Pixel 6 Pro Fingerprint Reader

[John McGaw]

There were a lot of complaints from some people early on about unreliable
fingerprint recognition but I never had an issue even with a screen
protector in place. Over the months Google issued a few patches to "fix"
the problems which I didn't experience. Eventually I noticed that with each
fix the reader's accuracy got worse. This morning I was clever enough to
erase all of the memorized prints and start over. It worked. The reader now
seems to be flawless for me once more. Just an idea for anybody else who is
experiencing problems (but before you do it make sure that you actually
know what your PIN or pattern is and that they work).

--
Noli sinere pessimi nequissimique te tristificare!

[Andy Burns]

John McGaw wrote:

> There were a lot of complaints from some people early on about unreliable
> fingerprint recognition

I went with a Pixel 5a for a combination of reasons (rear fingerprint sensor, no
fugly camera visor, cheaper)

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 09.04.22 um 16:27 schrieb John McGaw:

The older you get the less distinctive the fingerprints become.
Fingerprints are not 100 % stable. Over time fingerprints get harder to
identify.

What also helps is to store the most used fingerprint twice. That also
increases hit rate massively.


--
De gustibus non est disputandum

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 09.04.22 um 17:03 schrieb Andy Burns:

My Pixel 4 recognises my face. Still the fastest way to identfy a person.

[Andy Burnelli]

Like most Android phones, my free A32-5G does _all_ the lockscreen methods.
a. fingerprint
b. pin
c. pattern
d. face

But I don't use _any_ of them.
Why?

All security is a tradeoff between what the threat is, and how inconvenient
the security is, right?

What's the threat?
How many people are sneaking up behind you to snatch your phone from your
hands versus the number of people world wide who can hack into your phone or
worse, who can hack into your data that you store on the cloud?

To me, the threat is clearly in _this order_ of priority:
A. Anything of yours (including your meta data) being stored on the Internet
B. Your phone just being connected to the Internet
C. Your phone

What I don't understand is _why_ people lock the phone given that's the
lowest priority of all (if you're not doing illegal things which I'm
presuming a priori none of us are doing so let's forget that issue).

I get it that people have "private conversations", but there are plenty of
easy ways to lock them (my free messaging app has that feature but even if
it didn't, you can lock individual apps with a pin or pattern if you like).

I also get it that there is a flaw in the GMail app (which is what I suppose
many people use) which doesn't have its own login/password challenge
(AFAIK), but that can be added via any of the app-specific lock apps too.

I also get it that people have "banking" apps and the like, but don't _all_
of those require already additional security (e.g., login/passwd or 2FA)?

And I get it that people have "media" that they might want to protect from
prying eyes, where the ".nomedia" probably isn't sufficient but they can use
a truecrypt/veracrypt compatible encryption container for data storage.

I also get it that all of that stuff is inconvenient in its own way also,
but, for me, I don't have _any_ of that stuff, so I don't even need that
inconvenience (e.g., anyone who steals my pictures will be bored to death).

My main question is why do people lock their phone if (and that's assumed),
if they don't have people following them from behind ready to grab it out of
their hands?

Why bother?

It's a serious question given it's "some" hassle (even if it's only a little
hassle) where I decry when people "think" that's all they need to be "safe".

Isn't it a better approach to harden the phone & data from the Internet?
--
(The vastly bigger threat to your data is elsewhere.)

[AJL]

On 4/9/2022 9:21 AM, Andy Burnelli wrote:

> why do people lock their phone if (and that's assumed), if they don't
> have people following them from behind ready to grab it out of their
> hands?

I lock my phone to protect it against ME. I sometimes can't even
remember where I left it in the house. One of these days I may lose it
when out. That phone lock protects me from my unlocked Google apps being
opened by the finder. Once I realize the phone is gone I can remotely
change my Google password and disable the phone. (All my other sensitive
apps have their own passwords.) Hopefully the finder is honest and calls
the wife's phone to return it. I have her number on the lock screen
after "If found please call"...

[Andy Burns]

Andy Burnelli wrote:

> Like most Android phones, my free A32-5G does _all_ the lockscreen methods.
> a. fingerprint
> b. pin
> c. pattern
> d. face
>
> But I don't use _any_ of them.

Given that I have to use my fingers to pick up the phone, having a fingerprint
reader on the back means my finger is automatically in place, the unlocking is
perhaps 1/3 of a second, I had this on the pixel3 so was keen not to have to use
a slower(?) front fingerprint reader on a Pixel6

I thought that face unlock was considered unsafe without the "radar" of earlier
Pixel phones or speckle of dots like an iPhone?

[nospam]

In article <jbduin...@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns

<use...@andyburns.uk> wrote:

> I thought that face unlock was considered unsafe without the "radar" of
> earlier Pixel phones or speckle of dots like an iPhone?

both use a dot projector. the soli radar was to detect the presence of
a face, at which point the dot projector illuminates and the system
then verifies the face. iphones use a different method of proximity
detection.

they are the only secure method of face unlock. the rest can easily be
spoofed with a photo.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

> they are the only secure method of face unlock

Face unlock is nothing more or less than a silly marketing gimmick.
People consider their face is uniquely personal & that's why it works.

Almost all these marketing gimmicks prey on such misplaced user vanity.

The _real_ threat to a phone isn't some guy stealing it out of your hands.
Unless you live in the slums, that is (but I don't).

Apple's security is so atrocious that they want to take your mind off of
what the true threat is to an iPhone (given so many zero-day holes in iOS).

Apple has so many zero-day holes that they _add_ those holes at the rate of
at least once a month for the past three years in a row (and those are only
those few zero-day holes in iOS that are _reported_ to Apple by others).

As you said, misplaced user vanity works especially well on the iPhone.
--
You can't make those ungody profit margins off of intelligent customers.

[sms]

I prefer the rear fingerprint sensor as well. It's faster and more
natural to be unlocking your phone with one hand rather than holding the
phone in one hand and touching the under-screen fingerprint sensor with
the other hand.

Especially during Covid, the FaceID on iPhones has been especially
annoying. At least on the 12 and 13 Apple now has a way to use FaceID
without masks, but the 12 and 13 don't make up the majority of iPhones
in use so people are still using the passcode. In my area, like most
places, the mask mandates have ended, but in my area most people still
wear masks when inside a store so the FaceID issue persists.

[Andy Burnelli]

Andy Burns wrote:

> Given that I have to use my fingers to pick up the phone, having a fingerprint
> reader on the back means my finger is automatically in place, the unlocking is
> perhaps 1/3 of a second

Thanks for letting me know that your reason is that it's simple enough, and,
for that I don't disagree. It's simple enough to lock a car door too, and
when I am at the mall I _do_ lock my car doors; but not when I'm at home.

As you know, I spend my energy securing my phone from Internet threats to
security/privacy, so I'm all for securing a phone from the likely threats.

But what's the likelihood of someone stealing your phone out of your hands?

[Andy Burnelli]

sms wrote:

> Apple now has a way to use FaceID without masks

We covered this in detail on the iOS newsgroup but the Android people might
not know that all Apple did for the iPhone 12 & 13 is _reduce_ the faceid
area.

Yup.

All Apple did, essentially, was NOT look at _most_ of your face.
It was easy for them since it's just a marketing gimmick after all.

So now it's a gimmick that also works when almost all your face is occluded.
(Think about that.)
--
You can't make those undgodly profit margins off an intelligent customer.

[sms]

On 4/9/2022 9:59 AM, AJL wrote:

<snip>

> Hopefully the finder is honest and calls
> the wife's phone to return it. I have her number on the lock screen
> after "If found please call"...

Surprising how many Android owners don't bother to add contact
information to the lock screen since it's so easy to do, though the
place to do this in Settings keeps changing. On my latest Android device
it's Settings > Display > Advanced > Lock Screen > Add text on lock screen.

Oddly, you can't do this, at least not directly, on the iPhone, you have
to create a JPEG of wallpaper that has your contact information then set
your lock screen wallpaper to that image
<https://www.lifewire.com/add-contact-info-to-lock-screen-wallpaper-1701950>.
I did this on my iPhone and one of my nieces saw my phone last Xmas and
asked me how to do this and I launched into the explanation as she
rolled her eyes, but she did do it.

You can easily add contact information to your iPhone in your medical
information that someone can get to without unlocking the phone (swipe
up, tap on "Emergency" then tap on "Medical ID"). But someone finding
your lost phone is unlikely to know this.

On Nextdoor, there are often posts like "I found an iPhone while hiking
and I need to find the owner." I've never seen a similar post for an
Android phone, but I live in an area where iPhones predominate (we have
a really big fruit company in my city!).

[Calum]

On 09/04/2022 20:31, sms wrote:

> I prefer the rear fingerprint sensor as well.

I do except when my phone is flat on my desk and I want to unlock it
without picking it up, which is a lot more often than I realised before
I got a phone with a rear fingerprint sensor.

[nospam]

In article <t2smv3$efh$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> Especially during Covid, the FaceID on iPhones has been especially
> annoying.

originally, but apple has addressed that issue three times.

> At least on the 12 and 13 Apple now has a way to use FaceID
> without masks,

false.

iphone x and later supports face id without masks.

iphone x and later supports face id with masks and an apple watch.

iphone 12 & 13 support face id with masks without an apple watch.

> but the 12 and 13 don't make up the majority of iPhones

you have no idea what portion of iphones they are, nor does it matter.

the fact is that apple addressed the issue.

> in use so people are still using the passcode.

no they aren't.

[nospam]

In article <t2sp2k$ut3$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> Surprising how many Android owners don't bother to add contact
> information to the lock screen since it's so easy to do, though the
> place to do this in Settings keeps changing. On my latest Android device
> it's Settings > Display > Advanced > Lock Screen > Add text on lock screen.

there's nothing surprising about that as most people don't want their
own information on the lockscreen, for all sorts of reasons.

...

> Oddly, you can't do this, at least not directly, on the iPhone, you have
> to create a JPEG of wallpaper that has your contact information then set
> your lock screen wallpaper to that image

that is false. adding contact information to an ios device can be done
in several ways, including pushed to the phone by the original owner
after having been lost or stolen.

[The Real Bev]

On 04/09/2022 12:31 PM, sms wrote:
> On 4/9/2022 8:03 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
>> John McGaw wrote:
>>
>>> There were a lot of complaints from some people early on about
>>> unreliable fingerprint recognition
>>
>> I went with a Pixel 5a for a combination of reasons (rear fingerprint
>> sensor, no fugly camera visor, cheaper)
>
> I prefer the rear fingerprint sensor as well. It's faster and more
> natural to be unlocking your phone with one hand rather than holding the
> phone in one hand and touching the under-screen fingerprint sensor with
> the other hand.

I have my Pixel2 screen set to blank after one minute in the vain hope
of saving the battery. Having to push the ON button is itself a
nuisance, much less having to do yet another thing (touch the
fingerprint thing on the back, do some sort of weird swipe or even look
into the screen in the hope it would recognize me). Plus, based on the
fingerprint reader at the gym, I figure that sooner or later that's
going to fail and I'll have a dead phone.

> Especially during Covid, the FaceID on iPhones has been especially
> annoying. At least on the 12 and 13 Apple now has a way to use FaceID
> without masks, but the 12 and 13 don't make up the majority of iPhones
> in use so people are still using the passcode. In my area, like most
> places, the mask mandates have ended, but in my area most people still
> wear masks when inside a store so the FaceID issue persists.

Given that the phone restarts by itself every once in a while, I think
my distrust is justified.

--
Cheers, Bev
"I never understood why anyone would go to the trouble to write a novel
when you can just go out and buy one for a few bucks." -- lpogoda

[The Real Bev]

On 04/09/2022 01:07 PM, sms wrote:

> On Nextdoor, there are often posts like "I found an iPhone while hiking
> and I need to find the owner." I've never seen a similar post for an
> Android phone, but I live in an area where iPhones predominate (we have
> a really big fruit company in my city!).

I posit that something might be said about the IQs of users of those
phones, but my daughter (who is really smart) uses iPhones.
Accordingly, I suspect that people use whatever they started with -- and
iPhones were what her local provider was giving out.

[Andy Burnelli]

The Real Bev wrote:

> I posit that something might be said about the IQs of users of those
> phones, but my daughter (who is really smart) uses iPhones.
> Accordingly, I suspect that people use whatever they started with -- and
> iPhones were what her local provider was giving out.

Apple has the finest marketing on earth (along with the lowest R&D in tech).

I have kids & grandkids in my own family who love iPhones where I've said
before I ask everyone I know (and even plenty in the Costco checkout) _why_
and what I get tells me a _lot_ about their susceptibility to propaganda.

It's the same propaganda that is spit out by the people in the Costco gas
station when I ask why they are putting high test into their Honda Accord.

Given this is an Android newsgroup, I should mention what the propaganda is
for Android but, for the life of me, offhand, I can't think of any.

What bullshit propaganda do the Android makers spew to spur Android sales?

[Why must Arlen lie?]

On 2022-04-10 1:45 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> I posit that something might be said about the IQs of users of those
>> phones, but my daughter (who is really smart) uses iPhones.
>> Accordingly, I suspect that people use whatever they started with --
>> and iPhones were what her local provider was giving out.
>
> Apple has the finest marketing on earth (along with the lowest R&D in
> tech).

Why must you lie, Arlen?

[Chris]

They've *tried* to address the issue. It is still a problem for many.

>> in use so people are still using the passcode.
>
> no they aren't.

Yes they are. Anyone wearing a mask who doesn't own an iphone 12 or 13
can't use faceid so has to use the passcode. The apple watch fix, as I
recently found out, only works for the lock screen and so doesn't solve the
issues with faceid in all the apps that use it.

[Chris]

sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 4/9/2022 9:59 AM, AJL wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Hopefully the finder is honest and calls
>> the wife's phone to return it. I have her number on the lock screen
>> after "If found please call"...
>
> Surprising how many Android owners don't bother to add contact
> information to the lock screen since it's so easy to do, though the
> place to do this in Settings keeps changing. On my latest Android device
> it's Settings > Display > Advanced > Lock Screen > Add text on lock screen.
>
> Oddly, you can't do this, at least not directly, on the iPhone, you have
> to create a JPEG of wallpaper that has your contact information then set
> your lock screen wallpaper to that image
> <https://www.lifewire.com/add-contact-info-to-lock-screen-wallpaper-1701950>.
> I did this on my iPhone and one of my nieces saw my phone last Xmas and
> asked me how to do this and I launched into the explanation as she
> rolled her eyes, but she did do it.

Look up Lost Mode. Much better way than permanently making your personal
information public.

> You can easily add contact information to your iPhone in your medical
> information that someone can get to without unlocking the phone (swipe
> up, tap on "Emergency" then tap on "Medical ID"). But someone finding
> your lost phone is unlikely to know this.

Medical professionals definitely do. Which is the point of medical info.

[sms]

On 4/10/2022 11:36 PM, Chris wrote:

<snip>

> Yes they are. Anyone wearing a mask who doesn't own an iphone 12 or 13
> can't use faceid so has to use the passcode. The apple watch fix, as I
> recently found out, only works for the lock screen and so doesn't solve the
> issues with faceid in all the apps that use it.

That is correct. Remember, the majority of iPhone users are using an
iPhone without TouchID, without FaceID that works with masks, and
without an Apple Watch. Within the next two years or so, that will
change as more users upgrade from the X, Xr, Xs, and 11. As we've seen
in the past few days, Covid is far from over and mask mandates may
return more widely soon due to the XE variant. But mandate or not, mask
use still remains high in many areas.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 11.04.22 um 08:36 schrieb Chris:

> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <t2smv3$efh$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

>>> in use so people are still using the passcode.
>>
>> no they aren't.
>
> Yes they are. Anyone wearing a mask who doesn't own an iphone 12 or 13
> can't use faceid so has to use the passcode. The apple watch fix, as I
> recently found out, only works for the lock screen and so doesn't solve the
> issues with faceid in all the apps that use it.

That is absolutely correct. Apple watch is used by a very small
minority of iPhone-users. Therefore this fix is not really of practical
relevance.

[sms]

Well exactly, but someone finding an iPhone on the trail may not know to
even look for the identity of the user by going through all that, and
the user may not know to enter his contact information there. That's why
it's a good idea to put your contact information on the lock screen.
It's odd that Apple has not followed the lead of Android and added this
capability.

[nospam]

In article <t30omr$g85$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> >> Surprising how many Android owners don't bother to add contact
> >> information to the lock screen since it's so easy to do, though the
> >> place to do this in Settings keeps changing. On my latest Android device
> >> it's Settings > Display > Advanced > Lock Screen > Add text on lock screen.

...

> >> You can easily add contact information to your iPhone in your medical
> >> information that someone can get to without unlocking the phone (swipe
> >> up, tap on "Emergency" then tap on "Medical ID"). But someone finding
> >> your lost phone is unlikely to know this.
> >
> > Medical professionals definitely do. Which is the point of medical info.
>
> Well exactly, but someone finding an iPhone on the trail may not know to
> even look for the identity of the user by going through all that, and
> the user may not know to enter his contact information there. That's why
> it's a good idea to put your contact information on the lock screen.
> It's odd that Apple has not followed the lead of Android and added this
> capability.

because putting contact information in the lock screen is a really bad
idea, which is why users do not want to do that.

there's no reason to add a feature that people won't actually use.

you said yourself that few android users add their contact information
to the lock screen.

it's much better to invoke lost mode, where the owner can push whatever
message they want as well as disable the phone or even remotely erase
it if the owner chooses to do so.

[nospam]

In article <t30i98$2p8$1...@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> >
> > the fact is that apple addressed the issue.
>
> They've *tried* to address the issue. It is still a problem for many.

they more than tried. they completely reimplemented face id using a new
neural engine to work with masks.

it is more compute intensive than without masks, therefore requires a
recent iphone.

prior to that, they added apple watch unlock support.

> >> in use so people are still using the passcode.
> >
> > no they aren't.
>
> Yes they are. Anyone wearing a mask who doesn't own an iphone 12 or 13
> can't use faceid so has to use the passcode. The apple watch fix, as I
> recently found out, only works for the lock screen and so doesn't solve the
> issues with faceid in all the apps that use it.

how many apps do you use while wandering around in a store, where a
mask is generally required?

[nospam]

In article <t30nko$89n$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> > Yes they are. Anyone wearing a mask who doesn't own an iphone 12 or 13
> > can't use faceid so has to use the passcode. The apple watch fix, as I
> > recently found out, only works for the lock screen and so doesn't solve the
> > issues with faceid in all the apps that use it.
>
> That is correct. Remember, the majority of iPhone users are using an
> iPhone without TouchID, without FaceID that works with masks, and
> without an Apple Watch.

that's a baseless claim, but regardless, the iphone 12 & 13 represent a
significant portion of the install base, and it's *very* common to see
people with one.

[Chris]

You didn't look up lost mode, did you?

With it enabled a lost iphone can have a message added to the lock screen
which is likely more informative than whatever generic info you hardcoded
into your jpeg image.

I've not used android in a while, but I doubt it has a lead here.

[nospam]

In article <t316pr$r8$1...@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> >> Look up Lost Mode. Much better way than permanently making your personal
> >> information public.
> >>
> >>> You can easily add contact information to your iPhone in your medical
> >>> information that someone can get to without unlocking the phone (swipe
> >>> up, tap on "Emergency" then tap on "Medical ID"). But someone finding
> >>> your lost phone is unlikely to know this.
> >>
> >> Medical professionals definitely do. Which is the point of medical info.
> >
> > Well exactly, but someone finding an iPhone on the trail may not know to
> > even look for the identity of the user by going through all that, and
> > the user may not know to enter his contact information there. That's why
> > it's a good idea to put your contact information on the lock screen.
> > It's odd that Apple has not followed the lead of Android and added this
> > capability.
>
> You didn't look up lost mode, did you?

he didn't, or he ignored what he found because it shows him to be wrong
once again.

> With it enabled a lost iphone can have a message added to the lock screen
> which is likely more informative than whatever generic info you hardcoded
> into your jpeg image.

correct.

also, people aren't interested in putting contact info on the lock
screen either.

> I've not used android in a while, but I doubt it has a lead here.

it doesn't.

android added lost mode *after* apple did, the way it usually happens.

[Nil]

On 11 Apr 2022, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in comp.mobile.android:

> that's a baseless claim, but regardless, the iphone 12 & 13 represent a
> significant portion of the install base, and it's *very* common to see
> people with one.

The 6.5 billion dollars saved is an estimate based on 190 million iPhones
sold since Apple began shipping the empty box starting with the iPhone 12.

[nospam]

In article <t318v5$i7d$1...@dont-email.me>, Nil

<redn...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote:

>
> > that's a baseless claim, but regardless, the iphone 12 & 13 represent a
> > significant portion of the install base, and it's *very* common to see
> > people with one.
>
> The 6.5 billion dollars saved is an estimate based on 190 million iPhones
> sold since Apple began shipping the empty box starting with the iPhone 12.

your script is broken.

you're posting the usual drivel to an entirely unrelated topic.

the script you want is the one that spews 'why bother locking it? do
you live in the slums where someone is going to steal your phone'.

[Nil]

On 11 Apr 2022, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in comp.mobile.android:

> that's a baseless claim, but regardless, the iphone 12 & 13 represent a
> significant portion of the install base, and it's *very* common to see
> people with one.

>> The 6.5 billion dollars saved is an estimate based on 190 million iPhones
>> sold since Apple began shipping the empty box starting with the iPhone 12.

>>> you're posting the usual drivel to an entirely unrelated topic.

Wrong. Read it again. You are stupid.

You said the iPhone 12 & 13 "represent a significant portion of the install
base" to which I replied the estimate is 190M iPhones iPhone 12 & 13 sold.

Do you consider 190 million iPhones a "significant portion" of 1.8 billion?

[nospam]

In article <t31aq5$1kc$1...@dont-email.me>, Nil

<redn...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote:

> > that's a baseless claim, but regardless, the iphone 12 & 13 represent a
> > significant portion of the install base, and it's *very* common to see
> > people with one.
>
> >> The 6.5 billion dollars saved is an estimate based on 190 million iPhones
> >> sold since Apple began shipping the empty box starting with the iPhone 12.
>
> >>> you're posting the usual drivel to an entirely unrelated topic.
>
> Wrong. Read it again. You are stupid.
>
> You said the iPhone 12 & 13 "represent a significant portion of the install
> base" to which I replied the estimate is 190M iPhones iPhone 12 & 13 sold.

you said that apple began shipping an empty box, referring to your
usual drivel about a charger no longer being included, as is the case
with samsung and others.

or maybe you meant that apple actually ships empty boxes. that would
indeed be stupid.

in any event, apple does not release model breakdowns, therefore any
number is a wild *guess*.

apple has publicly stated that the iphone 12 broke all previous iphone
sales records, only to be broken yet again by the iphone 13.

look around. the iphone 12 & 13 are wildly popular.

it also doesn't matter since model share isn't the issue.

[Nil]

On 11 Apr 2022, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in comp.mobile.android:

>>> that's a baseless claim, but regardless, the iphone 12 & 13 represent a
>>> significant portion of the install base, and it's *very* common to see
>>> people with one.
>>
>>>> The 6.5 billion dollars saved is an estimate based on 190 million iPhones
>>>> sold since Apple began shipping the empty box starting with the iPhone 12.
>>
>>>>> you're posting the usual drivel to an entirely unrelated topic.
>>
>> Wrong. Read it again. You are stupid.
>>
>> You said the iPhone 12 & 13 "represent a significant portion of the install
>> base" to which I replied the estimate is 190M iPhones iPhone 12 & 13 sold.
>
> you said that apple began shipping an empty box, referring to your
> usual drivel about a charger no longer being included, as is the case
> with samsung and others.
>
> or maybe you meant that apple actually ships empty boxes. that would
> indeed be stupid.

You are stupid. Read for comprehension next time.
Only you don't know what models the reference to the empty box indicates.

> in any event, apple does not release model breakdowns, therefore any
> number is a wild *guess*.
>
> apple has publicly stated that the iphone 12 broke all previous iphone
> sales records, only to be broken yet again by the iphone 13.
>
> look around. the iphone 12 & 13 are wildly popular.
>
> it also doesn't matter since model share isn't the issue.

Read it again for comprehension. It is referring to iPhone 12 & 13 share.

You said the share is "significant" and then you said yours is a wild guess.
I provided the cited 190 million which is the best of the published figures.

Are you stupid?
Is 190 million a "significant portion" of 1.8 billion or not?

[Chris]

A few. I sometimes need to check my bank balance. I also may need to check
a booking confirmation at a restaurant which requires access to my email
which is password protected. My passwords are in pw manager which uses
faceid.

Shops aren't the only place. Public transport is more commonly used in this
side of the pond than the US and masks are still required. So on journeys
there's many times you need to unlock your phone or access apps.

[sms]

On 4/11/2022 5:26 AM, Chris wrote:

<snip>

> You didn't look up lost mode, did you?
>
> With it enabled a lost iphone can have a message added to the lock screen
> which is likely more informative than whatever generic info you hardcoded
> into your jpeg image.
>
> I've not used android in a while, but I doubt it has a lead here.

With lost mode the phone has to have service. You also have to have
turned on "Find My (device)" before it's lost.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't “Lost Mode” require another
Apple device to use it?

[AJL]

On 4/11/2022 5:21 AM, nospam wrote:

Think we discussed this lock screen info thing a few months ago but why
not do it again...

> because putting contact information in the lock screen is a really
> bad idea,

I only put an "if found" phone number. And that phone (the wife's) is
usually with us when we're out. So if I screw up and leave mine
somewhere it's entirely possible (if an honest bloke finds it) I could
get it back within minutes. IMO certainly worth it.

Second that phone number is already published in several public places
(both online and in print) and definitely not secret classified info.

Third nobody will see it on my screen unless I lose the phone. Last time
you said someone would look over my shoulder and see the number
(snicker) but I assure you it is in tiny print and that terrible
possibility is highly unlikely.

> which is why users do not want to do that.

You can't know what MOST users want or why.

> it's much better to invoke lost mode, where the owner can push
> whatever message they want

Yup. Push them a (gasp) phone number to call...

[sms]

I always love the strange rationalizations that nospam is famous for!

Actually people use their phones inside a store a lot! Not just for
payments either.

In my area, while the county's mask mandate has been lifted, many stores
still require them. Even in stores that don't require them, most people
are still wearing them (which may be one reason my city has the lowest
per capita Covid rates. Also, public transport still requires masks in
my area.

[AJL]

On 4/11/2022 8:50 AM, sms wrote:

> Actually people use their phones inside a store a lot! Not just for
> payments either.

I kill time sitting on the store's husband's bench reading my ebook
while the wife shops...

> In my area, while the county's mask mandate has been lifted, many
> stores still require them. Even in stores that don't require them,
> most people are still wearing them (which may be one reason my city
> has the lowest per capita Covid rates. Also, public transport still
> requires masks in my area.

No masks required in any of the stores I frequent anymore. (My doctors
offices still do though.) Most folks are bare faced here. Got my
second booster 2 days after it became legal to get it. Absolutely no
line which surprised me...

[nospam]

In article <t31d0j$klv$1...@dont-email.me>, Nil
<redn...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote:

>
> Are you stupid?

you certainly are

> Is 190 million a "significant portion" of 1.8 billion or not?

there aren't 1.8 billion iphones in active use and 190 million is
nothing more than a guess.

[nospam]

In article <t31gtp$ngb$1...@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> >>> the fact is that apple addressed the issue.
> >>
> >> They've *tried* to address the issue. It is still a problem for many.
> >
> > they more than tried. they completely reimplemented face id using a new
> > neural engine to work with masks.

how would you have dealt with face id and masks?

since you don't think apple properly resolved it, what's your solution?
be specific.

...

> Shops aren't the only place. Public transport is more commonly used in this
> side of the pond than the US and masks are still required. So on journeys
> there's many times you need to unlock your phone or access apps.

express transit doesn't require authentication and even works if the
battery is too low for the phone to be powered on.

[nospam]

In article <t31h0p$oce$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> With lost mode the phone has to have service.

which is pretty much guaranteed.

the number of smartphones without active service is almost zero,
regardless of who makes it.

> You also have to have
> turned on "Find My (device)" before it's lost.

that's normally on.

> Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't ³Lost Mode² require another
> Apple device to use it?

you are wrong.

lost mode can be invoked at apple's web site, accessible from any
device with a web browser, which includes android phones, laptops or
even desktops. the phone can also be located via the same website.

[nospam]

In article <t31ip1$812$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> Actually people use their phones inside a store a lot! Not just for
> payments either.

not with apps that require authentication, they don't.

[nospam]

In article <t31ig2$5k6$1...@dont-email.me>, AJL <noe...@none.com> wrote:

>
> > which is why users do not want to do that.
>
> You can't know what MOST users want or why.

that's what marketing surveys are designed to find out.

or just look around. how many people do you know who put their contact
information on their lock screen?

[Alan]

So you admit that that figure isn't an actual fact...

...but you posted it as fact, didn't you?

[The Real Bev]

On 04/10/2022 10:18 PM, Why must Arlen lie? wrote:
> On 2022-04-10 1:45 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>
>>> I posit that something might be said about the IQs of users of those
>>> phones, but my daughter (who is really smart) uses iPhones.
>>> Accordingly, I suspect that people use whatever they started with --
>>> and iPhones were what her local provider was giving out.
>>
>> Apple has the finest marketing on earth (along with the lowest R&D in
>> tech).
>
> Why must you lie, Arlen?

Might not be a lie, at least about the 'marketing' thing -- every time
you see someone using a computer in a movie or tv show it's got a
glowing apple logo highly visible. I've been paying attention to this
for quite a while.

>> I have kids & grandkids in my own family who love iPhones where I've said
>> before I ask everyone I know (and even plenty in the Costco checkout) _why_
>> and what I get tells me a _lot_ about their susceptibility to propaganda.

--
Cheers, Bev

[AJL]

On 4/11/2022 9:11 AM, nospam wrote:
> AJL <noe...@none.com> wrote:

>>> which is why users do not want to do that.
>>
>> You can't know what MOST users want or why.
>
> that's what marketing surveys are designed to find out.

Is there a lock screen content survey somewhere? Waiting for a link...

> or just look around. how many people do you know who put their
> contact information on their lock screen?

I've never asked anyone what they put on their lock screen. And like you
I can't otherwise know what they put there. My GUESS is that most don't
put anything on it simply because they never thought about it and/or
because it's a bit of a convoluted process...

[The Real Bev]

Lots of people still wear masks when shopping, although not required.
BUT nearly everyone in the Aldi store in the Asian neighborhood was
wearing a mask.

--
Cheers, Bev

[sms]

On 4/11/2022 8:46 AM, AJL wrote:
> On 4/11/2022 5:21 AM, nospam wrote:
>
> Think we discussed this lock screen info thing a few months ago but why
> not do it again...
>
>> because putting contact information in the lock screen is a really
>> bad idea,
>
> I only put an "if found" phone number. And that phone (the wife's) is
> usually with us when we're out. So if I screw up and leave mine
> somewhere it's entirely possible (if an honest bloke finds it) I could
> get it back within minutes. IMO certainly worth it.

nospam is wrong of course™.

An alternate phone number, or an e-mail address, on the lock screen is
all that's necessary for someone to be able to return the phone to their
owner.

Often an honest person does find the phone, at least judging from the
number of times I've seen "found a phone on the trail, how can I find
the owner?" posts on Nextdoor. Sometimes the carrier's name will be
displayed when the phone is powered on and returning the phone to a
carrier's store is the best you can do.

In the even that you lose your phone, having an alternate phone number
displayed on the lock screen, doesn't put anyone in danger, despite the
attempts by some of our trolls to fabricate weird scenarios. But if
someone is really paranoid, they can create a separate Gmail account and
a Google Voice number, to put on the lock screen.

[nospam]

In article <t31ld4$v10$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> An alternate phone number, or an e-mail address, on the lock screen is
> all that's necessary for someone to be able to return the phone to their
> owner.

that is false, no matter how much you try to claim otherwise.

> Often an honest person does find the phone, at least judging from the
> number of times I've seen "found a phone on the trail, how can I find
> the owner?" posts on Nextdoor. Sometimes the carrier's name will be
> displayed when the phone is powered on and returning the phone to a
> carrier's store is the best you can do.

the owner can use find my to locate the phone and/or send a message & a
contact number if found.

it works quite well.

> In the even that you lose your phone, having an alternate phone number
> displayed on the lock screen, doesn't put anyone in danger, despite the
> attempts by some of our trolls to fabricate weird scenarios. But if
> someone is really paranoid, they can create a separate Gmail account and
> a Google Voice number, to put on the lock screen.

that doesn't change anything.

[Alan]

On 2022-04-11 9:15 a.m., The Real Bev wrote:
> On 04/10/2022 10:18 PM, Why must Arlen lie? wrote:
>> On 2022-04-10 1:45 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
>>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>
>>>> I posit that something might be said about the IQs of users of those
>>>> phones, but my daughter (who is really smart) uses iPhones.
>>>> Accordingly, I suspect that people use whatever they started with --
>>>> and iPhones were what her local provider was giving out.
>>>
>>> Apple has the finest marketing on earth (along with the lowest R&D in
>>> tech).
>>
>> Why must you lie, Arlen?
>
> Might not be a lie, at least about the 'marketing' thing -- every time
> you see someone using a computer in a movie or tv show it's got a
> glowing apple logo highly visible.  I've been paying attention to this
> for quite a while.

The lie is that Apple has "the lowest R&D in tech".

<https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/which-companies-spend-the-most-in-research-and-development-rd-2021-06-21>

That shows that there are only 4 companies in the world that spend more
on than Apple.

Amazon at $42.74 billion on revenue of $386 billion

Alphabet (Google) at $27.5 billion on revenue of $257 billion

Huawei at $22.04 billion on revenue of $140 billion

Microsoft at $19.27 billion on revenue of $143 billion

Then comes Apple at $18.75 billion on revenue of $274 billion

[Chris]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <t31gtp$ngb$1...@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>> the fact is that apple addressed the issue.
>>>>
>>>> They've *tried* to address the issue. It is still a problem for many.
>>>
>>> they more than tried. they completely reimplemented face id using a new
>>> neural engine to work with masks.
>
> how would you have dealt with face id and masks?
>
> since you don't think apple properly resolved it, what's your solution?
> be specific.

lol. from the master non-specific generalisations.

I don't need to come up with a solution in order to be able to complain
about FaceID.

> ...
>
>> Shops aren't the only place. Public transport is more commonly used in this
>> side of the pond than the US and masks are still required. So on journeys
>> there's many times you need to unlock your phone or access apps.
>
> express transit doesn't require authentication and even works if the
> battery is too low for the phone to be powered on.

Who said anything about express transit? I'm talking about while sitting in
my seat and using my phone.

[Chris]

sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 4/11/2022 5:26 AM, Chris wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> You didn't look up lost mode, did you?
>>
>> With it enabled a lost iphone can have a message added to the lock screen
>> which is likely more informative than whatever generic info you hardcoded
>> into your jpeg image.
>>
>> I've not used android in a while, but I doubt it has a lead here.
>
> With lost mode the phone has to have service.

True. If someone's going to pick it up they're, at some point, likely to
take it somewhere with service.

> You also have to have
> turned on "Find My (device)" before it's lost.

It's the default and for this reason is a bad idea to turn off.

> Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't “Lost Mode” require another
> Apple device to use it?

Nope. You can do it online via a web browser.

[nospam]

In article <t31t35$180$1...@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> >
> >>>>> the fact is that apple addressed the issue.
> >>>>
> >>>> They've *tried* to address the issue. It is still a problem for many.
> >>>
> >>> they more than tried. they completely reimplemented face id using a new
> >>> neural engine to work with masks.
> >
> > how would you have dealt with face id and masks?
> >
> > since you don't think apple properly resolved it, what's your solution?
> > be specific.
>
> lol. from the master non-specific generalisations.
>
> I don't need to come up with a solution in order to be able to complain
> about FaceID.

you're avoiding answering the question because you know that apple did
everything they could, first with mask detection, then apple watch
unlock and finally face id that works with masks.

you said that was only 'trying', so again, how could they have done
better? be specific.

> >> Shops aren't the only place. Public transport is more commonly used in this
> >> side of the pond than the US and masks are still required. So on journeys
> >> there's many times you need to unlock your phone or access apps.
> >
> > express transit doesn't require authentication and even works if the
> > battery is too low for the phone to be powered on.
>
> Who said anything about express transit? I'm talking about while sitting in
> my seat and using my phone.

you're the one who mentioned public transit.

not only is no mask required for express transit, but the phone can
have a dead battery and not even be powered on.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 11.04.22 um 18:30 schrieb The Real Bev:

No needed here anymore. Neither in shops nor in public transport. The
number of people wearing them nonetheless is shrinking rapidly.


--
De gustibus non est disputandum

[sms]

On 4/11/2022 9:24 AM, AJL wrote:

<snip>

> I've never asked anyone what they put on their lock screen. And like you
> I can't otherwise know what they put there. My GUESS is that most don't
> put anything on it simply because they never thought about it and/or
> because it's a bit of a convoluted process...

It depends on the phone's setup procedure. On at least some of my
Android devices, setting the lock screen message was an option during
the setup.

On the iPhone probably very few people read articles like
<https://www.lifewire.com/add-contact-info-to-lock-screen-wallpaper-1701950>
so they'd have no idea of the rather convoluted process necessary.
However when they see the contact information displayed on the lock
screen of someone's phone that's when they realize that it's a good idea.

Whenever I see one of those posts of "I found an iPhone, how can I find
the owner?" i.e. <https://i.imgur.com/GJwTzdM.jpg>. I remind people to
put the contact information onto their devices' lock screen.

The last time I found a phone I was on my bike and the phone was not
locked so I called someone in the contacts and told them that I didn't
know whose phone this was but if they recognized the number to give the
owner my contact information.

Hopefully a future update of iOS will add the ability to put contact
information onto the lock screen without having to create custom
lockscreen wallpaper. It's possible that this is a patented Android
feature that iOS is not allowed to include. On my iPhone Xr I did create
that custome wallpaper <https://i.imgur.com/IaKrvam.jpg> but it should
not be that much of hassle.

[nospam]

In article <t32664$c19$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> Hopefully a future update of iOS will add the ability to put contact
> information onto the lock screen without having to create custom
> lockscreen wallpaper.

there's no demand for it because ios has a more effective solution.

> It's possible that this is a patented Android
> feature that iOS is not allowed to include.

it's not patented, nor could it be. that's your usual 'excuse', which
only shows how little you know about patents.

[AJL]

On 4/11/2022 2:22 PM, sms wrote:

> The last time I found a phone I was on my bike and the phone was not
> locked so I called someone in the contacts and told them that I
> didn't know whose phone this was but if they recognized the number
> to give the owner my contact information.

I found a phone left on a table in a Target soda shop (before they
closed for the pandemic). Nothing on the lock screen. I gave it to the
cashier. Before I left (I was waiting for you-know-who shopping of
course) the owner, a teenager, returned and retrieved it. Happy ending...

[Nil]

On 11 Apr 2022, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in comp.mobile.android:

>> Is 190 million a "significant portion" of 1.8 billion or not?
>
> there aren't 1.8 billion iphones in active use and 190 million is
> nothing more than a guess.

You are stupid.

You made a claim about the iPhone 12 & iPhone 13 share that does not stand
up to the scrutiny of comparing the number sold versus the numbers in use.

Even if you choose only 1 billion active iPhones in current use, the 190
million units for the iPhone 12 & iPhone 13 is less than a fifth of that.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

> you're avoiding answering the question because you know that apple did
> everything they could, first with mask detection, then apple watch
> unlock and finally face id that works with masks.

Do you iKooks all live in the inner-city projects?

Given Apple is all about marketing, and given people "think" their face is
the most important thing in the world, it's not surprising that Apple's "did
everything they could" to keep their faceid gimmickry alive during Covid.

Faceid is a laughably silly marketing gimmick that works on people who
believe everything Apple feeds them to believe, which is that the biggest
threat to their existence is someone sneaking up behind them to snatch their
phone out of their hands.

Meanwhile Apple adds zero-day zero-click holes to the iPhone all the time.

[Andy Burnelli]

The Real Bev wrote:

> Lots of people still wear masks when shopping, although not required.
> BUT nearly everyone in the Aldi store in the Asian neighborhood was
> wearing a mask.

Personally, I _like_ wearing masks as it would complicate faceid detection
in store cameras, if any (Apple was sued for that a while back).

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

> how would you have dealt with face id and masks?

When you strip away the marketing bullshit about how Apple made the iPhone
12 & iPhone 13 face id gimmick not be a pain in the ass, you'd be surprised
at how sophomoric the "solution" Apple came up with to keep their marketing
gimmick alive.

It's a sophomoric workaround to a laughably silly marketing gimmick.

[Andy Burnelli]

The Real Bev wrote:

> On 04/10/2022 10:18 PM, Why must Arlen lie? wrote:

I have a regular expression which plonks anything with "Arlen" in the name
in the operating system newsgroups, so I really wish others wouldn't respond
to Alan Baker (who is no better than Snit when it comes to his denial of
what has been discussed for years).

Alan Baker denies any fact about Apple he hates, which even nospam, Lewis,
Jolly Roger et. al, do, but he denies all facts with Snit tenacity and
therefore it's never possible to carry on an adult conversation with him.

The fact also remains that Apple spends almost nothing on R&D compared to
any other high tech company, which is likely why coding quality sucks.
*Apple R&D spending looks anemic compared to rivals' big budgets*
<https://www.cultofmac.com/720505/apple-rd-spending-2020-compared-to-google-microsoft/>

While it fluctuates (depending more on revenue than anything else), Apple's
R&D is a measly 2% which we need to compare with Apple's MARKETING budget.
*Why Does Apple Only Spend 2% of Its Money on R&D?*
<https://techland.time.com/2011/10/18/why-does-apple-only-spend-2-of-its-money-on-rd/>

>> On 2022-04-10 1:45 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
>>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>
>>>> I posit that something might be said about the IQs of users of those
>>>> phones, but my daughter (who is really smart) uses iPhones.
>>>> Accordingly, I suspect that people use whatever they started with --
>>>> and iPhones were what her local provider was giving out.
>>>
>>> Apple has the finest marketing on earth (along with the lowest R&D in
>>> tech).
>>
>> Why must you lie, Arlen?
>
> Might not be a lie, at least about the 'marketing' thing -- every time
> you see someone using a computer in a movie or tv show it's got a
> glowing apple logo highly visible. I've been paying attention to this
> for quite a while.

To The Real Bev,

It's a fact.
Anyone who doesn't know that fact knows nothing about Apple.
Absolutely nothing.

If you do not know the R&D expenditures of Apple by percentage compared to
similar high tech companies, then you have no right to question that fact.

Historically Apple has been asked to _defend_ their low R&D expenditures
because Apple's strategy is clearly in MARKETING their product, not in R&D.

I could give you a hundred URLs that back that up but it wouldn't help since
Snit-like people (Alan Baker being one of them) will _never_ understand
facts.

But here's an _entire_ thread on the subject, so if anyone doesn't know it,
then they've been hiding under a rock for a very long time since Apple is
NOT an R&D powerhouse - Apple is a MARKETING powerhouse.

*Does it surprise you Apple spends less in R&D (proportionate to revenue)*
*than similar tech companies?*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/STrAkx09VYk/m/4Qr_Iuq5AwAJ>

In summary,
a. If you don't know Apple's strategy, you know nothing about Apple
b. The iKooks deny all facts about Apple (even facts Apple openly admits)
c. There's no chance of carrying an intelligent conversation with Alan Baker

Even nospam, once in a while, admits to facts.
Alan Baker never does.

Note I do not see _any_ posts with "Arlen" in the name.

[Why must Arlen lie?]

Anyone CAN be sued for anything...

...but in this case, you cannot even substantiate that such a suit ever
was tried.

[Why must Andy Burnelli lie?]

He used to post are "Arlen", but now he's moved on to new nyms!

On 2022-04-11 8:02 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> On 04/10/2022 10:18 PM, Why must Arlen lie? wrote:
>
> I have a regular expression which plonks anything with "Arlen" in the name
> in the operating system newsgroups, so I really wish others wouldn't
> respond
> to Alan Baker (who is no better than Snit when it comes to his denial of
> what has been discussed for years).

So you're admitted that you used to post as "Arlen".

Got it.

>
> Alan Baker denies any fact about Apple he hates, which even nospam, Lewis,
> Jolly Roger et. al, do, but he denies all facts with Snit tenacity and
> therefore it's never possible to carry on an adult conversation with him.

I've never denied any facts.

>
> The fact also remains that Apple spends almost nothing on R&D compared to
> any other high tech company, which is likely why coding quality sucks.
> *Apple R&D spending looks anemic compared to rivals' big budgets*
> <https://www.cultofmac.com/720505/apple-rd-spending-2020-compared-to-google-microsoft/>

Apple spends more than only a handful of companies.

>
>
> While it fluctuates (depending more on revenue than anything else), Apple's
> R&D is a measly 2% which we need to compare with Apple's MARKETING
> budget. *Why Does Apple Only Spend 2% of Its Money on R&D?*
> <https://techland.time.com/2011/10/18/why-does-apple-only-spend-2-of-its-money-on-rd/>

"2011"? Really?

And why is the percentage you spend important?

>
>
>>> On 2022-04-10 1:45 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
>>>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I posit that something might be said about the IQs of users of those
>>>>> phones, but my daughter (who is really smart) uses iPhones.
>>>>> Accordingly, I suspect that people use whatever they started with --
>>>>> and iPhones were what her local provider was giving out.
>>>>
>>>> Apple has the finest marketing on earth (along with the lowest R&D in
>>>> tech).
>>>
>>> Why must you lie, Arlen?
>>
>> Might not be a lie, at least about the 'marketing' thing -- every time
>> you see someone using a computer in a movie or tv show it's got a
>> glowing apple logo highly visible.  I've been paying attention to this
>> for quite a while.
>
> To The Real Bev,
>
> It's a fact.
> Anyone who doesn't know that fact knows nothing about Apple.
> Absolutely nothing.
>
> If you do not know the R&D expenditures of Apple by percentage compared to
> similar high tech companies, then you have no right to question that fact.

Why is "by percentage" important?

>
> Historically Apple has been asked to _defend_ their low R&D expenditures
> because Apple's strategy is clearly in MARKETING their product, not in R&D.
>
> I could give you a hundred URLs that back that up but it wouldn't help
> since
> Snit-like people (Alan Baker being one of them) will _never_ understand
> facts.
>
> But here's an _entire_ thread on the subject, so if anyone doesn't know it,
> then they've been hiding under a rock for a very long time since Apple is
> NOT an R&D powerhouse - Apple is a MARKETING powerhouse.
>
> *Does it surprise you Apple spends less in R&D (proportionate to
> revenue)* *than similar tech companies?*
> <https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/STrAkx09VYk/m/4Qr_Iuq5AwAJ>

Without looking, I know you're citing yourself.

>
>
> In summary, a. If you don't know Apple's strategy, you know nothing
> about Apple
> b. The iKooks deny all facts about Apple (even facts Apple openly admits)
> c. There's no chance of carrying an intelligent conversation with Alan
> Baker
>
> Even nospam, once in a while, admits to facts. Alan Baker never does.
>
> Note I do not see _any_ posts with "Arlen" in the name.

Which is your cowardice.

[Chris]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <t31t35$180$1...@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>>>>> the fact is that apple addressed the issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They've *tried* to address the issue. It is still a problem for many.
>>>>>
>>>>> they more than tried. they completely reimplemented face id using a new
>>>>> neural engine to work with masks.
>>>
>>> how would you have dealt with face id and masks?
>>>
>>> since you don't think apple properly resolved it, what's your solution?
>>> be specific.
>>
>> lol. from the master non-specific generalisations.
>>
>> I don't need to come up with a solution in order to be able to complain
>> about FaceID.
>
> you're avoiding answering the question because you know that apple did
> everything they could,

Possibly. However, you're claiming that they've dealt with the issue. They
haven't. It's a bit better for some. That's it. Many (most?) still have to
resort to insecure passcodes.

> first with mask detection, then apple watch
> unlock and finally face id that works with masks.

"works" lol. I've watched my kid and wife both with iphone 12s not seeing
any change with iOS 15.4.

> you said that was only 'trying', so again, how could they have done
> better? be specific.

I've never been a fan of FaceID. TouchID is better for many reasons. If
they had stuck with it the pandemic would have been a non-issue for *all*
iphone users.

>>>> Shops aren't the only place. Public transport is more commonly used in this
>>>> side of the pond than the US and masks are still required. So on journeys
>>>> there's many times you need to unlock your phone or access apps.
>>>
>>> express transit doesn't require authentication and even works if the
>>> battery is too low for the phone to be powered on.
>>
>> Who said anything about express transit? I'm talking about while sitting in
>> my seat and using my phone.
>
> you're the one who mentioned public transit.
>
> not only is no mask required for express transit, but the phone can
> have a dead battery and not even be powered on.

Whoosh!

Transport ≠ Transit. Nowhere here uses express transit. Try reading what I
wrote.

[sms]

On 4/12/2022 2:22 AM, Chris wrote:

<snip>

> Whoosh!
>
> Transport ≠ Transit. Nowhere here uses express transit. Try reading what I
> wrote.

LOL, "If you don’t want to provide an answer, simply insert your own
topic and carry on."

[nospam]

In article <t33gd9$lke$1...@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> >>>>>>> the fact is that apple addressed the issue.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> They've *tried* to address the issue. It is still a problem for many.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> they more than tried. they completely reimplemented face id using a new
> >>>>> neural engine to work with masks.
> >>>
> >>> how would you have dealt with face id and masks?
> >>>
> >>> since you don't think apple properly resolved it, what's your solution?
> >>> be specific.
> >>
> >> lol. from the master non-specific generalisations.
> >>
> >> I don't need to come up with a solution in order to be able to complain
> >> about FaceID.
> >
> > you're avoiding answering the question because you know that apple did
> > everything they could,
>
> Possibly.

they very definitely did, having released *three* updates that directly
improve face id with masks, each successively better than the previous
ones.

you still have not answered what they could have done better.

> However, you're claiming that they've dealt with the issue. They
> haven't.

they have. see above.

again, how would *you* have dealt with the issue? be specific.

> It's a bit better for some. That's it.

which means they dealt with it.

face id with masks is more compute intensive, which means it's not
possible for it to work with older iphones where it can't reliably work
and without excessive delays. that's just reality.

what do you suggest they could have done to make it 'a bit better' for
most, or perhaps even everyone? again, be specific.

> Many (most?) still have to
> resort to insecure passcodes.

some do, and passcodes are as secure as the user wants them to be, the
longer the better, with letters and symbols mixed in being the most
secure.

a good tradeoff is a long numeric passcode (10+ digits) which is easy
to tap and long enough that the usual brute force attack is going to
take a *really* long time, far longer than the lifetime of anyone who
is interested in cracking it.

> > first with mask detection, then apple watch
> > unlock and finally face id that works with masks.
>
> "works" lol. I've watched my kid and wife both with iphone 12s not seeing
> any change with iOS 15.4.

did they set it up correctly?

face id with masks actually works quite well. it's not perfect all of
the time, nor would anyone expect it to be.

> > you said that was only 'trying', so again, how could they have done
> > better? be specific.
>
> I've never been a fan of FaceID. TouchID is better for many reasons.

and touch id is worse for others.

touch id doesn't work at all with gloves, which are common in colder
climates. it also doesn't work with wet or dirty fingers. some people
have fingerprints that are not readable and can *never* use touch id.

no system is perfect.

the reality is that touch id has problems in many more situations than
face id, with the sole exception of the pandemic, something that was
unexpected when face id was developed.

> If
> they had stuck with it the pandemic would have been a non-issue for *all*
> iphone users.

right, because apple has this magical crystal ball that can see into
the future. are you daft?

there was *no* way to know back in 2013, when face id began life in
apple's labs, to later be introduced in 2017 with the iphone x, that a
pandemic was coming in 2020 where masks would be common.

> >>>> Public transport is more commonly used in this
> >>>> side of the pond than the US and masks are still required. So on journeys
> >>>> there's many times you need to unlock your phone or access apps.
> >>>
> >>> express transit doesn't require authentication and even works if the
> >>> battery is too low for the phone to be powered on.
> >>
> >> Who said anything about express transit? I'm talking about while sitting in
> >> my seat and using my phone.
> >
> > you're the one who mentioned public transit.
> >
> > not only is no mask required for express transit, but the phone can
> > have a dead battery and not even be powered on.
>
> Whoosh!

whoosh right back.

> Transport ‚ Transit.

the feature known as express transit is used on public transport (also
called public transit), thus its name.

it's part of express mode, which allows for additional use cases where
authentication is not required and even if the battery is dead.

<https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212171>
Use transit or payment cards, passes, your student ID, your car key,
and more without waking or unlocking your device, or authenticating
with Face ID, Touch ID, or your passcode. You might even be able to
use your card, pass, or key when your device needs to be charged.

<https://9to5mac.com/2021/11/16/apple-promotes-express-transit-mode-insi
de-the-wallet-app-to-london-users/>
It¹s been a couple of years since Apple launched the Express Transit
feature for users to pay for public transportation just by taking the
iPhone closer to an NFC terminal, without the need for an ID
verification.

The function, which has been available for London users for quite
some time, is now being promoted inside the Wallet app, even if
the user already has the Express Transit feature set.

<https://transit.applepay.apple/new-york>
Getting around NYC is easier and safer with Express Transit for
Apple Pay. Just tap your iPhone or Apple Watch and ride, there¹s
no need to use Face ID, Touch ID, or touch a vending machine or
card reader.

> Nowhere here uses express transit.

how is that apple's fault?

apple provided a solution, however, they can't force everyone to adopt

it.

> Try reading what I
> wrote.

i did.

try learning about what can and can't be done.

[sms]

On 4/11/2022 8:19 AM, Chris wrote:

<snip>

> Shops aren't the only place. Public transport is more commonly used in this

> side of the pond than the US and masks are still required. So on journeys
> there's many times you need to unlock your phone or access apps.

In some areas of the U.S. public transport is still heavily used though
it's not likely to ever recover to pre-pandemic levels due to
remote-working. Masks are still required on a lot of public transit with
signs "No Mask, No Ride" posted.

One thing you'll notice on commuter trains is that virtually everyone is
on their phone, tablet, or laptop. It's very quiet. One day I was on the
train to San Francisco and two people were talking, in normal voices,
and someone asked them to be quiet, as if the train car were a library.

But the reality is that it's when checking out and paying at stores
where you most notice people struggling with FaceID and masks, and
sometimes just pulling out a credit card to pay, while apologizing for
holding up the line.

[nospam]

In article <t344k6$iv9$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> But the reality is that it's when checking out and paying at stores
> where you most notice people struggling with FaceID and masks, and
> sometimes just pulling out a credit card to pay, while apologizing for
> holding up the line.

that is not reality.

the reality is that people use apple pay with face id, authenticating
and even paying while the cashier is ringing up the items, which means
*no* delay to other customers.

pulling out a credit card would incur an even longer delay than using
apple pay.

[AJL]

On 4/12/2022 7:40 AM, nospam wrote:

> passcodes are as secure as the user wants them to be, the longer the
> better, with letters and symbols mixed in being the most secure. a
> good tradeoff is a long numeric passcode (10+ digits) which is easy
> to tap

I use a 6 digit pin which is much easier to tap than 10+ digits and I
can do it automatically in a second or so without thinking as
it becomes automatic.

> and long enough that the usual brute force attack is going to take a
> *really* long time, far longer than the lifetime of anyone who is
> interested in cracking it.

I don't need a lifetime, just a few hours to change passwords and
disable the phone. YMMV...

[sms]

Not sure about the Pixel 6, but I suspect that it's got the same
protection against brute force attack as the iPhone. You can't just keep
entering the wrong pass code.

[AJL]

Now that you mention it I do seem to remember a 10 try limit but I just
looked in my phone's (seems like 1000s of) settings and couldn't find
it. Its a Galaxy S10+ if anyone else knows...

[nospam]

In article <t345ng$s02$1...@dont-email.me>, AJL <noe...@none.com> wrote:

>
> > passcodes are as secure as the user wants them to be, the longer the
> > better, with letters and symbols mixed in being the most secure. a
> > good tradeoff is a long numeric passcode (10+ digits) which is easy
> > to tap
>
> I use a 6 digit pin which is much easier to tap than 10+ digits and I
> can do it automatically in a second or so without thinking as
> it becomes automatic.

it's easier, but less secure. there's a tradeoff between security and
convenience. different people have different threat models.

> > and long enough that the usual brute force attack is going to take a
> > *really* long time, far longer than the lifetime of anyone who is
> > interested in cracking it.
>
> I don't need a lifetime, just a few hours to change passwords and
> disable the phone. YMMV...

you don't, but someone trying to crack it might.

a 4 digit passcode can be cracked in less than about 13 minutes, a 6
digit passcode in less than about 22 hours and a 10 digit passcode will
take around 25 years.

alphanumeric passcodes push the amount of time into thousands or
millions of years, however, they're a lot less convenient than a 10+
digit numeric passcode, which offers sufficient security for most
people without much hassle. a phone number with a few extra digits
works well (just don't use your own phone number).

[nospam]

In article <t34782$55j$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> Not sure about the Pixel 6, but I suspect that it's got the same
> protection against brute force attack as the iPhone. You can't just keep
> entering the wrong pass code.

you suspect wrong. hacking a passcode on android is quite a bit easier
than on an iphone, including the pixel 6.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

> you still have not answered what they could have done better.

FaceID is a gimmick, much like putting a dozen locks on your front door
might be if your house happened to be surrounded by inner city projects.

It keeps your friends out but it doesn't do anything for the windows.

Still... most Android phones support all the standard unlock mechanisms:
a. Pin
b. Pattern
c. Fingerprint
d. Face
e. App-specific locks (that are part of the app, e.g., keepass)
f. App-specific locks (which are add ons to any given app)

The real threat is Apple adds more than a zero-day vulnerability a month.

It's like Apple builds homes with huge holes in the side of the building.
And yet, they advertise their faceid gimmick which works on the front door.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

>> Not sure about the Pixel 6, but I suspect that it's got the same
>> protection against brute force attack as the iPhone. You can't just keep
>> entering the wrong pass code.
>
> you suspect wrong. hacking a passcode on android is quite a bit easier
> than on an iphone, including the pixel 6.

Your security is not only what Apple advertises as their latest gimmick.

Since Apple has so many zero-day bugs in the iPhone that hackers stopped
accepting them for testing, why even bother hacking an iOS passcode?

Your real threat is Apple adds at least one zero-day hole a month to iOS.
(Many of these Apple holes are zero-click full-access zero-day holes!)

What good is an iPhone with _only_ a strong front door & nothing else?

[s|b]

On Sat, 9 Apr 2022 17:21:28 +0200, Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> My Pixel 4 recognises my face. Still the fastest way to identfy a person.

Does it work with a photo of your face?

--
s|b

[nospam]

In article <jbm1go...@mid.individual.net>, s|b <m...@privacy.invalid>

wrote:

>
> > My Pixel 4 recognises my face. Still the fastest way to identfy a person.
>
> Does it work with a photo of your face?

no.

the pixel 4 and apple's face id use an infrared dot projector to create
a 3d map of a person's face, which works in complete darkness.

<https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/4-2.jpg>

unlike face unlock on other android phones, a photo will *not* work.

there was an issue with google's implementation where it unlocked if
the user's eyes were closed but they eventually fixed that.

[AJL]

On 4/12/2022 10:28 AM, nospam wrote:

> AJL <noe...@none.com> wrote:

>> I use a 6 digit pin

> a 6 digit passcode [can be cracked] in less than about 22 hours

Unless the perp is a good guesser I doubt he would be successful at
getting any information from my phone.

I found the setting. It's called Auto Factory Reset. It says: "After 15
incorrect attempts to unlock the phone it will be set to factory default
settings and all data will be erased including files and downloaded
apps". I already had it turned on but had forgotten about it in the
years since I set it when the phone was new.

Course on the other hand with 15 bad tries he apparently now has a
usable phone which is probably all he wanted in the first place...

[sms]

It depends on the phone and the version of the OS. In some cases it's
only ten attempts. You'd have to be a pretty good guesser for even a
four digit pass code with 10,000 different possibilities, with six
digits it's a million different possibilities.

The most secure biometric is iris scan, followed by 3D fingerprint
scans. 3D FaceID is secure except in cases of siblings and child/parent
where it has been shown to be compromised.

[nospam]

In article <t34n4u$e47$1...@dont-email.me>, AJL <noe...@none.com> wrote:

> >> I use a 6 digit pin
>
> > a 6 digit passcode [can be cracked] in less than about 22 hours
>
> Unless the perp is a good guesser I doubt he would be successful at
> getting any information from my phone.

a good guess certainly works, but that's luck.

111111 and 123456 are two of the most common passcodes.

many people use birthdays, anniversaries, phone numbers, etc., so
finding out a little bit about the person who owns the phone helps for
choosing some likely guesses.

> I found the setting. It's called Auto Factory Reset. It says: "After 15
> incorrect attempts to unlock the phone it will be set to factory default
> settings and all data will be erased including files and downloaded
> apps". I already had it turned on but had forgotten about it in the
> years since I set it when the phone was new.
>
> Course on the other hand with 15 bad tries he apparently now has a
> usable phone which is probably all he wanted in the first place...

worst case, it can be flipped for parts.

[nospam]

In article <t34nte$jr8$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> It depends on the phone and the version of the OS. In some cases it's
> only ten attempts. You'd have to be a pretty good guesser for even a
> four digit pass code with 10,000 different possibilities, with six
> digits it's a million different possibilities.

it's not done using random guesses.

> The most secure biometric is iris scan, followed by 3D fingerprint
> scans.

not even close to correct.

the most secure biometric is apple's existing face id and google's now
discontinued face unlock on the pixel 4. nothing else comes close.

'3d fingerprint scans', your term for an under-screen fingerprint
sensor, as well as iris scans, can easily be spoofed, making them *not*
secure at all, let alone 'most secure'.

<https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/23/samsung-galaxy-s8-ir
is-scanner-german-hackers-biometric-security>
The iris-recognition feature in Samsung零 new Galaxy S8 smartphone
has been defeated by German hackers, less than a month after it hit
shelves around the world.

> 3D FaceID is secure except in cases of siblings and child/parent
> where it has been shown to be compromised.

identical twins is a known shortcoming, however, that has been greatly
improved to where it's unlikely, other relatives are highly unlikely to
work, nor is any of that a significant threat model, largely because
families normally know each other's passcodes.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 12.04.22 um 21:16 schrieb s|b:

> On Sat, 9 Apr 2022 17:21:28 +0200, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>
>> My Pixel 4 recognises my face. Still the fastest way to identfy a person.
>
> Does it work with a photo of your face?

Face recognition is more secure than finger print by factors.


--
De gustibus non est disputandum

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 12.04.22 um 21:43 schrieb nospam:

The process was improved over time. Today even a dead person cannot be
misused to log into the phone anymore AFAIK.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 12.04.22 um 22:37 schrieb sms:

> The most secure biometric is iris scan, followed by 3D fingerprint
> scans. 3D FaceID is secure except in cases of siblings and child/parent
> where it has been shown to be compromised.

You choose: Either you are lying deliberately or you are years behind
the curve.

[AJL]

On 4/12/2022 1:59 PM, nospam wrote:
> AJL <noe...@none.com> wrote:

>> Unless the perp is a good guesser I doubt he would be successful at
>> getting any information from my phone.

> a good guess certainly works, but that's luck.

> 111111 and 123456 are two of the most common passcodes.

> many people use birthdays, anniversaries, phone numbers, etc., so
> finding out a little bit about the person who owns the phone helps
> for choosing some likely guesses.

I wonder how many choose a pin for it being easy to stroke? I use a
combination of 3, 6, and 9 since they're on the right side of the pad
and within easy reach of my thumb. One number gets hit once, one
twice, and one 3 times. Darn did I say too much...

[nospam]

In article <t34pkk$rc6$3...@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch>
wrote:

> The process was improved over time. Today even a dead person cannot be
> misused to log into the phone anymore AFAIK.

face id has always required a live person. a dead person does not work
unless it was moments after death.

[nospam]

In article <t34ptg$rc6$4...@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch>
wrote:

> Am 12.04.22 um 22:37 schrieb sms:
> > The most secure biometric is iris scan, followed by 3D fingerprint
> > scans. 3D FaceID is secure except in cases of siblings and child/parent
> > where it has been shown to be compromised.
>
>
> You choose: Either you are lying deliberately or you are years behind
> the curve.

both can be true.

[nospam]

In article <t34q4k$5k6$1...@dont-email.me>, AJL <noe...@none.com> wrote:

>
> I wonder how many choose a pin for it being easy to stroke?

many do.

nearly all of the most common pin codes have easy to remember patterns:
<https://www.pocket-lint.com/phones/news/148224-these-are-the-20-most-co
mmon-phone-pins-is-your-device-vulnerable>

> I use a
> combination of 3, 6, and 9 since they're on the right side of the pad
> and within easy reach of my thumb. One number gets hit once, one
> twice, and one 3 times. Darn did I say too much...

yes, you did :)

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 12.04.22 um 23:30 schrieb nospam:

This were also my thoughts ...

[Chris]

Nope.

> face id with masks is more compute intensive, which means it's not
> possible for it to work with older iphones where it can't reliably work
> and without excessive delays. that's just reality.
>
> what do you suggest they could have done to make it 'a bit better' for
> most, or perhaps even everyone? again, be specific.
>
>> Many (most?) still have to
>> resort to insecure passcodes.
>
> some do, and passcodes are as secure as the user wants them to be, the
> longer the better, with letters and symbols mixed in being the most
> secure.
>
> a good tradeoff is a long numeric passcode (10+ digits) which is easy
> to tap and long enough that the usual brute force attack is going to
> take a *really* long time, far longer than the lifetime of anyone who
> is interested in cracking it.

You're never going to persuade the average punter to plugin a 10-digit
passcode. Many people struggle with 4-digit PINs.

You are not in touch with reality.

>>> first with mask detection, then apple watch
>>> unlock and finally face id that works with masks.
>>
>> "works" lol. I've watched my kid and wife both with iphone 12s not seeing
>> any change with iOS 15.4.
>
> did they set it up correctly?

Are they holding it wrong? ;)

> face id with masks actually works quite well. it's not perfect all of
> the time, nor would anyone expect it to be.
>
>>> you said that was only 'trying', so again, how could they have done
>>> better? be specific.
>>
>> I've never been a fan of FaceID. TouchID is better for many reasons.
>
> and touch id is worse for others.
>
> touch id doesn't work at all with gloves, which are common in colder
> climates.

Touch screens don't work with gloves either. Those "smart" gloves allow
you to do some very basic things, but typing or accessing app functions
is essentially impossible. So most people end up taking their gloves off
if they're going to be using a phone for anything more than opening a
news app. Like on a bus; see below.

> it also doesn't work with wet or dirty fingers. some people
> have fingerprints that are not readable and can *never* use touch id.

FaceID doesn't work if you're too far away - but still within arms
length - or the phone is not at the right angle. A clear example is flat
on the table next to you - this happens ALL the time. You have either
leer over the phone or pick it up to point it at your face.

A real drag when you want see your notifications. Simply resting your
finger on TouchID was far more usable.

> no system is perfect.

Correct.

> the reality is that touch id has problems in many more situations than
> face id,

Disagree

> with the sole exception of the pandemic, something that was
> unexpected when face id was developed.

Disagree.

>> If
>> they had stuck with it the pandemic would have been a non-issue for *all*
>> iphone users.
>
> right, because apple has this magical crystal ball that can see into
> the future. are you daft?
>
> there was *no* way to know back in 2013, when face id began life in
> apple's labs, to later be introduced in 2017 with the iphone x, that a
> pandemic was coming in 2020 where masks would be common.

There has been warnings of a global flu pandemic for decades. Plus SARS
and MERS were good warnings of something like COVID could happen.
Apple's horizon scanning team should have picked that. They may have done.

>>>>>> Public transport is more commonly used in this
>>>>>> side of the pond than the US and masks are still required. So on journeys
>>>>>> there's many times you need to unlock your phone or access apps.
>>>>>
>>>>> express transit doesn't require authentication and even works if the
>>>>> battery is too low for the phone to be powered on.
>>>>
>>>> Who said anything about express transit? I'm talking about while sitting in
>>>> my seat and using my phone.
>>>
>>> you're the one who mentioned public transit.
>>>
>>> not only is no mask required for express transit, but the phone can
>>> have a dead battery and not even be powered on.
>>
>> Whoosh!
>
> whoosh right back.
>
>> Transport ‚ Transit.
>
> the feature known as express transit is used on public transport (also
> called public transit), thus its name.
>
> it's part of express mode, which allows for additional use cases where
> authentication is not required and even if the battery is dead.

Are you being intentionally dumb? I'm *NOT* taking about boarding a bus
or entering the transport system. I'm perfectly capable of using my
contactless debit card for that - no mask issues.

I *AM* talking about when I am sat on the train/bus and I want to use my
phone whilst wearing a mask. That's when FaceID is a real PITA.

>> Nowhere here uses express transit.
>
> how is that apple's fault?

Stop making up strawmen. Where did I say it was?

> apple provided a solution, however, they can't force everyone to adopt
> it.

Again, express transit is not the issue.

>> Try reading what I
>> wrote.
>
> i did.

Try again. Slowly.

[Chris]

On 12/04/2022 18:28, nospam wrote:
> In article <t345ng$s02$1...@dont-email.me>, AJL <noe...@none.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> passcodes are as secure as the user wants them to be, the longer the
>>> better, with letters and symbols mixed in being the most secure. a
>>> good tradeoff is a long numeric passcode (10+ digits) which is easy
>>> to tap
>>
>> I use a 6 digit pin which is much easier to tap than 10+ digits and I
>> can do it automatically in a second or so without thinking as
>> it becomes automatic.
>
> it's easier, but less secure. there's a tradeoff between security and
> convenience. different people have different threat models.
>
>>> and long enough that the usual brute force attack is going to take a
>>> *really* long time, far longer than the lifetime of anyone who is
>>> interested in cracking it.
>>
>> I don't need a lifetime, just a few hours to change passwords and
>> disable the phone. YMMV...
>
> you don't, but someone trying to crack it might.
>
> a 4 digit passcode can be cracked in less than about 13 minutes, a 6
> digit passcode in less than about 22 hours and a 10 digit passcode will
> take around 25 years.

That's why there are lockouts. A cracker doesn't have unlimited chances.

> alphanumeric passcodes push the amount of time into thousands or
> millions of years,

And utterly unnecessary.

[Chris]

On 12/04/2022 21:59, nospam wrote:
> In article <t34nte$jr8$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
> <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> It depends on the phone and the version of the OS. In some cases it's
>> only ten attempts. You'd have to be a pretty good guesser for even a
>> four digit pass code with 10,000 different possibilities, with six
>> digits it's a million different possibilities.
>
> it's not done using random guesses.
>
>> The most secure biometric is iris scan, followed by 3D fingerprint
>> scans.
>
> not even close to correct.
>
> the most secure biometric is apple's existing face id and google's now
> discontinued face unlock on the pixel 4. nothing else comes close.

Got an independent source to support that assertion?

> '3d fingerprint scans', your term for an under-screen fingerprint
> sensor, as well as iris scans, can easily be spoofed, making them *not*
> secure at all, let alone 'most secure'.
>
> <https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/23/samsung-galaxy-s8-ir
> is-scanner-german-hackers-biometric-security>

> The iris-recognition feature in Samsung¹s new Galaxy S8 smartphone

> has been defeated by German hackers, less than a month after it hit
> shelves around the world.
>
>> 3D FaceID is secure except in cases of siblings and child/parent
>> where it has been shown to be compromised.
>
> identical twins is a known shortcoming, however, that has been greatly
> improved to where it's unlikely, other relatives are highly unlikely to
> work, nor is any of that a significant threat model, largely because
> families normally know each other's passcodes.

You have such an idealised view of families. People are at high risk of
violent crime from family members and people they know, especially
women. If anything people should secure their phones primarily from
their relations, not random people.

[sms]

On 4/13/2022 1:36 AM, Chris wrote:

<snip>

> That's why there are lockouts. A cracker doesn't have unlimited chances.

Precisely. Not just on phones and tablets, but on computers, ATM
machines, home safes, garage door and entry door keypads, and many web
applications.

Still, a fingerprint reader on a phone is a lot more convenient, and
more secure than a PIN code. I can't unlock my someone else's phone with
my fingerprint unless I program my fingerprint in. But PINs are often
written down somewhere or are based on guessable criteria if you know
the person.

[nospam]

In article <t361s2$1im$1...@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> >
> >> However, you're claiming that they've dealt with the issue. They
> >> haven't.
> >
> > they have. see above.
> >
> > again, how would *you* have dealt with the issue? be specific.
> >
> >> It's a bit better for some. That's it.
> >
> > which means they dealt with it.
>
> Nope.

wrong. they *did* deal with it.

still waiting for you to tell us what they could have done better.

> > face id with masks is more compute intensive, which means it's not
> > possible for it to work with older iphones where it can't reliably work
> > and without excessive delays. that's just reality.
> >
> > what do you suggest they could have done to make it 'a bit better' for
> > most, or perhaps even everyone? again, be specific.
> >
> >> Many (most?) still have to
> >> resort to insecure passcodes.
> >
> > some do, and passcodes are as secure as the user wants them to be, the
> > longer the better, with letters and symbols mixed in being the most
> > secure.
> >
> > a good tradeoff is a long numeric passcode (10+ digits) which is easy
> > to tap and long enough that the usual brute force attack is going to
> > take a *really* long time, far longer than the lifetime of anyone who
> > is interested in cracking it.
>
> You're never going to persuade the average punter to plugin a 10-digit
> passcode. Many people struggle with 4-digit PINs.

nobody said anyone was required to use 10 digit passcodes.

you said people had to resort to insecure passcodes. they are as
insecure as the user wants them to be.

those who want more security can choose a longer passcode, while those
who want convenience can choose shorter passcodes, with the tradeoff of
less security. the choice is entirely up to the user based on their own
threat model.

> You are not in touch with reality.

that would be you

>
> > face id with masks actually works quite well. it's not perfect all of
> > the time, nor would anyone expect it to be.
> >
> >>> you said that was only 'trying', so again, how could they have done
> >>> better? be specific.
> >>
> >> I've never been a fan of FaceID. TouchID is better for many reasons.
> >
> > and touch id is worse for others.
> >
> > touch id doesn't work at all with gloves, which are common in colder
> > climates.
>
> Touch screens don't work with gloves either. Those "smart" gloves allow
> you to do some very basic things, but typing or accessing app functions
> is essentially impossible.

get better gloves.

many gloves work quite well for nearly everything that can be done with
a bare finger.

> So most people end up taking their gloves off
> if they're going to be using a phone for anything more than opening a
> news app. Like on a bus; see below.

many people take off their gloves on a bus even without using a phone.

around here, busses have heat and gloves are not needed.

> > it also doesn't work with wet or dirty fingers. some people
> > have fingerprints that are not readable and can *never* use touch id.
>
> FaceID doesn't work if you're too far away - but still within arms
> length

yes it does.

> - or the phone is not at the right angle. A clear example is flat
> on the table next to you - this happens ALL the time. You have either
> leer over the phone or pick it up to point it at your face.
>
> A real drag when you want see your notifications. Simply resting your
> finger on TouchID was far more usable.

you have to point it at your face to be able to use the phone, so
that's not in any way an issue.

that said, off angle has been improved since the original face id
implementation.

>
> >> If
> >> they had stuck with it the pandemic would have been a non-issue for *all*
> >> iphone users.
> >
> > right, because apple has this magical crystal ball that can see into
> > the future. are you daft?
> >
> > there was *no* way to know back in 2013, when face id began life in
> > apple's labs, to later be introduced in 2017 with the iphone x, that a
> > pandemic was coming in 2020 where masks would be common.
>
> There has been warnings of a global flu pandemic for decades. Plus SARS
> and MERS were good warnings of something like COVID could happen.

those were contained and did not turn into anything close to what covid
did.

> Apple's horizon scanning team should have picked that. They may have done.

because they have a crystal ball for such things.

> I *AM* talking about when I am sat on the train/bus and I want to use my
> phone whilst wearing a mask. That's when FaceID is a real PITA.

so tap in a passcode after taking a seat. no big deal.

if that's the worst of your day, then you have it easy.

[nospam]

In article <t3622d$2vl$1...@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> >
> > a 4 digit passcode can be cracked in less than about 13 minutes, a 6
> > digit passcode in less than about 22 hours and a 10 digit passcode will
> > take around 25 years.
>
> That's why there are lockouts. A cracker doesn't have unlimited chances.

yes they do, because they bypass the limit for attempts.

> > alphanumeric passcodes push the amount of time into thousands or
> > millions of years,
>
> And utterly unnecessary.

for you maybe. for others, it's required.

[nospam]

In article <t362kk$6r1$1...@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> >> It depends on the phone and the version of the OS. In some cases it's
> >> only ten attempts. You'd have to be a pretty good guesser for even a
> >> four digit pass code with 10,000 different possibilities, with six
> >> digits it's a million different possibilities.
> >
> > it's not done using random guesses.
> >
> >> The most secure biometric is iris scan, followed by 3D fingerprint
> >> scans.
> >
> > not even close to correct.
> >
> > the most secure biometric is apple's existing face id and google's now
> > discontinued face unlock on the pixel 4. nothing else comes close.
>
> Got an independent source to support that assertion?

look at all of the attempts to spoof the various methods.

apple's face id and the google pixel 4 (which are essentially the same)
are consistently the most difficult to spoof and it's not even close.

everything else is anywhere from fairly minor effort to almost no
effort whatsoever.

samsung's face unlock was spoofed literally minutes after it was
announced, in the hands-on area at the event, by using a selfie taken
on another phone. samsung knows it's worthless which is why it's not
allowed to be used for financial transaction.

in-screen fingerprint sensors can be spoofed with adhesive tape or
reflective foil in as little as 15 minutes. in samsung's case, applying
a screen protector caused the sensor to verify *any* fingerprint. they
obviously never tested it in the real world.

<https://www.tomsguide.com/us/in-screen-fingerprint-tinfoil-flaw,news-28
574.html>
Chinese researchers at Tencent's Xuanwu Lab discovered earlier this
year that they were able to unlock handsets simply by placing a piece
of opaque reflective material ‹ i.e., aluminum foil ‹ over the
in-screen fingerprint readers.

oneplus publicly stated that their fingerprint sensor is not that
secure and was optimized for speed.

> >> 3D FaceID is secure except in cases of siblings and child/parent
> >> where it has been shown to be compromised.
> >
> > identical twins is a known shortcoming, however, that has been greatly
> > improved to where it's unlikely, other relatives are highly unlikely to
> > work, nor is any of that a significant threat model, largely because
> > families normally know each other's passcodes.
>
> You have such an idealised view of families. People are at high risk of
> violent crime from family members and people they know, especially
> women. If anything people should secure their phones primarily from
> their relations, not random people.

you must have a horrible family life.

face id is *not* designed to protect against an evil twin, which is not
a common threat model. it's unlikely that both twins are living near
each other, let alone in the same house, certainly not if they are
enemies.

here in the real world, married couples share their passcodes and even
enroll each other's fingerprint so they can access each other's phone.
face id allows for an alternate appearance, and although it's designed
for the same person, it generally works for a spouse or partner. they
also share bank passwords, house & car keys, etc.

parents know the passcode of their kids phones to make sure they're not
doing things they ought not be doing.

[nospam]

In article <t364qt$mps$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> > That's why there are lockouts. A cracker doesn't have unlimited chances.
>
> Precisely. Not just on phones and tablets, but on computers, ATM
> machines, home safes, garage door and entry door keypads, and many web
> applications.

unlike you, crackers know how to bypass the limit on phones and tablets.

web apps rely on password dumps, no attempts needed. copy/paste works
quite well.

> Still, a fingerprint reader on a phone is a lot more convenient, and
> more secure than a PIN code.

a fingerprint is more secure than a 4 digit pin code, but less secure
than 6 (or more) digits.

what you fail to understand is that the pin code is always an option,
thus a fingerprint offers *no* benefit over a 4 digit code and actually
makes it *less* secure with longer passcodes.

> I can't unlock my someone else's phone with
> my fingerprint unless I program my fingerprint in. But PINs are often
> written down somewhere or are based on guessable criteria if you know
> the person.

a pin can always be used, regardless of enrolling a fingerprint.

and you're also contradicting yourself again.