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

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.

Thread beginning with comment 572015
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[13]: wait
by jared_wilkes on Fri 13th Sep 2013 10:49 UTC in reply to "RE[12]: wait"
jared_wilkes
Member since:
2011-04-25

Umm, I haven;t incorrectly used RTFM... Do you and others actual take it literally? So sad. Your post is a perfect example of RTFM. Claiming I am saying something I am not saying and completely ignoring what I actually am saying.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[14]: wait
by Alfman on Fri 13th Sep 2013 14:08 in reply to "RE[13]: wait"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

jared_wilkes,

"Umm, I haven;t incorrectly used RTFM... Do you and others actual take it literally? So sad. Your post is a perfect example of RTFM. Claiming I am saying something I am not saying and completely ignoring what I actually am saying."


I'm not making claims, I'm asking questions and you're becoming terribly offended by it. There is no reason for you to be so defensive, I would ask the same questions were it google or someone else simply because I am interested in security and an objective discussion around it. The article doesn't identify the reader nor even it's physical capabilities, nor the hashing properties, nor the way in which it's been secured. If there's something I missed (such that 'RTFM' would be relevant) then please let me know what it is. Otherwise if you don't have the answers, just admit to it instead of beating around the bush and responding this way.

Edited 2013-09-13 14:09 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[15]: wait
by jared_wilkes on Fri 13th Sep 2013 16:23 in reply to "RE[14]: wait"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

I don't know why you think I'm "terribly offended"; I just think you are stupid.

I responded to an idiotic comment that he should RTFM because his questions were already answered. You and others somehow presume this means I am saying this is perfect and flawless and there is no need to ask questions and Apple is perfect.

I haven't said that at all. I have said those questions do exist but that the stupid questions asked by the first poster were answered by the article if he ACTUALLY READ IT. This is the meaning of RTFM (whether or not there is literally a manual or man page or no). That I have to explain this over and over and over and over again to you and others is further example of RTFM!!!!

Reply Parent Score: 1