Is the new iPhone fingerprint reader hacked yet?

|
(67)
The future has already been hacked.

Apparently, the answer is yes. Wired is reporting that a German hacker with the European organization Chaos Computer Club has found a way to fake out Apple’s brand new Touch ID fingerprint reader, rolled out as a security feature.

The hacker, who goes by Starbug, demonstrated that the phones can be hacked with replicas of real fingerprints constructed with pink latex milk or woodglue. It isn’t the first time CCC set out to prove the flaws in biometric security systems – a few years ago, the hackers published the image of a fingerprint belonging to a German interior minister who was strongly advocating for new electronic passports that would be linked to individuals’ fingerprints.

A few weeks ago, we reported that San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon and other law enforcement officials had banned together to call on smartphone manufacturers to implement new security features as a way to address growing theft of mobile devices. Apparently, the fingerprint ID systems don’t offer the level of security Apple was hoping for. The latest iPhones, which include fingerprint readers, were just released Sept. 20.

According to the SFPD, more than 50 percent of robberies occurring every day involve smartphones.

Comments

doesn't get something 100% right at the first attempt, and the SFBG is thrilled?

Obviously we should have put some SFMuni workers on the job instead, right?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 12:35 pm

That's not why I decided to highlight this at all. The item caught my eye because I spent a year working on international digital privacy issues and gained an in-depth understanding of the concerns raised by security researchers and civil liberties advocates internationally around emerging biometric identification systems (passports, national ID proposals, consumer products, etc). I've published numerous articles on biometric ID sytems, some of which led to invitations to speak on national radio. Thanks for reading but I'm sorry to inform you that your assumption is incorrect.

Posted by rebecca on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 1:23 pm

objective and investigative news story without ant angle, agenda or bias, then I would commend you on it.

But isn't that also your dilemma? If you produce a dispassionate factual article then you are not practicing "advocacy journalism" at all, which is contrary to the SFBG ethos of always slanting the news to suit the agenda of the far left.

While if you instead put out the usual "big business is bad" meme then you're in sync with the SFBG policy of deliberate bias but you are no longer practicing real journalism.

I'd rather you did real journalism rather than editorial journalism, but that might get you fired for a lack of prejudice.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 1:41 pm

"I'd rather you did real journalism rather than editorial journalism"

I really don't think they give a fuck what you think. I know I wouldn't! jesus, the arrogance! So you live under some grand illusion that they care what you think they should do? Loco/a.

Crazy Person: There are many sites on the internet where you find that "real journalism" that you so desire and crave. Use your search engine (do you know the term?) and maybe you can find a site with that "real journalism" since this site doesn't appear to satisfy your desire or meet your expectations. And when you ass is gone from this site I know I'll celebrate.

Rebecca, thanks for the article.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 3:59 pm
Posted by Guest on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 6:05 pm

That concept is a mythical milquetoast standard cynically manufactured by 20th century newspaper owners to give themselves an excuse to water down their content so that it wouldn't offend any potential advertisers.

Before the advent of the modern Bernaysian PR state, the concept of 'objective' (or what you ridiculously call 'real' journalism) didn't exist.

Good and effective journalists and news media know full well that every story and every paper has a bias (also known less pejoratively as a 'slant') and they acknowledge this rather than trying to hide it behind some foolish Wizard-of-Oz curtain.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 4:12 pm

that progressives don't agree with, they call it faux news. When it is agitprop they agree with it is a good bias.

I'm all for biased news outlets, I think that is a healthy thing for democracy.

I just find it entertaining that the far left and right are so worried that people might be influenced by bad bias.

Posted by Matlock on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 5:10 pm
Posted by Guest on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 6:04 pm

Like I said I'm fine with bias, I think most people can see through it.

It's the true believers who get all worked up one way or another over it. The bias they agree with is revealed truth, the bias they don't agree with is manipulating and fooling the other 90% of the population. This is why when confronted with counter opinions the progressives howl about people being manipulated by Faux news, because they are so easily swayed by progressive ravings they think everyone is else fooled by Faux news.

Just as conspiracy theory types want to conspire, true believers want to manipulate, they think everyone has the same thinking pathology they do.

Posted by Matlock on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 6:23 pm

The left is so blinkered that they actually think they aren't biased at all. They think they are moderate centrists, except that 99% of Americans are to the right of them. But it's takes little conscious effort for a progressive to believe that 99% are wrong while only they see the real truth.

Someone like Eric would never admit that he is as biased to the left as the KKK are to the right, but I believe most would see the analogy.

It's also entirely possible to consciously strip out bias. But only if you want to.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 7:04 pm

this is simply a troll barrier

it is a signpost to indicate to the reader that other anonymous posters on this thread are beginning to purposely diminish the conversation into petty, mean spirited, personal attacks and irrelevant bickering

the barrier is put in place to signal that there is probably little point in reading more replies in the thread past this point

proceed at your own risk

Posted by troll barrier on Sep. 24, 2013 @ 12:08 am

this is simply a troll barrier

it is a signpost to indicate to the reader that other anonymous posters on this thread are beginning to purposely diminish the conversation into petty, mean spirited, personal attacks and irrelevant bickering

the barrier is put in place to signal that there is probably little point in reading more replies in the thread past this point

proceed at your own risk

Posted by troll barrier on Sep. 24, 2013 @ 12:09 am

education. Evidently that passed you by.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 6:13 pm

...as it applies to the sciences. Journalism, especially political journalism, is a completely different animal and an absolutely subjective pursuit. Anyone who tries to claim otherwise is fooling himself. The idea that you or I, or anyone else on Earth who enters into a situation or a place to report on it, does not carry myriad complex and ineluctable biases with them when they do so, is absurd.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 24, 2013 @ 12:06 am

Take the Oscar Grant incident: Three versions:

1) Left-wing bias: "Innocent black youth profiled and shot by brutal repressive police in travesty of justice."

2) Right-wing bias: "Vicious thug with multiple felon convictions subdued by brave police officers.

3) Neutral bias: "A youth aged 22 was today shot and killed by police during an incident on BART".

We want more 3 and less 1 and 2. you're just trying to rationalize your own bias.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 24, 2013 @ 9:43 am

What we need is something that explains to us what actually happened and includes any biases, errors, aggressiveness or racist propensities of either party, but especially on the part of the police.

Why? Because the police in that incident were the ones with the guns, and when you are given the profound responsibility of carrying around a deadly weapon, it is up to -you- to make sure that nothing goes wrong, not the unarmed general public that is faced with business end of the gun barrel.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 24, 2013 @ 11:38 am

We do not want "especially" criticism of the cops any more than of the felon here. What we want is a neutral unbiased rendition of the event, without the observor imposing his or her personal bias.

I have no interest in hearing your account of any topic because it is so massively riddled in an extreme left-wing view that almost nobody shares. I want to learn about event dispassionately and see both sides of any topic represented fairly and fully.

That said, I had little problem with the Grant incident personally.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 24, 2013 @ 11:54 am

this is simply a troll barrier

it is a signpost to indicate to the reader that other anonymous posters on this thread are beginning to purposely diminish the conversation into petty, mean spirited, personal attacks and irrelevant bickering

the barrier is put in place to signal that there is probably little point in reading more replies in the thread past this point

proceed at your own risk

Posted by troll barrier on Sep. 24, 2013 @ 12:07 pm

What I'm saying is that we need -both- extreme left wing and right wing reports assessing news (and a full spectrum of myriad views in between and tangent to these) so that the public has all possible angles on a story and can then make up their own minds as to what happened.

Any good news reader knows to remember the bias of the source.

For example RT has some excellent reports criticizing the U.S. and neo-liberal economics, but I know well enough not to trust a damned thing that RT says about Russia.

More perspectives helps better educate the reader, and a more educated reader is a more educated and effective citizen.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 24, 2013 @ 12:05 pm

it's important to not trust any report where the source is suspect.

But that's not the same as saying that unbiased coverage isn't possible. Maybe in the US it but you'd be hard pushed to find much bias in the BBC, for instance, although apparently some in Europe think it is too left-wing.

NPR tries but also has a clear liberal bias. They do give both sides of the story but there's a lot of precious and political correct stuff esp. around minorities.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 24, 2013 @ 12:23 pm

WTF? That's outdated information.

The BBC has become nothing but a shill for the US government (just like the UK government is a "poodle" shill for the US government). Latest example: They couldn't wait until The Empire attacked Syria. The BBC essentially died as a credible news organization after the Andrew Gilligan affair years ago.

The same for NPR (National Pentagon Radio). Merely stenographers for the US government. In fact many of their so-called "reporters" work for the corporate media and serve as shills for the US government. I stopped listening to National Propaganda Radio years ago---not long after that Cokie Roberts (who was also on corporate ABC News at the same time) was gushing over George Bush and calling him "a very attractive candidate,"---but these days I frequently read comments on forums from people who do listen to it and that's what they now say about it. Their comments match and add to the reason I stopped listening to npr.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 24, 2013 @ 4:18 pm

because you are way to the left and so it appears that way to you.

Just because the BBC reports the arguments for bombing Syria doesn't make it right-wing because there are perfectly valid reasons for considering that as an option.

And George Bush was elected twice as President. The fact that you personally didn't like him doesn't mean that he wasn't very popular with the moderate majority. He was.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 24, 2013 @ 4:36 pm

You are really loco/a.

George W Bush was never elected. He was selected for the first term by his friends on the US Supreme Court after the stealing of the election in FL. Where were you? On here trolling? His second term was achieved by the stealing of the election in FL and OH. Even John Kerry said "the election was probably stolen." Where you were? On here with your trolling addition? Brain dead.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 5:00 am

people should note that the words 'right wing' clearly did not appear *anywhere* in the post that you responded to

the poster said that NPR & BBC are shills for u.s. policies and militarism, not that they were 'right wing'

it is standard practice for pathetic fucks like you to use the deceptive bullshit debate tactic of purposely pretending the person you are attacking said something they did not, in hopes that readers won't notice, and will then fall for your crap reactionary argument which wouldn't stand up without the deception

but we of course do notice, which means you are making a complete idiot of yourself

Posted by racer x on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 7:56 am

this is simply a troll barrier

it is a signpost to indicate to the reader that other anonymous posters on this thread are beginning to purposely diminish the conversation into reactionary hyperbole and/or petty, mean spirited, personal attacks and irrelevant bickering

the barrier is put in place to signal that there is probably little point in reading more replies in the thread past this point

proceed at your own risk

Posted by troll barrier on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 7:57 am

Lilli's up!

Anyone wanna bet that lilli and racer x are the same person?

Posted by LOL Barrier on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 8:17 am

Lilli, who we know better, is technologically illiterate (doesn't even know how to get past the capthca spamguard nor how to change his IP) and this "pair" have slipped up a few times by forgetting to change their signoff.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 8:32 am

i find lilli to be a frequently irritating semi-troll as well - who i've slapped with a couple of troll barriers already

i am not the same person

another thing you fools don't seem to have noticed is that several different people are now using the troll barrier since i invented it

because it is working ;)

Posted by racer x on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 8:47 am

Let's see - neither you nor lilli believe in using punctuation.

You fire up an obscenity-filled rant, and a troll barrier follows the rant one minute later.

I also don't believe that "several different people" are using the troll barrier "because it is working" - it takes a very special person to believe that the troll barrier is accomplishing anything, and I don't believe that multiple people would think that.

Posted by LOL Barrier on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 8:58 am

and they both share an almost total lack of understanding of technology.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 9:13 am

because the idea of it (insofar as it has a coherent idea at all and anyone cares) is that no posting should happen after it is invoked.

The fact that you have to use multiple barriers in each thread shows it isn't working.

But if it gives you something to do all day, then I guess it is achieving something. Meanwhile the rest of us get on with the serious business of debating policies.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 9:05 am

i actually made an exception and engaged in this exchange because it's a slow casual morning and i simply wanted to let you all know that this lilli assumption is incorrect

the fact that you are basing the assumption merely on the absence of capital letters in my posts shows that you are approaching combating your nagging troll barrier situation through a pretty juvenile thought process

i'm therefore not surprised that you think (or at least are trying to pretend) the troll barriers are not working

they certainly are, for what i designed them to do

Posted by racer x on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 9:30 am

this is simply a troll barrier

it is a signpost to indicate to the reader that other anonymous posters on this thread are beginning to purposely diminish the conversation into reactionary hyperbole and/or petty, mean spirited, personal attacks and irrelevant bickering

the barrier is put in place to signal that there is probably little point in reading more replies in the thread past this point

proceed at your own risk

Posted by troll barrier on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 9:31 am

I know I have won the debate.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 8:10 am

obscenities are just words like any other words

and they are incredibly effective

in fact your cheap resort to focusing on obscenities, instead of my point, shows that it is you who doesn't have a cogent argument and instead have to fall back on an empty attack of language, instead of an actual argument to counter what I put forward

Posted by racer x on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 8:37 am

debate effectively and an inability to manage your emotions.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 8:45 am

in the real world, people use curse words to effectively express themselves

calling you a "reactionary" for example, simply doesn't capture your essence

but calling you a reactionary prudish twit

gets it spot on

Posted by racer x on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 9:17 am

this is simply a troll barrier

it is a signpost to indicate to the reader that other anonymous posters on this thread are beginning to purposely diminish the conversation into reactionary hyperbole and/or petty, mean spirited, personal attacks and irrelevant bickering

the barrier is put in place to signal that there is probably little point in reading more replies in the thread past this point

proceed at your own risk

Posted by troll barrier on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 9:18 am

I no longer feel concerned about being mugged because I don't carry a "smartphone" with me and I'm aware of my surroundings and there are far more better targets out there than me. Those who do and are staring at that screen as well as plugged in with earbuds no matter where they are day or night are the prime targets. But they don't seem to care. What stupid people! Fucking sheep. It takes the pressure off of us who really don't have the phone, earbuds and smoking addiction. I see people getting off of Muni and they are frantic in getting to that cigarette addiction and that phone addiction at the same time. The lighting of the cigarette usually comes before their phone addiction begins, but not always: Sometimes the phone is first and then the cigarette.

Okay "first poster" troll. Let's hear how you think all of this is perfectly okay.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 3:46 pm

Rather than blame the victim, ask yourself what motivates someone to steal. Deal with the perpetrator first.

Posted by chris on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 4:15 pm

Tech Troll: The point which you conveniently seem to miss is that these gadgets are an addiction. Why would someone be on one and completely oblivious to their surroundings in a major city? What nut walks around or stands around in a major city completely unaware of their surroundings because they are distracted by their gadget? How intelligent is that? That's not even using basic "common sense."

Why would anyone think that these gadgets would protect them from crime/muggings? That seems to be the thinking of those addicted to them: "Oh, I'm texting so no one will bother me." Or, "Oh, I'm on a sex app looking for a hookup so I'm immuned from being attacked by a mugger." Ha! Idiots.

And I think it's a basic given why someone steals: THEY WANT $$. Duh.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 4:43 pm

I love the high logic progressives resort to.

Posted by Matlock on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 5:45 pm

I know you are unfortunately possessed by progressives 24 hours a day and apparently cannot afford an exorcism to relieve you from your obsession and misery.

I'm not a progressive, so you are incorrect, as usual.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 7:58 pm

Nice start to your argument calling me a name.

On to the motivation, I think it is a bit more nuanced than just "$$" as you articulated it.
Lets be generous and say you get $150 for an iPhone, That's not much for the risk, so I suspected some are motivated by other things such as the excitement of robbing some one.
Others are motivated by pier pressure.
But lets say you are correct and it is just the money, I can think of easier and less risky ways to make a quick $150, But then this means there is a lack of education/role models/opportunities
The above raises some interesting questions and debate.
But hay lets blame the "stupid techies" as that is far easier and fits your world view more neatly.You and your ilk are the very reason I rarely read this blog any more you aren't worth it.

Posted by Chris on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 6:36 pm

I'm struggling to see the SFBG angle here, more than just the usual cheap shot at successful tech workers and a lingering sympathy for criminals.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 7:15 pm

this is simply a troll barrier

it is a signpost to indicate to the reader that other anonymous posters on this thread are beginning to purposely diminish the conversation into petty, mean spirited, personal attacks and irrelevant bickering

the barrier is put in place to signal that there is probably little point in reading more replies in the thread past this point

proceed at your own risk

Posted by troll barrier on Sep. 24, 2013 @ 12:16 am

criminals weigh their opportunities between various levels of crimes of opportunity, or becoming PHD candidates?

I do like your dreamy reasons why someone may commit crime and then talk about how interesting your dreamy points are.

I think I'm going try and work that into my thing.

"People commit crime because they are not double naught spies, I think that if the NSA and CIA hired more at risk youth to be double naught spies we would have less crime, also what if cats barked and dogs meowed? What a trip, my hands get real big when I'm stoned too."

Deep right?

Posted by Matlock on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 7:38 pm

this is simply a troll barrier

it is a signpost to indicate to the reader that other anonymous posters on this thread are beginning to purposely diminish the conversation into petty, mean spirited, personal attacks and irrelevant bickering

the barrier is put in place to signal that there is probably little point in reading more replies in the thread past this point

proceed at your own risk

Posted by troll barrier on Sep. 24, 2013 @ 12:15 am

I didn't the usual SFBG party line about any failure being traceable to Ed Lee and PG&E. Steven probably would have made that case but I didn't see it in this article.

But what I thought was strange was the reference to street crime. Do we really think that the punks on Muni are going to construct "replicas of real fingerprints constructed with pink latex milk or woodglue"?.

It would be easier just to break the finger off.

But what was left out of this article is that you need a password AND the finger or the phone soon becomes a brick.

Posted by Troll on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 6:52 pm

piece was actually mostly devoid of the kind of scurrilous slant and blatant bias that SFBG articles are usually riddled with.

It almost feels as if Rebecca has ambitions to work for a real newspaper one day, and needs to prime her resume.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 7:08 pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Related articles

  • Seeking technology and economic/social justice columnists

  • Positive starts

    GOOD TECH ISSUE Toward a more holistic integration of technology into Bay Area life

  • Judging hackers

    GOOD TECH ISSUE: Social Good Hackathon wants nerds, Luddites...and even the Guardian