Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 11th Sep 2013 22:16 UTC

Apple's new iPhone 5S, which comes with a fingerprint scanner, won't store actual images of users' fingerprints on the device, a company spokesman confirmed Wednesday, a decision that could ease concerns from privacy hawks.

Rather, Apple's new Touch ID system only stores "fingerprint data", which remains encrypted within the iPhone's processor, a company representative said Wednesday. The phone then uses the digital signature to unlock itself or make purchases in Apple's iTunes, iBooks or App stores.

In practice, this means that even if someone cracked an iPhone's encrypted chip, they likely wouldn't be able to reverse engineer someone's fingerprint.

This seems relatively safe - but then again, only if you trust that government agencies don't have some sort of backdoor access anyway. This used to be tinfoil hat stuff, but those days are long gone.

I dislike the characterisation of privacy "hawks", though. It reminds me of how warmongering politicians in Washington are referred to as 'hawks", and at least in my view, it has a very negative connotation.

Permalink for comment 572073
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[21]: wait
by jared_wilkes on Fri 13th Sep 2013 22:12 UTC in reply to "RE[20]: wait"
Member since:

"Ok, then you should have pointed out why."

I have over and over and over again. But apparently, you can't RTFM.

"And it's *still* wrong, the article doesn't describe how it works in either technical or laymen's terms."

And you still can't RTFM. The original poster asked if it wasn't stored locally, where was it stored. He presumed it would then be on Apple's servers (presumably, his English appears to be wretched...). So, yes, we can answer that he is in fact wrong. He never asked anything about hashing. Again, please RTFM.

"Even if you were right about the article answering his question (which it does not), the response was still disrespectful."

Yes, it does. I am not wrong. I'm starting to think I need to be a lot more disrespectful because you are still being a complete idiot about it.

"A more respectful approach would be to quote the relevant portion from the article, however in this case it's unlikely that any quote from the article would have been helpful, so you might either try to explain it in laymens terms or just say nothing at all instead of "RTFM" and discouraging laymen from asking questions."

I WANT to discourage dumbasses. I want to encourage literacy. Clearly, this community could benefit from some remedial reading classes.

Reply Parent Score: 2