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 572048
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[17]: wait
by jared_wilkes on Fri 13th Sep 2013 18:40 UTC in reply to "RE[16]: wait"
jared_wilkes
Member since:
2011-04-25

You were responding to me. My point was in response to the first poster. The first poster didn't comprehend the difference between images of fingerprints and dat that authenticates a scanned fingerprint with an ID and didn't understand that this was happening locally.

It was you who chose to argue this reality with me. Yes, I still think is completely stupid. As I have said, this has been the full extent of my point in this subthread. You having specific technical questions about the implementation doesn't have any bearing on the truth of my statement. So, yes, your comments are stupid. As stupid as the original posters. That may be indelicate but it's not childish. It's just the truth.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[18]: wait
by Alfman on Fri 13th Sep 2013 20:34 in reply to "RE[17]: wait"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

jared_wilkes,

"You were responding to me..."

Yes, to point out that I was in agreement with tylerdurden, especially because you said "No one agrees with you". Note that neither he nor I said the OP was correct. The OP had a genuine question about how the fingerprint identification could work without storing the fingerprints somewhere. Instead of explaining things, you chose to mock him with a terse "RTFM". It's undeniable that "RTFM" was completely unhelpful in clarifying the OP's misunderstandings; doubly so since the article doesn't even talk about how it might work.



"So, yes, your comments are stupid. As stupid as the original posters. That may be indelicate but it's not childish. It's just the truth."

Have you ever thought about becoming a writer for Law and Order?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[19]: wait
by jared_wilkes on Fri 13th Sep 2013 20:55 in reply to "RE[18]: wait"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

You are still arguing about whether or not there is a separate secure coprocessor on the SOC that sorts the authentication data, that this data is stored locally, and that it never leaves the device, and that the original poster was wildly wrong with his questions and all of his questions could have been answered by knowing how to read... I've stated this same thing about 40 times now.

Not getting that after it being stated so clearly so often is the DEFINITION OF RTFM!!!

Reply Parent Score: 2