Face ID is a Face Unlock facial recognition system designed and developed by Apple Inc. for the iPhone X. It is a type of biometric authentication technology intended to succeed Touch ID, a fingerprint-based system. It was announced on September 12, 2017, and is currently only available on the iPhone X, released on 3 November 2017.
Face ID consists of a sensor with two modules; one projects a grid of more than 30,000 infrared dots onto a user's face, and another module reads the pattern to confirm or deny access. This generates a 3D facial map stored in a local, secured area of the device's processor, inaccessible by Apple itself. The system learns from changes in a user's face over time, and can therefore successfully recognize the owner while wearing glasses, hats, scarves, makeup, many types of sunglasses or with changes in beard. The system does not work with eyes closed.
Face ID has sparked a debate about security and privacy. Apple claims it is significantly more advanced than Touch ID, having far fewer false positives, though media reports have discussed the fact that Face ID and other biometric unlocking systems do not have the same level of constitutional privacy as a passcode in the United States. Face ID has shown mixed results when trying to separate identical twins, and the promise of enhanced security has been challenged by hackers and mask makers trying to infiltrate it; at least one of such attempts has been successful, though difficult to perform. Third-party app developers can also request access to "rough maps" of user facial data for their apps, causing concerns among privacy advocates despite rigid requirements by Apple of how developers handle facial data.
Face ID is intended to replace Touch ID, the fingerprint-based authentication technology used on the iPhone 8 and earlier Apple devices. Face ID is based a facial recognition sensor that consists of two parts: a "Romeo" module that projects more than 30,000 infrared dots onto the user's face, and a "Juliet" module that reads the pattern. The pattern is sent to a local "Secure Enclave" in the device's central processing unit (CPU) to confirm a match with the phone owner's face. The facial pattern is not accessible by Apple. The system will not work with eyes closed, in an effort to prevent unauthorized access under the TrueTone lens.But user can disable this function by setting, which would allow unlock even if the eyes are not open.
Apple claimed the probability of someone else unlocking a phone with Face ID is 1 in 1,000,000 as opposed to Touch ID at 1 in 50,000. If the user's phone has been rebooted, has not been unlocked for 48 hours, 5 unsuccessful attempts have been made or the technology is manually disabled by the user squeezing the device's side buttons, Face ID gets disabled, requiring a passcode instead.
It also works in the dark. This is done by using a "Flood Illuminator", which is a dedicated infrared flash that throws out invisible infrared light onto the user's face to properly read the 30,000 facial points.
Inconsistent results have been shown when testing Face ID on identical twins, with some tests showing the system managing to separate the two, while other tests have failed. The system has additionally been fooled by close relatives. Apple states that the probability of a false match is different for twins and siblings, as well as children under 13 years of age, as "their distinct facial features may not have fully developed".
Face ID has raised concerns regarding the possibility of law enforcement accessing an individual's phone by pointing the device at the user's face. United States Senator Al Franken asked Apple to provide more information on the security and privacy of Face ID a day after the announcement, with Apple responding by highlighting the recent publication of a security white paper and knowledge base detailing answers.
The Verge noted that courts in the United States have granted different Fifth Amendment rights in the United States Constitution to biometric unlocking systems as opposed to keycodes. Keycodes are considered "testimonial" evidence based on the contents of users' thoughts, whereas fingerprints are considered physical evidence, with some suspects having been ordered to unlock their phones via fingerprint.
Many people have attempted to break through Face ID with sophisticated masks, though most have failed. In November 2017, Vietnamese security firm Bkav announced in a blog post that it had successfully created a $150 mask that tricked Face ID, though WIRED noted that Bkav’s technique was more of a "proof-of-concept" rather than active exploitation risk, with the technique requiring a detailed measurement or digital scan of the iPhone owner’s face, putting the real risk of danger only to targets of espionage and world leaders.
Reuters reported in early November 2017 that Apple would share certain facial data on users with third-party app developers for more precise selfie filters and for fictional game characters to mirror real-world user facial expressions. Although developers are required to seek customer permission, are not allowed to sell the data to others nor create profiles on users nor use the data for advertising, and are limited to a more "rough map" rather than full capabilities, they still get access to over 50 kinds of facial expressions. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Center for Democracy and Technology raised privacy questions about Apple’s enforcement of the privacy restrictions connected to third-party access, with Apple maintaining that its App Store review processes were effective safeguards. The "rough map" of facial data third-parties can access is also not enough to unlock the device, according to Reuters. However, the overall idea of letting developers access sensitive facial information was still not satisfactorily handled, according to Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst with the ACLU, with Stanley telling Reuters that "the privacy issues around of the use of very sophisticated facial recognition technology for unlocking the phone have been overblown. … The real privacy issues have to do with the access by third-party developers".
None of the audio/visual content is hosted on this site. All media is embedded from other sites such as GoogleVideo, Wikipedia, YouTube etc. Therefore, this site has no control over the copyright issues of the streaming media.
All issues concerning copyright violations should be aimed at the sites hosting the material. This site does not host any of the streaming media and the owner has not uploaded any of the material to the video hosting servers. Anyone can find the same content on Google Video or YouTube by themselves.
The owner of this site cannot know which documentaries are in public domain, which has been uploaded to e.g. YouTube by the owner and which has been uploaded without permission. The copyright owner must contact the source if he wants his material off the Internet completely.