backtop


Print 31 comment(s) - last by SensibleVision.. on Jan 8 at 5:30 PM


  (Source: ubergizmo.com)
Both companies point towards facial recognition as future log-in

How much time is wasted on creating, managing, remembering, inevitably forgetting, and then resetting a password for your internet-based logins?

If Apple and Google have their way, that question may soon be a thing of the past.
 
The Times of India reports that both companies are working on more sophisticated and personal ways for users to log in to their various accounts, using facial recognition instead of an input character set.

Last week, Apple applied for a patent in the United States for technology called "Low Threshold Face Recognition." 

"Using a forward-facing camera to recognize an individual user, future iPhones and iPads from Apple could automatically customize applications, settings, and features to a user's personal preferences once they pick up the device," explains Apple Insider.

The patent differs from most current facial recognition, which can be a drain on the battery, by focusing on a "high information portion" of a user's face rather than their entire mug. In particular, the device will measure the distance between their eyes and mouth to confirm the user’s identity, giving new meaning to the phrase, "You're holding it wrong."

Meanwhile, Google's Android 4.0 ("Ice Cream Sandwich") comes equipped with face-recognition technology that unlocks a phone by detecting a user's face through its front-facing camera.

However, as PC Mag reports, the technology in its current form is actually less secure than a character-based PIN or password, as one blogger actually unlocked a Samsung Galaxy Nexus using a photograph of the user.

Sources: Times of India, PC Mag



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Uh...
By NullSubroutine on 1/2/2012 9:48:01 AM , Rating: 5
So new wave of "password crackers" that print out pictures of people.




RE: Uh...
By amanojaku on 1/2/2012 10:01:41 AM , Rating: 2
They've already done that. In one case, I read two mobile phones were placed screen-to-screen, and one phone unlocked using the picture of the owner on the other phone screen.

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/11/video-ice-c...


RE: Uh...
By mcnabney on 1/2/2012 10:13:43 AM , Rating: 1
The trick is really only effective if the person trying to get into the phone knows who you are. If you just lose your phone the finder will not know who you are to go fish a picture off of Facebook or something.


RE: Uh...
By kleinma on 1/2/2012 10:17:41 AM , Rating: 5
my buddy got the new verizon nexus from samsung, and they were able to unlock his phone with the face recognition by taking his picture with another smart phone, and holding the smartphone picture up to his phone. This type of tech is simply a gimic and can not be taken seriously for real security.


RE: Uh...
By cmdrdredd on 1/2/2012 12:15:32 PM , Rating: 2
There's even a warning when you enable this feature that says it's not as secure as a password or pin number. I've even heard that sometimes someone with certain facial features similar to yours will unlock the phone. I have this phone but have never used the feature.


RE: Uh...
By bug77 on 1/2/2012 3:36:53 PM , Rating: 4
There are algorithms that can identify a face even when wearing a disguise. I believe IBM has some patents in this area. I don't know if they're suitable for the processing power of a mobile phone, but don't just assume face recognition is only a gimmick. It is, in the way ICS does it, but it doesn't have to be.


RE: Uh...
By kleinma on 1/4/2012 9:12:53 PM , Rating: 2
What about evil twin brothers?


RE: Uh...
By FaaR on 1/2/2012 10:20:43 AM , Rating: 3
Security through obscurity isn't security. You can't rely on bad people not knowing what your face looks like or you're going end up stung in a major way eventually.

If you can unlock something with a photograph of your face instead of your actual face, then it's a faulty system. End of story.


RE: Uh...
By Wolfpup on 1/4/2012 5:28:59 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, and I don't trust this tech yet at all, not that it won't lock me out of my hardware, and not that someone else's face can't unlock it.

I still love the IDEA of this and voice recognition, but year after year every implementation of it is laughable. Heck, I guess that SERI or whatever is doing processing on servers, and still is just a joke from what I've seen.

My non-SERI iPod's voice recognition nails maybe one attempt out of 30.


RE: Uh...
By bjacobson on 1/2/2012 10:29:20 AM , Rating: 2
because nobody has photos of themselves with 5 other friends saved onto their SDcard? Right.


RE: Uh...
By FaaR on 1/2/2012 10:16:57 AM , Rating: 3
Well, iPhones already have "retina" displays, making the intruder's job easier... :P

I can't say I feel very confident in these sort of developments. I dunno bout you, but I'd rather drain my battery a bit rather than have a cheap, simple implementation of facial recognition to unlock something as important as a smartphone is these days. People can basically carry their whole lives in these things now, so security is important.

I'd rather see they develop a scheme where you sweep the phone around your whole face to get the profile as well. Many phones already have MEMS gyros and accelerometers built-in, making tracking easier, and it would defeat attempts to scan a simple photograph or another phone's or computer's screen.


RE: Uh...
By Lerianis on 1/3/2012 7:30:31 AM , Rating: 2
There is an easy way to get around that: make the software look for 'movement' in the frames behind/around the person to make sure that the image in question isn't just a static picture someone printed out.


RE: Uh...
By jRaskell on 1/3/2012 8:17:42 AM , Rating: 2
1. There won't always be movement behind someone genuinely trying to unlock their phone.

2. It'll just make it a bit more difficult to spoof movement behind a picture (as in, print and cut out the profile of the users face, and introduce movement behind that picture). Still by no means difficult to accomplish.


RE: Uh...
By nafhan on 1/3/2012 10:01:19 AM , Rating: 2
So, play a video with the owners face and a non-static background on a second phone/tablet to unlock it. The point is: if you can unlock a device with information that's easily and publicly available, someone will find a way to do so.


Never for security, but...
By Qapa on 1/2/2012 12:31:32 PM , Rating: 5
It is never a good idea for security - as people will make it safer but others will also make sure it is easily crackable with pictures, etc.

On the other hand, this could be easily used to allow multiple profiles to save preferences for multiple users.

For instance:
cars - adjusting the seats, mirrors, temperature, radio stations, ...
mobile phones - providing standard interface for unknown users, and then any customization being saved on personal profile (or even cloud one)

So, it could be used as such:
face: not very safe
face+pass: safe (as safe as current user+pass)
face+common pass: safe if you trust other users in environment (like giving your car key to your wife)

But for instance, most people still don't have passwords (or pass-swipes, ...) for their mobiles. So in those cases using face is better than nothing.. it can even block someone who steals the phone from you from using it.




RE: Never for security, but...
By TSS on 1/2/2012 12:57:40 PM , Rating: 1
Heh funny how you say it's "never" a good idea, but "on the other hand".....

I'm inclined to say just remember your damn password. I mean we've already got calculators so we don't have to remember math, calenders so we don't have to remember the day, clocks so we can forget what time it is, google/spellcheckers so we don't have to remember words or proper grammar (lol had to check if it was grammer or grammar), facebook/twitter so we no longer need to remember speech at all, various talent/reality shows and sitcoms so we don't even have to remember how to think and so on and so forth.

Can we simply please, just try to remember something like 3 unqiue passwords used for increasingly important information? And not let the masses give into sloth for once. It can't be good for the brain if we let... um....

Did i make my point?


By geddarkstorm on 1/2/2012 1:27:25 PM , Rating: 2
I think the OP "on the other hand" was pertaining to using this technology in a non security way (as I agree, using this instead of a password is completely idiotic; nothing is as secure as a passphrase). And I think the OP's ideas are a truly good use for this tech: customizable systems based on the face of the user, to load profiles for, like with the car example automatically adjusting the seat and steering wheel to the right height.

Of course, you know this is going to be used for things like targeted marketing.


RE: Never for security, but...
By jRaskell on 1/3/2012 8:25:40 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
just try to remember something like 3 unqiue passwords used for increasingly important information?


My only contention here is that various service providers are constantly changing their password requirements.

Used to be just about any sort of password was acceptable, not very good.

Then passwords of a minimum 6-8 characters started to be required, getting better.

Then they started requiring at least one number character. Some also required at least one capitalized character, but this isn't universal.

The latest stumbling block I recently ran into was some service providers have started requiring at least one special character now, ie: *, &, $, #, !, etc.

Furthermore, we're going from 1 secret question to 3-5 secret questions.

Carry this out to it's logical conclusion, we're going to end up with 32+ character completely random passwords that are impossible to remember, and every single service provider is going to know our complete life history.

Nevermind the fact that no two providers have the same list of secret questions, and being a single person never married, half the questions I can't even answer.

Frankly, in some of these cases, dealing with the occasionally hacked account is easier than the inane security measures that are being put in place.


RE: Never for security, but...
By FaaR on 1/3/2012 11:03:43 AM , Rating: 2
You're single and didn't marry, and furthermore, your mother had no maiden name either, you didn't go to any school, you had no pets, and you're also completely color blind so you have no favorite color.

Thus, there's not a single secret question in the universe you'll be able to answer... ;)


RE: Never for security, but...
By nafhan on 1/3/2012 3:12:24 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like you should check out keepass or lastpass. Both allow you to be more secure than you probably are now, and remove some of the hassle of dealing with inane password requirements.


RE: Never for security, but...
By Dr of crap on 1/3/2012 1:00:46 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, but you are not to reuse a password to much!
If yours is stolen, then how much of your life is opened up by only having 3 passwords?

And remember not to write them down anywhere for fear that they can be stolen.

So to summerize,
you need many passwords,
don't repeat them to often
and DON'T write them down anywhere.

Yea, that's easy!
What we need is some imbedded piece, like dogs get injected into them, that has our info stored and all we need to do is pass our hand over the reader. Ah, but of course then hands cut off.

Is there a better mouse trap (security system) out there?


RE: Never for security, but...
By Fritzr on 1/4/2012 2:42:41 PM , Rating: 2
Biochip passwords suffer the same weakness as any other form of RFID. A covert RFID reader to match the chip info with some other identifying action and they now can identify themselves as an inperson transaction by you.

As someone already said, never underestimate the bad guy's ability to break the security.


Good face recognition
By SensibleVision-KB on 1/2/2012 8:14:44 PM , Rating: 2
This article describes a small part of the technology that FastAccess has used since we innovated this type of face recognition in 2006. At CES next week, we will demonstrate FastAccess Anywhere – for mobile. Using patent pending technology, we have optimized it to recognize faces in real-world mobile conditions. Our tech is highly resistant to photo and video of an enrolled person’s face. sensiblevision.com/faa




RE: Good face recognition
By bennyg on 1/3/2012 9:27:59 AM , Rating: 1
If your tech is great and is adopted, you can be sure that yet another broad bullshit prior art patent will be used by Apple to sue you for your success.

Or maybe you hired Apple's lawyers and went through the same lazy patent scrutineers and have bullshit patents of your own.


By SensibleVision-KB on 1/8/2012 5:29:50 PM , Rating: 2
FaaR is correct--there is much earlier prior art in this area. However, our current patents pending cover important and specific features and functions not found in prior art that allows face recognition to work with convenience and security. To Bennyg point- we believe that the whole patent process could really stand improvement. One of the reasons we file for patents is to help ensure we can protect our ability to offer products to the public, perhaps minimizing the possibly of harassment of others. In a more perfect world this would not be necessary.


RE: Good face recognition
By FaaR on 1/3/2012 11:06:41 AM , Rating: 2
Facial recognition patented tech you pioneered in 2006? Yeah, that sounds like the dawning era of facial recognition for sure... Lol. Good luck with not getting snared by prior art mate.


By SensibleVision-KB on 1/8/2012 5:30:36 PM , Rating: 2
FaaR is correct--there is much earlier prior art in this area. However, our current patents pending cover important and specific features and functions not found in prior art that allows face recognition to work with convenience and security.


password vs tracking
By lucyfek on 1/2/2012 12:50:27 PM , Rating: 2
With all the added convenience few would think about tracking possibilities enabled by this feature. You use your random username to post some "anonymous" comments yet your face gives you away everywhere you go (I guess they store some hash of the image but the biggest players may use the same function all over the place - to enable tracking "customers").
I'll stick with passwords for now.




Wait
By sprockkets on 1/2/2012 2:29:43 PM , Rating: 2
Before this becomes a meme, there are already face recognition software for laptops, and it has been observed that using a picture did NOT work in fooling the system to unlock it. How it knows the difference we don't know, but it appears possible that the reason for the obvious issue of pictures unlocking the Android version of this technology is limited to them only.

In short, they simply need to make it better and not just a gimick.




Good face recognition
By SensibleVision-KB on 1/8/2012 5:29:12 PM , Rating: 2
FaaR is correct--there is much earlier prior art in this area. However, our current patents pending cover important and specific features and functions not found in prior art that allows face recognition to work with convenience and security. To Bennyg point- we believe that the whole patent process could really stand improvement. One of the reasons we file for patents is to help ensure we can protect our ability to offer products to the public, perhaps minimizing the possibly of harassment of others. In a more perfect world this would not be necessary.




Hate to break it to Apple
By Solandri on 1/2/2012 2:19:09 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The patent differs from most current facial recognition, which can be a drain on the battery, by focusing on a "high information portion" of a user's face rather than their entire mug. In particular, the device will measure the distance between their eyes and mouth to confirm the user’s identity

That's how facial recognition worked in the 1980s and 1990s when we didn't have the processing power we do today. In fact that's how the mass facial recognition used in public places works (albeit not very well).
http://articles.cnn.com/2001-09-28/us/rec.airport....

Appending the words "on a phone" to old technology does not make it patent-worthy.




"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki