No IPhone 5S discussion?

Stuart_h · 28-10-2013, 14:32

Quote:

If you are a security expert surely you would realise that using a fingerprint is not secure enough for this purpose.

It may be useful as a part of your identity check but you would also need to enter information which would only be in your brain. ( to clarify some data that can also be changed if compromised )

Now if someone can get my debit card pin number from scanning my brain that would be a neat trick.

never said 'security expert'

... and im sure even you can figure out there are far easier ways of getting someones PIN number

difference is if you think someone knows it its a pretty easy job to change it

jonner101 · 28-10-2013, 15:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart_h

never said 'security expert'

... and im sure even you can figure out there are far easier ways of getting someones PIN number

difference is if you think someone knows it its a pretty easy job to change it

I don't quite understand the point you're making.

You appeared to imply that people could get someone's fingerprint from an apple phone and therefore it would render any biometric fingerprints when banking null and void ?

But isn't it obvious that relying on a fingerprint to access you're bank account is already null and void as you don't need an apple phone or indeed any electronic equipment to obtain someone's fingerprint. It would at most be one step of the chain to establish identity.

Stiggles · 28-10-2013, 15:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

No - I mentioned "100% secure" because you moved the goalposts from "more secure" to "secure" or "not secure".

Jesus christ. You just won't stop will you?

I never moved the goalposts, i made a cockup while posting...

Again, you knew my original stance by my first post, so why are you continuing this absolute nonsense?

Quote:

If you did not mean "100% secure" when you did that, then could you explain what you do mean when you say "secure", and also how that differs from what Apple mean when they say "secure"?

I NEVER SAID 100% SECURE....I NEVER SAID APPLE SAID THAT EITHER...

Why are you making this stuff up?

Quote:

If Apple have not claimed that it is unhackable, how exactly is it less secure than they claim?

Sorry, where did i say apple said this either?

See what i mean? Making up shite just to prolong your pathetic argument.

Stiggles · 28-10-2013, 15:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by tdenson

There is only one person making personal attacks in this thread, that is Stiggles being his usual abusive self when he can't respond with a rational response to a perfectly rational question

Awwww thanks

I was waiting on you popping in to add this most excellent post and contribution to the subject matter. You are far to obvious

Anyway, there can be no rational responses given to trolls who spout out the same nonsense over and over again. Nor to trolls on here that make nonsense up to satisfy their own sad argument which is what Mr Pie is doing. I dont expect you to understand since your just as bad as them 9/10 times.

EDIT:- Oh dear, look...I made an error in the post...Anyone want to start a 2 page argument about it?.....

calico_pie · 28-10-2013, 16:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stiggles

Jesus christ. You just won't stop will you?

I never moved the goalposts, i made a cockup while posting...

Again, you knew my original stance by my first post, so why are you continuing this absolute nonsense?

I NEVER SAID 100% SECURE....

Sorry, where did i say apple said this either?

See what i mean? Making up shite just to prolong your pathetic argument.

Unless trying to figure out what you are trying to say makes me a troll then no, I'm not a troll.

You've already said that you didn't say 100% secure, which is precisely why I asked you what you do mean when you say "secure"?

It made no sense to say that it wasn't as secure as Apple claimed.

Then, rather than say how secure Apple claimed it was, you just reduced to "secure" or "not secure".

If you deemed anything that could be hacked to be "not secure", it logically followed that the only way to be "secure" was to be 100% secure.

Even if that's not what you meant, that's how it came across.

And I wasn't the only one who struggled to make sense of what you were trying to say.

So if that wasn't what you meant, how would you define "secure"?

And even if it has gotten ridiculous, do you have to be so bloody rude about it rather than entertain the possibility - however unlikely - that you just didn't explain it very well, and try to explain it a bit better?

Stiggles · 28-10-2013, 16:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

Unless trying to figure out what you are trying to say makes me a troll then no, I'm not a troll.

You've already said that you didn't say 100% secure, which is precisely why I asked you what you do mean when you say "secure"?

It made no sense to say that it wasn't as secure as aApple claimed.

Then, rather than say how secure Apple claimed it was, you just reduced to "secure" or "not secure".

And I wasn't the only one who struggled to make sense of what you were trying to say.

Once again.....You knew my stance on the matter from my first post. Correct? Right, so why continue this like you are?....

You mentioned last night you can't understand why you get so much flak on here.

This is one of the reasons. You refuse to stop. Even after this post, you will again post this same nonsense to continue it!!

EDIT:- Jesus man, what's with the constant edits? I said it wasn't as secure. It was hacked. Thats it. Why do you have to keep overcomplicating things? This isnt about you. This is about a feature apple claimed was secure and it was hacked within days of release. Surely you can see that!!

Anyway, im out this argument, its boring and frankly completely pointless seeing as it doesn't affect me in the slightest.

calico_pie · 28-10-2013, 16:09

That's just it - I didn't know your stance.

You originally said it wasn't as secure as Apple claimed.

And it went pear shaped immediately after that, just because I asked you how secure Apple had claimed it to be.

That was a perfectly reasonable question, and the one that still remains unanswered.

Stiggles · 28-10-2013, 16:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

That's just it - I didn't know your stance.

You originally said it wasn't as secure as Apple claimed.

And it went pear shaped immediately after that, just because I asked you how secure Apple had claimed it to be.

That was a perfectly reasonable question, and the one that still remains unanswered.

You did know the stance from the first post!!!

You asked me and i said apple said it was secure. What else do you want me to say? I didn't code it!! How about googling and seeing what apple said yourself?

See what i mean about carrying it on?...Just can't help yourself can you?

calico_pie · 28-10-2013, 16:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stiggles

You did know the stance from the first post.

See what i mean?.....

Well, actually, no - I didn't.

Which is why I just said I didn't.

And again, I wasn't the only one who struggled to follow what you were saying.

Maybe to clear this all up you could say again what your stance is?

Stiggles · 28-10-2013, 16:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

Well, actually, no - I didn't.

Which is why I just said I didn't.

And again, I wasn't the only one who struggled to follow what you were saying.

Maybe to clear this all up you could say again what your stance is?

Are you kidding here?.....

This just proves exactly what i and others have been saying about you all along...

calico_pie · 28-10-2013, 16:17

Me - trying to clear this up.

You - ignoring that and carrying on with the usual rudeness.

And I'm the bad guy?

Stiggles · 28-10-2013, 16:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

Me - trying to clear this up.

You - ignoring that and carrying on with the usual rudeness.

And I'm the bad guy?

You have to be having a joke now surely.

I told you last night what my original stance was on the matter. You dont need to clear anything up!!...

Remember this post?

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showp...&postcount=126

Have you forgotten how to look back at posts? No, instead you just keep the questioning going, then when someone gets fed up you resort to the same kind of posts as your pal. Claiming rudeness. It's funny how the 4 of you say the same things!

Anyway, I'll answer for one last time, then you can say what you like.

My original post/stance was this :-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stiggles

You know when any exploit is found, it only gets easier to do right?

Point is i guess is it's not even close to as secure as apple made out.

calico_pie · 28-10-2013, 16:31

And that's precisely the part which doesn't make sense.

Because "as secure as Apple made out" is not the same thing as "secure".

If you want to argue that its "not as secure as Apple made out", its perfectly reasonable to ask you how secure Apple make it out to be.

You have never really answered that question.

If you are arguing that "its not as secure as Apple made out" because it was fooled by a fake fingerprint, then that's simply not the case because Apple did not claim it could not be fooled by a fake fingerprint.

If anyone is unfortunate enough to be reading this, does anyone get what Stiggles is saying?

Stiggles · 28-10-2013, 16:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

And that's precisely the part which doesn't make sense.

Because "as secure as Apple made out" is not the same thing as "secure".

If you want to argue that its "not as secure as Apple made out", its perfectly reasonable to ask you how secure Apple make it out to be.

You have never really answered that question.

If you are arguing that "its not as secure as Apple made out" because it was fooled by a fake fingerprint, then that's simply not the case because Apple did not claim it could not be fooled by a fake fingerprint.

If anyone is unfortunate enough to be reading this, does anyone get what Stiggles is saying?

Your taking the mick now arent you?!! I made a screw up in one of my posts. How many more times do i have to say it before that registers with you? I made a screw up in a post just a few above as well if you want to nitpick that as well....

No company would admit their security could be bypassed within 2 days!! Why would you claim that?

I simply said apple said it was secure. They didn't go into it so how would i know?

Is this seriously the basis of this whole argument from you over this amount on time and pages? You seriously are nitpicking at this.

Anyway, like i said, i'm out of this. Wasted enough time on this and now have to go to work soon. I'm sure i will come home in the morning to more and more questions from you however!!

calico_pie · 28-10-2013, 18:02

I'm really not, I swear.

So after all that, is your argument simply that Apple claim it is secure, but it is not secure?

If it, I'm going to disagree that it as black and white as "secure" v "not secure".

I would argue that there are many degrees of security.

And that for all but the most extreme and unlikely scenarios, the fingerprint sensor is very secure.

anyonefortennis · 28-10-2013, 18:46

Do you guys have a job?

Stiggles · 28-10-2013, 19:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by anyonefortennis

Do you guys have a job?

I do! I'm here now as i said in my last post

Not sure about pie however!!

alan1302 · 28-10-2013, 20:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stiggles

I do! I'm here now as i said in my last post

Not sure about pie however!!

Get back to work!

Stiggles · 28-10-2013, 20:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by alan1302

Get back to work!

On my break!!

swordman · 28-10-2013, 20:07

You get a break you lucky lucky ...

konebyvax · 28-10-2013, 20:10

I think Pie works for Apple - Head of Online Pedantry.

Stiggles · 28-10-2013, 20:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by swordman

You get a break you lucky lucky ...

Yup!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by konebyvax

I think Pie works for Apple - Head of Online Pedantry.

Haha!

calico_pie · 28-10-2013, 22:01

HaHa!

Although of course arguing that something isn't secure because it can, in extreme and unlikely circumstances be tricked, is the most pedantic thing in this thread.

28-10-2013, 14:32	#151
Stuart_h Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 3,474	Quote: Originally Posted by jonner101 If you are a security expert surely you would realise that using a fingerprint is not secure enough for this purpose. It may be useful as a part of your identity check but you would also need to enter information which would only be in your brain. ( to clarify some data that can also be changed if compromised ) Now if someone can get my debit card pin number from scanning my brain that would be a neat trick. never said 'security expert' ... and im sure even you can figure out there are far easier ways of getting someones PIN number difference is if you think someone knows it its a pretty easy job to change it

28-10-2013, 15:16	#152
jonner101 Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,153	Quote: Originally Posted by Stuart_h never said 'security expert' ... and im sure even you can figure out there are far easier ways of getting someones PIN number difference is if you think someone knows it its a pretty easy job to change it I don't quite understand the point you're making. You appeared to imply that people could get someone's fingerprint from an apple phone and therefore it would render any biometric fingerprints when banking null and void ? But isn't it obvious that relying on a fingerprint to access you're bank account is already null and void as you don't need an apple phone or indeed any electronic equipment to obtain someone's fingerprint. It would at most be one step of the chain to establish identity.

28-10-2013, 15:48	#153
Stiggles Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Dundee, Scotland Posts: 9,293	Quote: Originally Posted by calico_pie No - I mentioned "100% secure" because you moved the goalposts from "more secure" to "secure" or "not secure". Jesus christ. You just won't stop will you? I never moved the goalposts, i made a cockup while posting... Again, you knew my original stance by my first post, so why are you continuing this absolute nonsense? Quote: If you did not mean "100% secure" when you did that, then could you explain what you do mean when you say "secure", and also how that differs from what Apple mean when they say "secure"? I NEVER SAID 100% SECURE....I NEVER SAID APPLE SAID THAT EITHER... Why are you making this stuff up? Quote: If Apple have not claimed that it is unhackable, how exactly is it less secure than they claim? Sorry, where did i say apple said this either? See what i mean? Making up shite just to prolong your pathetic argument.

28-10-2013, 15:52	#154
Stiggles Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Dundee, Scotland Posts: 9,293	Quote: Originally Posted by tdenson There is only one person making personal attacks in this thread, that is Stiggles being his usual abusive self when he can't respond with a rational response to a perfectly rational question Awwww thanks I was waiting on you popping in to add this most excellent post and contribution to the subject matter. You are far to obvious Anyway, there can be no rational responses given to trolls who spout out the same nonsense over and over again. Nor to trolls on here that make nonsense up to satisfy their own sad argument which is what Mr Pie is doing. I dont expect you to understand since your just as bad as them 9/10 times. EDIT:- Oh dear, look...I made an error in the post...Anyone want to start a 2 page argument about it?.....

28-10-2013, 16:03	#155
calico_pie Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 9,428	Quote: Originally Posted by Stiggles Jesus christ. You just won't stop will you? I never moved the goalposts, i made a cockup while posting... Again, you knew my original stance by my first post, so why are you continuing this absolute nonsense? I NEVER SAID 100% SECURE.... Sorry, where did i say apple said this either? See what i mean? Making up shite just to prolong your pathetic argument. Unless trying to figure out what you are trying to say makes me a troll then no, I'm not a troll. You've already said that you didn't say 100% secure, which is precisely why I asked you what you do mean when you say "secure"? It made no sense to say that it wasn't as secure as Apple claimed. Then, rather than say how secure Apple claimed it was, you just reduced to "secure" or "not secure". If you deemed anything that could be hacked to be "not secure", it logically followed that the only way to be "secure" was to be 100% secure. Even if that's not what you meant, that's how it came across. And I wasn't the only one who struggled to make sense of what you were trying to say. So if that wasn't what you meant, how would you define "secure"? And even if it has gotten ridiculous, do you have to be so bloody rude about it rather than entertain the possibility - however unlikely - that you just didn't explain it very well, and try to explain it a bit better?

28-10-2013, 16:07	#156
Stiggles Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Dundee, Scotland Posts: 9,293	Quote: Originally Posted by calico_pie Unless trying to figure out what you are trying to say makes me a troll then no, I'm not a troll. You've already said that you didn't say 100% secure, which is precisely why I asked you what you do mean when you say "secure"? It made no sense to say that it wasn't as secure as aApple claimed. Then, rather than say how secure Apple claimed it was, you just reduced to "secure" or "not secure". And I wasn't the only one who struggled to make sense of what you were trying to say. Once again.....You knew my stance on the matter from my first post. Correct? Right, so why continue this like you are?.... You mentioned last night you can't understand why you get so much flak on here. This is one of the reasons. You refuse to stop. Even after this post, you will again post this same nonsense to continue it!! EDIT:- Jesus man, what's with the constant edits? I said it wasn't as secure. It was hacked. Thats it. Why do you have to keep overcomplicating things? This isnt about you. This is about a feature apple claimed was secure and it was hacked within days of release. Surely you can see that!! Anyway, im out this argument, its boring and frankly completely pointless seeing as it doesn't affect me in the slightest.

28-10-2013, 16:09	#157
calico_pie Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 9,428	That's just it - I didn't know your stance. You originally said it wasn't as secure as Apple claimed. And it went pear shaped immediately after that, just because I asked you how secure Apple had claimed it to be. That was a perfectly reasonable question, and the one that still remains unanswered.

28-10-2013, 16:10	#158
Stiggles Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Dundee, Scotland Posts: 9,293	Quote: Originally Posted by calico_pie That's just it - I didn't know your stance. You originally said it wasn't as secure as Apple claimed. And it went pear shaped immediately after that, just because I asked you how secure Apple had claimed it to be. That was a perfectly reasonable question, and the one that still remains unanswered. You did know the stance from the first post!!! You asked me and i said apple said it was secure. What else do you want me to say? I didn't code it!! How about googling and seeing what apple said yourself? See what i mean about carrying it on?...Just can't help yourself can you?

28-10-2013, 16:12	#159
calico_pie Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 9,428	Quote: Originally Posted by Stiggles You did know the stance from the first post. See what i mean?..... Well, actually, no - I didn't. Which is why I just said I didn't. And again, I wasn't the only one who struggled to follow what you were saying. Maybe to clear this all up you could say again what your stance is?

28-10-2013, 16:14	#160
Stiggles Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Dundee, Scotland Posts: 9,293	Quote: Originally Posted by calico_pie Well, actually, no - I didn't. Which is why I just said I didn't. And again, I wasn't the only one who struggled to follow what you were saying. Maybe to clear this all up you could say again what your stance is? Are you kidding here?..... This just proves exactly what i and others have been saying about you all along...

28-10-2013, 16:17	#161
calico_pie Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 9,428	Me - trying to clear this up. You - ignoring that and carrying on with the usual rudeness. And I'm the bad guy?

28-10-2013, 16:22	#162
Stiggles Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Dundee, Scotland Posts: 9,293	Quote: Originally Posted by calico_pie Me - trying to clear this up. You - ignoring that and carrying on with the usual rudeness. And I'm the bad guy? You have to be having a joke now surely. I told you last night what my original stance was on the matter. You dont need to clear anything up!!... Remember this post? http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showp...&postcount=126 Have you forgotten how to look back at posts? No, instead you just keep the questioning going, then when someone gets fed up you resort to the same kind of posts as your pal. Claiming rudeness. It's funny how the 4 of you say the same things! Anyway, I'll answer for one last time, then you can say what you like. My original post/stance was this :- Quote: Originally Posted by Stiggles You know when any exploit is found, it only gets easier to do right? Point is i guess is it's not even close to as secure as apple made out.

28-10-2013, 16:31	#163
calico_pie Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 9,428	And that's precisely the part which doesn't make sense. Because "as secure as Apple made out" is not the same thing as "secure". If you want to argue that its "not as secure as Apple made out", its perfectly reasonable to ask you how secure Apple make it out to be. You have never really answered that question. If you are arguing that "its not as secure as Apple made out" because it was fooled by a fake fingerprint, then that's simply not the case because Apple did not claim it could not be fooled by a fake fingerprint. If anyone is unfortunate enough to be reading this, does anyone get what Stiggles is saying?

28-10-2013, 16:41	#164
Stiggles Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Dundee, Scotland Posts: 9,293	Quote: Originally Posted by calico_pie And that's precisely the part which doesn't make sense. Because "as secure as Apple made out" is not the same thing as "secure". If you want to argue that its "not as secure as Apple made out", its perfectly reasonable to ask you how secure Apple make it out to be. You have never really answered that question. If you are arguing that "its not as secure as Apple made out" because it was fooled by a fake fingerprint, then that's simply not the case because Apple did not claim it could not be fooled by a fake fingerprint. If anyone is unfortunate enough to be reading this, does anyone get what Stiggles is saying? Your taking the mick now arent you?!! I made a screw up in one of my posts. How many more times do i have to say it before that registers with you? I made a screw up in a post just a few above as well if you want to nitpick that as well.... No company would admit their security could be bypassed within 2 days!! Why would you claim that? I simply said apple said it was secure. They didn't go into it so how would i know? Is this seriously the basis of this whole argument from you over this amount on time and pages? You seriously are nitpicking at this. Anyway, like i said, i'm out of this. Wasted enough time on this and now have to go to work soon. I'm sure i will come home in the morning to more and more questions from you however!!

28-10-2013, 18:02	#165
calico_pie Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 9,428	I'm really not, I swear. So after all that, is your argument simply that Apple claim it is secure, but it is not secure? If it, I'm going to disagree that it as black and white as "secure" v "not secure". I would argue that there are many degrees of security. And that for all but the most extreme and unlikely scenarios, the fingerprint sensor is very secure.

28-10-2013, 18:46	#166
anyonefortennis Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: 🇬🇧 Posts: 60,865	Do you guys have a job?

28-10-2013, 19:58	#167
Stiggles Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Dundee, Scotland Posts: 9,293	Quote: Originally Posted by anyonefortennis Do you guys have a job? I do! I'm here now as i said in my last post Not sure about pie however!!

28-10-2013, 20:03	#168
alan1302 Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: West Yorks Posts: 6,180	Quote: Originally Posted by Stiggles I do! I'm here now as i said in my last post Not sure about pie however!! Get back to work!

28-10-2013, 20:04	#169
Stiggles Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Dundee, Scotland Posts: 9,293	Quote: Originally Posted by alan1302 Get back to work! On my break!!

28-10-2013, 20:07	#170
swordman Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 6,342	You get a break you lucky lucky ...

28-10-2013, 20:10	#171
konebyvax Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Ignoringtrollsville Posts: 7,875	I think Pie works for Apple - Head of Online Pedantry.

DS Forums

No IPhone 5S discussion?

28-10-2013, 20:12	#172
Stiggles Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Dundee, Scotland Posts: 9,293	Quote: Originally Posted by swordman You get a break you lucky lucky ... Yup!! Quote: Originally Posted by konebyvax I think Pie works for Apple - Head of Online Pedantry. Haha!

28-10-2013, 22:01	#173
calico_pie Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 9,428	HaHa! Although of course arguing that something isn't secure because it can, in extreme and unlikely circumstances be tricked, is the most pedantic thing in this thread.