±Forensic Focus Partners

Become an advertising partner

±Your Account


Forgotten password/username?

Site Members:

New Today: 0 Overall: 33324
New Yesterday: 0 Visitors: 227

±Follow Forensic Focus

Forensic Focus Facebook PageForensic Focus on TwitterForensic Focus LinkedIn GroupForensic Focus YouTube Channel

RSS feeds: News Forums Articles

±Latest Articles

RSS Feed Widget

±Latest Webinars

Face ID Forensics

Discussion of forensic issues related to all types of mobile phones and underlying technologies (GSM, GPRS, UMTS/3G, HSDPA, LTE, Bluetooth etc.)
Subforums: Mobile Telephone Case Law
Reply to topicReply to topic Printer Friendly Page
Forum FAQSearchView unanswered posts
Go to page Previous  1, 2 

Re: Face ID Forensics

Post Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 2:38 am

Willing to learn: What shall I do?  

Senior Member

Re: Face ID Forensics

Post Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 3:12 am

This article suggests a mask can be used to fool Face ID www.securityweek.com/i...assed-mask
Institute for Digital Forensics (IDF) - www.linkedin.com/groups/2436720
Mobile Telephone Examination Board (MTEB) - www.linkedin.com/groups/141739
Universal Network Investigations - www.linkedin.com/groups/13536130
Mobile Telephone Evidence & Forensics trewmte.blogspot.com 

Senior Member

Re: Face ID Forensics

Post Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 12:13 pm

Senior Member

Re: Face ID Forensics

Post Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 2:54 pm

- trewmte
This article suggests a mask can be used to fool Face ID ...

And not too long ago it was shown that just by changing a few pixels, image identification tools could be badly fooled:


Somewhere around there, real forensics starts: how well does some particular method tell faces apart -- how many possibilities are there really? How robust is it -- how well does it avoid being fooled by unimportant differences? (What happens if we change a pixel?) How well has it been validated -- not only only on employees of Apple, or their friends, one hopes? And how well does it adapt to future members of the pool of test subjects -- does it have a reasonable life time?

All kinds of identification/individualization claims have been made for various methods and are still being made without any solid base: individualization of audio recording, by hair characteristics, by bite marks, by gun bullet markings, as well as their composition ... and even by eye witness identification. I shouldn't wonder if identification by keyboard typing characteristics belong there as well.

What disclaimers does face id identification need to make? Too many?


Useful reading, though occasionally a little dry (can be found on-line):

Saks, Michael J. and Koehler, Jonathan J., The Individualization Fallacy in Forensic Science Evidence (2008). Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol 61, No. 1, pp. 199-219, 2008. Available at SSRN: ssrn.com/abstract=1432516

Section V.B. is probably the most important to read.  

Senior Member

Re: Face ID Forensics

Post Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:00 am

Great post! Disclaimers always occur when it comes to responsibility and liability. If users would keep one eye like the give one hand to their mobile and hold it like being life-threatening no unlock mechanisms would be needed. Personal life-balanced-economy related to all resources a person has would result in strongly focus on the important in life. In BigData the principle of 'Gold first' is crucial. This also is valid for information in general, today more digital than audible.

So being focused and concentrated on one or just a few life-processes would result in having the no such problems of femto-second winnings by facial authentication.

BTW: Very interesting paper, absolutely worth studying Smile  

Senior Member

Page 2 of 2
Go to page Previous  1, 2