So where's the outrage against Apple putting face scanning

Theres no need to be outraged. That wouldn't be convenient

>>62443451
If you have a phone with a forward-facing camera, guess what, your face is already logged. This is just the next stage, they're normalising what they've been doing all along.

>So where's the outrage against Apple putting face scanning technology in their new phone
Why would people care? They never gave a shit and never will.

>removing touch id for face id
So they managed to remove functionality again and replace it with something shittier while upping the price, just like with the 3,5mm jack.

>>62443475
What?

Also what the fuck is the point of a feature like faceID because as we all know face recognition has horrible security and it can be easily ""hacked""... so why use it at all? Why would they put it in their phones if it's way less safe than a normal password system?

>>62443508
And you think people shouldn't care?

>>62443504
How sure are you? I have had a few Android phones and my current one is a low end phone that came out in 2015 or something like that. If I were to get a new phone I'd tape the front camera.

>>62443528
How retarded are you

>>62443451
>data
It's stored on the phone, you dumb faggot. If you want to appeal to paranoia, well, you already have tons of cameras and microphones around you, how would you know they aren't recording you right fucking now? Why do you think battery life sucks on so many phones, sheeple?

File: 1503868189580.jpg (62KB, 525x429px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 525x429px

>>62443541
explain why please, your statement is very mean and makes me feel bad about my thread

>>62443528
>we all know face recognition has horrible security and it can be easily ""hacked"".
That's bullshit. Most face recognition used today is 2D crap.

>>62443559
>It's stored on the phone
there's just no way someone can be this naive.

>>62443581
not an argument

>>62443559
>stored on the phone
I doubt it! I reaaaaally doubt it. Also, even if it was stored JUST on the phone, there's no saying that later on in the future it won't get exploited. Normalizing face scanning tech is the first step to it getting exploited and that's why I decide to be skeptical about it. I'm thinking in a 'worst case scenario' type situation.

>appeal to paranoia
Does the average person really NEED this in their phone? Nobody really asked for this, nobody really gives a fuck but just like most tech like this people will eventually use it for shits and giggles sometimes (like the emoji thing). Nobody really needs it.

File: sunglasses guy.jpg (159KB, 634x935px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 634x935px

Question: How does this hip iPhone user unlock his $999 device without taking his eye ware off?

>>62443451
This will normalize face scanning even further and soon you'll find compulsory face scanning to enter most offices and shops.

File: 8dcdHId.jpg (29KB, 500x216px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x216px

>>62443631
By looking at it. Face ID works with most sunglasses.

>>62443656
Exactly, and that sounds like one of those things about which people say things like
>why r u paranoid ?? why u gotta be worried if you didn't do anything wrong? come on anon just scan :)

>>62443656
>I'll no longer have to share a workplace with fat, pimply-faced Android users
TYBA

>>62443630
>I doubt it! I reaaaaally doubt it.
Then you might as well start doubting everything else. ALL CAMERAS AND MICS ON PHONES RUN 24/7 AND EVERYTHING YOU TYPE IS DIRECTLY SENT TO GOOGLE/APPLEL/MS. That scenario makes bitching about face ID pointless though.

>Normalizing face scanning tech is the first step to it getting exploited
How? As long it's done in a way they say they do (and we have no factual reason to doubt them) it's a fancy step forward. If it's used for identification in a way IDs are used now, it's going to make shit simpler and faster.

>Nobody really needs it.
It was needed to kill the home button, which is a step forward. They couldn't make the "touch ID in screen" thing so this was their second best call, and at least done well unlike the 2D shit from Samsung and all other phones.

Also just for the record, I am not a fan of it. Touch ID seemed way more comfy and could be used in more flexible ways.

>>62443729
>Then you might as well start doubting everything else.
I'm trying to draw a line here! I'm trying to make the point that people shouldn't be okay with their faces being scanned. I have no idea why it isn't so obvious to people that it could lead to horrible things.

>>62443729
>As long it's done in a way they say they do (and we have no factual reason to doubt them)

Apple has gave data to the US government before and is able to get a huge amount of information from your device if they have to. Fact.

And how is it wrong to say that normalizing face scanning is the first step to it getting exploited? I don't really see your point here. Even if at first it's used how it's supposed to there's no saying that one day the information is going to fall in the wrong hands. Also the more people use it, the more interest someone might have in tapping into it.

>>62443451
At least asians have nothing to worry about in terms of keeping their face "data" safe. because they all look the same anyways.
Maybe this is a ploy to get the chinese to stop making knockoff iPhones - you use face scanning technology and your phone can get unlocked by 100 million other asians in the world

File: 862.jpg (15KB, 236x421px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 236x421px

>>62443855

>people are against face ID for privacy reasons
>people support fingerprint ID

GAS
EVERYON
NOW

>>62443451
Who cares if they can now know exactly who used the phone when.

Who cares if they can now make sure you actually look at adds and even pause video adds if you look away. Add revenue is important to their efforts to keep the hardware cheap and affordable to all.

>>62443451

>Android povvo being this butthurt he can't afford an iX

The poorfag salt these last few days has been amazing.

>>62443451
It's over anon, we'll be alive just in time to see the end of privacy.

also this >>62443504
they're just telling it now, but hm... yeah.

>>62443959
>keep the hardware cheap and affordable to all.

I am not a hardware or a software expert but this is what I think.
Phones these days are way more expensive than they need to be so manufacturers companies get to make more money off them. What I mean by this is not that the hardware isn't worth the money or is impressive (certainly is) but I get the feeling that every phone OS is bloated to shit. Like phones are waaay slower than they could be if they were running an optimized OS. That being said, most apps are bloated to shit as well so all this adds up and in turn makes phones more expensive because they have to run it.

>>62443988
ad hom

>Do you not realize what they could do with the data?

thy don't get the data, brainlet. it's on a local, encrypted chip.

>>62444015
Where in that statement did I imply that they get the data? Do you not understand the concept of 'could' ? Don't call me stupid if you're going to come at me with this level of reading comprehension.

>>62443451
The first thing they mentioned is that nothing is sent to them regarding facial data, as its all done on the device.

fbi and nsa will love this feature

>>62443528
> I have had a few Android phones
Then you're in an even worse position than Applel users.
Apple occasionally tries for privacy because it's a niche they can sell.

Google is 100% all-in anti-privacy, they couldn't give a rats about you.

>>62443824
>Apple has gave data to the US government before
Which means they follow laws. If anything, this is evidence that the company does what they say and have to do. Here it's stored on a chip that's pretty much unavailable for Applel, as were the data from the fingerprint reader (unless of course I missed evidence to the contrary) Besides, they showed the biggest resistance against the Murican regime compared to other big companies. In the end, they still have to follow the law, so their best call is making it impossible for them by pushing encryption for example.

You're forgetting that as a business, Apple prioritises the bottom line and theirs is so good due the customer trust, hence it wouldn't even make business sense for them to lie, since lies tend to come out on in the end.

>there's no saying that one day the information is going to fall in the wrong hands. Also the more people use it, the more interest someone might have in tapping into it.
You could say that about almost any kind of technology and research. Why drawing the line at something so small? If touch ID proves to be overly insecure, people will want to go back. Look how the shit available so far was rarely used because it's well, shit.

>>62444014
You realize that most smartphone makers barely break even, right? Besides, if anything they are dirt cheap thanks to slave labour across the entire supply chain. Even shitty phones would cost multiple thousands of bucks if anyone would pay fair material costs and wages.

>Like phones are waaay slower than they could be if they were running an optimized OS.
Mostly the case for lagdroid but it makes perfect sense too. It's expensive to optimise shit and it's easier to get customers with price or some gimmick than longterm support.

>>62444042
>Do you not realize what they could do with the data?
>i-i didn't say th-they have they data!
kill yourself dumb NEET

File: ocwsfOC.jpg (251KB, 990x990px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 990x990px

>>62444050
No shit that that's what they're going to say! Also, if they're going to use this technology maliciously it makes perfect sense that they would uncover it and show it as a security feature. Imagine if they didn't show the face scanning technology and it was uncovered weeks after the phone release? Apple would be in deep shit.

>>62444076
>Which means they follow laws.
Okay, I'll give you that. But face scanning is a whole new dimension of privacy that we haven't really explored before. I wonder what it would look like the first time the US govt' asks from Apple a face scan of a certain person they're trying to put on a wanted list or something.. I wonder what that's gonna look like.

>>62444105
COULD. I said could. I said 'if they have it'. I'm not claiming to have proof that they're doing that. That's an entirely different discussion. Teling people on the internet to kill yourself doesn't make you smarter or your reading comprehension better.

File: shillt.jpg (293KB, 1500x1147px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 1500x1147px

bump

>>62444195
>I wonder what it would look like the first time the US govt' asks from Apple a face scan of a certain person they're trying to put on a wanted list or something.. I wonder what that's gonna look like.
>A
Apple is honest and can't provide them with that.

>B
Apple lied to the customers and can give them data from face ID ... instead of remotely using the camera as they surely would be able to do too if they lied about the other thing. If we roll with the scenario that Apple would be risking lying to their customers, this new tech wouldn't add anything to their ability to spy on you and just cost extra money.

File: Kaczynski.jpg (86KB, 640x453px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 640x453px

>>62443451
>someone mentions iPhone's new face scanning in one of my CS units
>Go to enter conversation and talk about how it's worrisome and the trajectory of modern technology seems to be one of increasing infringements on personal freedom and privacy
>Hear "oh wow that's so cool"
>Say nothing

>>62443451
>So where's the outrage against Apple putting face scanning technology in their new phone?
Just don't get one or use the a pin.
>Do you not realize what they could do with the data?
Even more cringy emojies.
>I think them making it fail at the demonstration was intentional to distract from the fact that they're putting 3D FACE SCANNING TECHNOLOGY IN PHONES NOW.
It seemed like it worked like the fingerprint, as it showed the same error as when you reboot the phone and try to use fingerprint.

I kinda like the technology, I hope they would sell a cheap version that isn't connected to a phone, I could use a small device that could detect faces.

Bring back TouchID.

File: 11800381_575806645891790_3554477751364246796_n.jpg (29KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 512x512px

>>62444720
>I could use a small device that could detect faces.
For what?

>>62443729
>removing functionality is a step forward
found the faggot web """designer"""

>>62445849
>extra step to unlock phone
>huge waste of space making the screen smaller
>ugly
How is removing it not a positive? It's just the replacement could've been better.

>>62443451
Your phone has your fingerprints. If they did collect all the data themselves, the government could catch you for any crime.

>>62446376
I'm pretty sure mine doesn't. I don't have a phone with a fingerprint reader.

>>62446417
Probably can just get your fingerprints from the display’s smudges anyways.

>>62446465
sounds kooky imo mate but you do you

File: 1497487656807.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>62443451
Normies don't care. All they want is their new SheepPhone X. It's pointless trying to reason with them. Just secure your own life.

Its a lot more convenient. Touch ID fails kinda easily if there's a small grease buildup on the button. Doesn't work with gloves either. Face ID maps an insane amount of detail in the face as well as blood vessels under the skin, so withhold any teenager comments about 'dur jus maek mask to trik it'. Face ID needs a live human being to unlock.

>>62446628
What if it's your twin brother trying to prank call your mom to tell her you finally got a job

>>62446585
what is wrong with people?

>>62446695
Consumerism and lack of a proper education.

>>62446753
>lack of a proper education.
Honestly this, parents don't know how to properly educate their children for critical thinking. And public education is a horrible prision made to literally produce factory workers. Most kids in there aren't interested in learning anything whatsoever, mainly because phones fuck up their attention span. It's a vicious circle I guess

>>62444076
>slave labour across the entire supply chain. Even shitty phones would cost multiple thousands of bucks if anyone would pay fair material costs and wages.

Read up on basic economics. I'm not even trying to be an asshole, it would be eye opening for you, if you keep an open mind.
I would personally suggest Thomas Sowell's "Basic economics: A common sense guide", but, really, any one by a renown economist will do.

>>62443523
With what they replaced the jack? Disappointment?

File: 1505276701887.jpg (62KB, 746x500px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 746x500px

>>62443528

YOU THINK TAPING YOUR CAMERA WILL SAVE YOU? HAHAHAHA THIS IS 1984 YOU RETARD. IN THE 5 MINUTES IT TAKES YOU TO WALK TO THE CONVENIENCE STORE TO GRAB SOME TENDIES, 100 CAMERAS HAVE ALREADY GOTTEN YOUR FACE

>>62448074
I live in a small town in Eastern Europe. I doubt it's this bad here.

>>62448176

SATELLITES, THERE IS NO ESCAPE

>>62448317
that's fucked up