn't secure.
If you have half a brain, you'd know this without requiring Google to tell you that.
If you have no brain at all, read Google's warning about how insecure this "face unlock" feature is when you choose to enable this feature and heed the warnings.

What again exactly is the problem?

Google doesn't tell people sh*t unless they're already trying to activate it on their phone. I can only imagine a lot of noobs out there could very well decide to buy a ICS phone for this feature because they think it'll be uber secure. I mean when I think facial recognition I think the word secure, but hay that's just me. When I bought my laptop that has a bio-metric thumb reader for security I didn't do any research, but being what it was I assumed it was to enhance security. I was right, but if it hadn't worked better than a password I would have been more than a little upset.

 

[Anubis]

i think you are over estimating the number of people who actually care about making thier phone secure. In my expirence 99% of the public does not care, most never even use the pin and just use the slide. I have tons of noob friends who want never lock their phones and just use the power button to turn the screen on and off

 

[sciwizam]

Not sure what's the issue is here. During the setup process they describe it as low security and experimental. It's 1-step above slide to unlock, in terms of security. They are not doing iris scans, yet.

 

[foghorn67]

Not sure what's the issue is here. During the setup process they describe it as low security and experimental. It's 1-step above slide to unlock, in terms of security. They are not doing iris scans, yet.

Hopefully, this post will kill the thread. I'd still use this feature, since I never used a security feature for unlock.