Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Awarded Face-To-Unlock Patent

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the slam-your-face-into-it-until-it-unlocks dept.

Cellphones 194

An anonymous reader writes "CNet reports that Google was awarded a patent yesterday for logging into a computing device using face recognition (8,261,090). 'In order for the technology to work, Google's patent requires a camera that can identify a person's face. If that face matches a "predetermined identity," then the person is logged into the respective device. If multiple people want to access a computer, the next person would get in front of the camera, and the device's software would automatically transition to the new user's profile. ... Interestingly, Apple last year filed for a patent related to facial recognition similar to what Google is describing in its own service. That technology would recognize a person's face and use that as the authentication needed to access user profiles or other important information.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Good facial recognition (4, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | more than 2 years ago | (#41238567)

Good facial recognition has existed for several years now. Using that tech for authentication is obvious. Patents continue to suck.

Re:Good facial recognition (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41238637)

I've only seen one implementation that didn't completely suck, security-wise...

Samsung has a phone that determines that you are authorized, and then it makes you blink. It doesn't unlock until the authorized face blinks.

Still not very secure, but at least it's not "hold a picture up to the phone to unlock" insecure.

Re:Good facial recognition (3, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#41238769)

Blink to unlock is a standard part of Android Jelly Bean. It has nothing to do with samsung, other than that they make at least one phone that has Jelly Bean.

Re:Good facial recognition (2)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 2 years ago | (#41239051)

Don't Blink. Don't even blink!

Re:Good facial recognition (3, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#41239449)

Don't Blink. Don't even blink!

He said "Jelly Bean", not "Jelly Baby".

Re:Good facial recognition (2)

Sporkinum (655143) | more than 2 years ago | (#41239463)

So says the Archangel Michael......

Re:Good facial recognition (1)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | more than 2 years ago | (#41238805)

the blink feature is key, since facial recognition software will usually let you get by with showing a picture of the subject's face.

Re:Good facial recognition (5, Funny)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#41238899)

blink to login. ok.

but to get to root, you have to do a full sneeze. and I can't always do that on command.

Re:Good facial recognition (2)

freakmn (712872) | more than 2 years ago | (#41238939)

Rootkits will now dispense pepper from your USB port.

Re:Good facial recognition (1)

olsmeister (1488789) | more than 2 years ago | (#41238969)

Picture of subjects face. Yeah, that makes more sense than what I was thinking (detached head).

Re:Good facial recognition (1)

KreAture (105311) | more than 2 years ago | (#41239021)

Blink is so easy it's silly.
You simply do it like the classic paper-face dolls. Horisontal folds in paper and thin string or slots in paper and pulltab.

Re:Good facial recognition (2)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#41239085)

Steps to defeat:

Set up a video camera with a long zoom lens from a hundred feet. Hit record. Wait for them to blink. Play back the video footage on a tablet. Steal their car or phone or whatever.

No paper cutouts needed. Now if they had two cameras, it might actually be a slight challenge.

Re:Good facial recognition (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#41239269)

But its hard to steal their phone from hundreds of feet away....

Re:Good facial recognition (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41238729)

It's not just "facial recognition" that they were awarded the patent on. It's the method of recognition and the technology suite behind it.
 
I swear to god, sometimes Slashdotters come off sounding like a bunch of gimps. Normally these are the people who are made fun of around here but really, Slashdotters aren't that much better for the most part.
 
How long until one of you wanna-bes post something like "But I thought scientists said coffee was good fer ya!?!? These scientists don't know nothing!!!"

Re:Good facial recognition (3, Funny)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#41239305)

I swear to god, sometimes Slashdotters come off sounding like a bunch of gimps.

Wait, Gimp now has facial recognition too?
He said gimp!, right? I read it on the intertubes!

Re:Good facial recognition (1)

noh8rz8 (2716593) | more than 2 years ago | (#41239179)

yup, another patent for an obvious idea. maybe next they'll patent the voice to unlock. "my voice is my passport. verify me."

My lenovo laptop (5, Interesting)

sgent (874402) | more than 2 years ago | (#41238569)

has had this for over 2 years. It logs onto windows using facial recognition, and different users are logged in under their respective username.

Re:My lenovo laptop (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41238607)

Patent Violation!
Time to Pay THE GOOGLE

Re:My lenovo laptop (2)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | more than 2 years ago | (#41238619)

I have seen this on Lenovo laptops as well. Going back 3 or 4 years.

Re:My lenovo laptop (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#41238633)

Lenovo has had it for longer than that. The IdeaPad my daughter got when she graduated in 2008 had it.

pics please (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41238669)

of the daughter, of course. the laptop is optional.

Re:My lenovo laptop (4, Informative)

matt007 (80854) | more than 2 years ago | (#41238651)

Yep I also have a Lenovo since more than a year, it was delivered with VeriFace pre-installed.
This shit is a bit slow to load however, Faster to just type the password...

Re:My lenovo laptop (5, Funny)

Scragglykat (1185337) | more than 2 years ago | (#41238667)

Prior art is too confusing and will only slow everyone down, therefore you must throw it out!

Re:My lenovo laptop (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41238719)

has had this for over 2 years. It logs onto windows using facial recognition, and different users are logged in under their respective username.

Unfortunately, the patent system became extremely broken in January (?) when the law went into effect that was First To Patent rather than First to Invent. Google's patenting this purely because the new law allows them to get away with it, even when everybody knows there's prior art. Prior art is no longer a defense against awful patents. If you thought patents were bad before, prepare for head explosion.

Re:My lenovo laptop (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#41238809)

This is not true, this is a complete falsehood.
You are either ignorant or a lier
.
First to FIle only even comes into play when two inventors claim to have both invented the same item at around the same time. It has no impact on prior art.

Re:My lenovo laptop (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#41238811)

Wow, you're a moron. First-to-file does not eliminate prior art invalidating a filed patent. The very act you claim got rid of prior art actually expanded the definition of what can be considered prior art for determining patentability. But that would have required you to know what you were talking about rather than repeating nonsense. It even allows foreign, third party use to be used as prior art against a patent.

Dell TOO (1)

raymansean (1115689) | more than 2 years ago | (#41238867)

TL:DR the patent. However, Dell (a leader in innovation) has had facial recognition to log on to a user account for at least 2 years now, as my studio XPS 16 has the ability to do so.

And Alienware (1)

goldcd (587052) | more than 2 years ago | (#41239095)

although it's about as useful as the Android version..
Alienware is still there, but only as it occasionally manages to beat me typing in the password (I gave up even trying to wave myself at the camera solely)
Android is pretty much as useful. "OOh new feature" *few attempts* - and back to pattern unlock.

Re:My lenovo laptop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41239209)

I've had a dell all-in-one for at least 3 years that does this, and decently well.

Re:My lenovo laptop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41239475)

Let's go back to 2000.... http://ir.l1id.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=208522

Re:My lenovo laptop (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41239497)

Everyone seems to have a laptop that did this several years ago for one person to log in. As I read the google patent, this is for multiple people who use the same device.

On my old dell laptop, it recognizes my face and logs me in, no problem. When my wife sits down in front of that laptop, though... I am still logged in and she can view my, um, facebook relationships, browsing for a hookup history, gambling history, online dating site history ... you get the idea.

What this patent does is deny access to one users resources when another is sitting in front of the computer. So when my wife sits in front of my laptop, she gets to see her facebook relationships, browsing for a hookup history, gambling history, online dating site history, WITHOUT ANY ACTION ON MY PART. That is what google is claiming is unique to their patent.

Insert "How long until Apple sues" comment here (2)

theillien (984847) | more than 2 years ago | (#41238577)

And before any literalists jump down my throat asking why they'd sue if they don't have the patent or some nonsense like that, I know.

Not yet (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#41238587)

I'm guessing this is a preemptive patent, which Google may or may not use in the future. Currently, their face recognition software can't even differentiate between human and animal faces, let alone two human ones.

Re:Not yet (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#41238647)

If that's true - it bugs me that a company can patent something they don't even have the ability to produce.

Re:Not yet (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#41238829)

The problem is that requiring a working prototype would make it impossible for an independent inventor to patent their product before shopping around for investments.

Re:Not yet (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#41238833)

I am pretty sure it can tell the difference between two human faces. Face unlock on my Galaxy Nexus lets me in, but does not let my girlfriend unlock the phone.

I don't use it often, but I tested this when I first got the device.

Re:Not yet (1)

hobarrera (2008506) | more than 2 years ago | (#41238987)

Does your girlfriend have a face? Maybe that's why she can't log in.

Re:Not yet (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#41239139)

Yes, she is even human.

You see when a slashdotter gets very old(30+) he has money and confidence so he can suddenly do very well with the ladies.

Re:Not yet (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41239253)

You see when a slashdotter gets very old(30+) he has money and confidence so he can suddenly do very well with the ladies.

You gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the chloroform. Then when you get the chloroform, THEN you get the women.

Confidence just lets you look a hair less creepy while lurking around outside their apartment building at 2 am with a chloroform-soaked rag.

Re:Not yet (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41239495)

Touche, good sir, that's how I met my wife.

Doesn't work unless... (3, Informative)

PhantomHarlock (189617) | more than 2 years ago | (#41238591)

...you do it with a stereo camera and verify that it's the person in person and not a photo of that person. There have been previous articles here showing that the technology has been broken using that method, simply holding up a photo of that person to the camera.

Re:Doesn't work unless... (1)

fabioalcor (1663783) | more than 2 years ago | (#41238731)

A simpler solution is to verify if the image has slightly alterations over time, or to require that the person to blink or do any other thing.

Re:Doesn't work unless... (1)

froggymana (1896008) | more than 2 years ago | (#41238861)

A simpler solution is to verify if the image has slightly alterations over time, or to require that the person to blink or do any other thing.

If it is just looking for random variances in the face all you need to do now is video tape the person and play it back on your laptop or iPad in front of the camera.

Re:Doesn't work unless... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41238743)

Why cant the software detect movement of the face. If you're sitting super still it could have a message that pops up "Turn your face to the side". If your eyes nose mouth and ears all stay in perfect relation to each other then it should detect a photo. Then you would at least need a video of that person, which I'm assuming is much more difficult to come by.

Re:Doesn't work unless... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41238827)

You hack stereo camera facial recognition using a laser-scanned 3d printed model of the person's face.

Re:Doesn't work unless... (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#41239271)

and not a photo of that person

Y'know, most webcams are sensitive into the IR. If they could filter out the visible, perhaps a heatmap could be built to recognize a living face.

Use some sort of liquid crystal that's opaque to IR or transmissive of IR and opaque to visible light instead of the permanent filters typically used today.

</priorartbitches>

Re:Doesn't work unless... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41239353)

If you don't require specific movement, then a stereo lenticular-print photo could do the same thing for 3D.

Patent Battles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41238593)

Alright, just in time for the next patent battle.

What are the safeguards? (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 2 years ago | (#41238597)

What's to prevent J. Random Hacker, or Ima Crookedcop from showing it a photo of my face, and thereby gaining access?

Re:What are the safeguards? (2)

locopuyo (1433631) | more than 2 years ago | (#41238765)

If it uses an infrared projector and camera (like kinect) that wouldn't work.
Joe would have to get a mask or use your face.

Re:What are the safeguards? (2)

N0Man74 (1620447) | more than 2 years ago | (#41239135)

Or use your recently severed head? Of course... he could just force you to look at it without severing it, but Joe's an asshole.

Re:What are the safeguards? (1)

pegasustonans (589396) | more than 2 years ago | (#41238797)

What's to prevent J. Random Hacker, or Ima Crookedcop from showing it a photo of my face, and thereby gaining access?

Easy, just use a type-written password.

Re:What are the safeguards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41238799)

On the Nexus 7's implementation you have to blink to prove you're not a still image.

Just don't let people take videos of you blinking.

Prior Art doesn't exist anymore? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41238613)

I used to do this with KeyLemon 5 years ago. Who's approving these things?

I think I'm going to go corner the shoe market by patenting shoe laces...

Amazing (5, Funny)

Dan East (318230) | more than 2 years ago | (#41238625)

Only muiltibillion dollar companies like Google and Apple could come up with such original, clever, and non-obvious uses for existing technologies such as this. Facial recognition?? Whoduthunkit? Logging in? Never tried that before, but it sure sounds neat.

Re:Amazing (4, Insightful)

Solandri (704621) | more than 2 years ago | (#41238875)

This is the new reality that Apple has created. No matter how mundane, obvious, or silly an idea is, you have to patent it to protect yourself. If you don't because you think it's obvious, you could be sued by someone who does patent it. And if the jury is headed by someone who is gung-ho about patents, you could lose. In the coming years, I expect to see squares, rectangles, circles, ovals, triangles, etc. all being patented because the ~$10k filing and attorney's fees are a heckuva lot cheaper than fighting a patent lawsuit.

Oh brave new world, that has such people in it!

Re:Amazing (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41239019)

This is the new reality that Apple has created. No matter how mundane, obvious, or silly an idea is, you have to patent it to protect yourself.

Apple? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Yeah - I'm sure IBM who patents almost 25 patents _PER DAY_ had nothing to do with this at all.

Re:Amazing (3, Informative)

Dupple (1016592) | more than 2 years ago | (#41239071)

This is the new reality that Apple has created.

I think Nokia got $600 million from Apple for some fairly 'obvious' stuff, before Apple started suing for 'obvious' stuff.

Not that it matters who started it really, the Patent system needs some serious reform and hopefully all these law suits will draw some scrutiny on the process.

If that's a world where scrutiny is bought to system that doesn't work properly then I don't care who made that world. I'm just happy that they did.

Re:Amazing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41239227)

Apple didn't create this problem. They exist within the system and have a fiduciary duty to protect their interests offensively or defensively. Merely licensing everything a) isn't Apple's obligation and b) wouldn't fix the problem one whit.

Re:Amazing (4, Informative)

sootman (158191) | more than 2 years ago | (#41239259)

Rocketing up to +5 with an anti-Apple post, I see, but this kind of stupidity in patent-land has been going on a long time. I mean, come on--Slashdot has had a knife-fork-spoon icon [fsdn.com] for "patents" [slashdot.org] for quite some time, and for a reason. 1-click purchasing, anyone?

October 1999: Amazon.com Receives Patent for 1-Click Shopping [slashdot.org]

May 2006: Amazon One-Click Patent to be Re-Examined [slashdot.org]

October 2007: USPTO Rejects Amazon's One-Click Patent [slashdot.org]

November 2007: Amazon Sneaks One-Click Past the Patent System [slashdot.org]

March 2010: Amazon 1-Click Patent Survives Almost Unscathed [slashdot.org] ... to trot out just one example.

Re:Amazing (3, Interesting)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 2 years ago | (#41239491)

Rocketing up to +5 with an anti-Apple post, I see, but this kind of stupidity in patent-land has been going on a long time. I mean, come on--Slashdot has had a knife-fork-spoon icon for "patents" for quite some time, and for a reason. 1-click purchasing, anyone?

That's 21st century. This patent nonsense has been around since the 19th. It's not new. Just new to high-tech. In the 19th century it was patent fights over stuff like telephones, internal combustion engines (in particular, the 4-stroke cycle), 20th century had others, and so on. And heck, the car keeps generating patents as well - hybrid vehicles - between Toyota and Ford, they've got it pretty much all locked up (Toyota and Ford only cross licensed because they ended up suing each other over hybrid vehicles).

Also, I don't think the "non-practicing entity" lawsuits (aka patent trolls) are a new concept either.

Interestingly, some patents are long lived - intermittent windshield wipers had a lawsuit that started in the mid-50's and only ended up resolved in the early 80s, well after the patent expired.

Everything old is new again.

Face unlock useless in many contexts (1)

Pausanias (681077) | more than 2 years ago | (#41239143)

7 year old: (grabs phone off the kitchen counter) "Hey Daddy!"

Me (slicing raw pork): "Yes?"

7 year old: (phone unlocked, Runs off to play angry birds on it)

Cease and desist (5, Funny)

puddingebola (2036796) | more than 2 years ago | (#41238657)

This story has been posted in violation of my patent 9336.121.354 (European Union patent 983123.4120.123.31234.412), patent on the posting of information on patents using patented or nonpatented electronic devices. I will settle for the sum of $54.24 or a used Samsung Galaxy SII. Also, please see my earlier post regarding your violation of patent regarding the posting of stories over the Web regarding patents.

Re:Cease and desist (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41238705)

Herp derp! I mades a joke about patenting talking about patents. I are teh clever guys!!! My mommy says I'm a funnay comedian cause I come up with witty and original jokes.

Re:Cease and desist (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41238807)

You just wanted to jump on the herp derp bandwagon. Congrats. So much for witty & original...

Re:Cease and desist (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41239035)

Look, your damn veggie sub's gettin' stale over here. You payin' for this or what?

Hmmm ... (2)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#41238661)

I'm sure I've seen a TV commercial for this. The kid is trying to open his dad's phone, and dad walks down the stairs and picks up the phone and it unlocks for him.

Wish I could remember who did this, but it seems like it's already in production by someone.

Heck, my XBox can sign me in based on the facial recognition. Just stand there and wave, and it knows which player I am.

This doesn't really sound like it is a novel idea, just a specific solution to something people have either been doing, or talking about doing, for quite some time.

Re:Hmmm ... (1)

Tr3vin (1220548) | more than 2 years ago | (#41238927)

That commercial was in fact for an Android phone, the Galaxy Nexus. It was showing off a feature that was added in version 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich). Allowing for multiple users seems like the next logical step, especially for devices that are more likely to be shared by families, such as tablets.

Re:Hmmm ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41239047)

I picked up my brother's Android phone, it saw my face, and unlocked. Guess our faces look similar enough.

I Thought "Not Intuitively Obvious" Was a Prereq (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41238671)

Doesn't something have to be not intuitively obvious in order to be patentable? Using anything that is biometric as an authenticator is obvious. Unlocking a PC using facial recognition or by having them drop a toenail clipping into a laser plasma spectrograph and analyzing the disgusting vapor that results shouldn't be patentable. Patent office fails yet again.

Re:I Thought "Not Intuitively Obvious" Was a Prere (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41239217)

Rounded rectangles are not intuitively obvious?

FAIL (1)

heli_flyer (614850) | more than 2 years ago | (#41238675)

1. Find person on Facebook 2. Print out their picture on color printer 3. Use picture to login to their account

I have prior art (3, Interesting)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 2 years ago | (#41238679)

I have prior art that dates back nearly 40 years.

When I was a kid, my mom taught me that if I don't recognize the face when I look out the door peephole, don't unlock the door.

Why is anything that has an obvious physical analog even patentable just because it's implemented on a computer?

Re:I have prior art (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#41238753)

Why is anything that has an obvious physical analog even patentable just because it's implemented on a computer?

Well, I will flippantly throw out that a lot of us have been saying for years that the patent system has become "A system for doing something obvious, but with a computer".

There are a lot of things which are directly analogous to real world examples of things, but magically putting "on a computer" changes all of that. And they keep granting the patents.

Not prior art (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 2 years ago | (#41238963)

Now if you did that with an electronic device, it might be prior art. But there are plenty of things that a human can do that aren't intuitive/obvious with a computer.

That being said, even on an "electronic device" it seems that prior art has been around for quite awhile.

My Asus laptop has a "face unlock" feature, and it was purchased in earlier 2011 (patent is September 28, 2011). I'm fairly sure such features existed on devices long before my laptop had it as well.

Re:I have prior art (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 2 years ago | (#41239011)

I have prior art that dates back nearly 40 years.

When I was a kid, my mom taught me that if I don't recognize the face when I look out the door peephole, don't unlock the door.

I'm pretty sure your mom didn't teach you to provide a prompt to the person at the door who could then answer yes, and you'd let them in. Sometimes it helps to actually follow the link in the article and read the claims, rather than just immediately crying "I have prior art" based on the title.

Re:I have prior art (3, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#41239017)

Why is anything that has an obvious physical analog even patentable just because it's implemented on a computer?

You misunderstand patents; It's not what the apparatus does that's patentable, it's how it does it. There are a few other conditions as well; However it goes about its business has to be in a non-trivial, non-obvious fashion. In other words, if it took 20 electrical engineers to build the device, if I take 20 electrical engineers and tell them what the device does, they shouldn't come back with a nearly identical device; If they do, then no matter how complex it is, it shouldn't be patentable.

At least, that's the theory. In practice... Patents in the United States and most other countries are simply rubber-stamped and then the validity of the patent is contested in costly legal battles.

Get your masks. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41238685)

Everybody get your masks ready, or your favorite movie character photo ready.

Darth Vader is mine so hands off.

Argh (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41238691)

Fucking patents!

Devalueing the patent system (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41238749)

When you can patent something thats been done before, while your prototype doesn't work and its an obvious idea to start with, patents are starting to loose thier value. Once they become silly, enough, and Apple starts to die, there will be a massive re-vamp of "IP" laws

Google to Apple (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 2 years ago | (#41238757)

"So suck it." ...?

Eye for an eye. (3, Interesting)

metrometro (1092237) | more than 2 years ago | (#41238815)

Lemme see if I get this: Google has a patent on face recognition to access a device, but Apple is seeking a patent on face recognition to do anything useful on the device. Both of which are for concepts that are so obvious I can understand it without RTFA.

So we either have a de facto OS monopoly (via interlocking licensing), or no product at all. Innovation!

Samsung Gallaxy S III? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41238825)

apart from more obscure prior art, isn't this one of the big selling points for the Gallaxy S III that's been plastered all over the news for a while?

Re:Samsung Gallaxy S III? (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 2 years ago | (#41239417)

Uhm. The S III is an "Android" (Google's OS) phone

Kinect does this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41238847)

You can switch profiles on a XBox via the Kinect interface. How is this new?

Really? (4, Interesting)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#41238855)

My Asus M50vm had that ability, back in '08, '09, one of those years.

It sucked, of course, but "working commercially-available implementation" should be hell of prior art.

prior art! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41238937)

my wife has face-to-unlock on her vagina. Depending on the face, she even uses a different ptofile (oral, anal, cowgirl, doggy style, missionary, etc).

Facial hair? (1)

slapout (93640) | more than 2 years ago | (#41239031)

So if I don't shave my face for a few days, I can't log in?

Re:Facial hair? (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 2 years ago | (#41239089)

That's nothing. I have a beard, and my dog can log into my computer!

Re:Facial hair? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41239159)

You insensitive clod, i am your dog.

Re:Facial hair? (1)

AmeerCB (1222468) | more than 2 years ago | (#41239309)

I realize you're probably saying this as a joke, but I can face-unlock all of my brother's android devices and we don't like particularly similar as far as brothers go...

Facepalm Patent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41239075)

I'm filing the Facepalm-to-open patent right now. "How to open smartphone when frustrated." It's very intuitive!

Good news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41239153)

This seems to indicate that the patent wars might get even more entertaining.
Too bad there are no more "empty" continents, otherwise we could move there and start a new country where IP laws are ignored.
Maybe there's something to this whole exploring mars business.

potential for injuries & other mischief (1)

Penurious Penguin (2687307) | more than 2 years ago | (#41239165)

I will not dispute that biometrics shall play an enormous role in our future; however, I fear more someone stealing my face (or entire head) than my password or other un-appended credentials. I'm just not up for reconstructive surgery every time a hacker gets overly determined. So, I may just continue using pass'words' until a sense of well-being becomes part of the facial authentication protocol. I can imagine things getting kind of spooky in places like Liberia, especially if a particular face is in high demand.

On a serious note, required proof of 'no duress' could be an interesting addition to multi-factor authentication. Biometrics - in capacity - are already there, but hardware lags, a bit.

Re:potential for injuries & other mischief (1)

mjr167 (2477430) | more than 2 years ago | (#41239387)

When my husband worked at a nuclear power plant they used biometrics and a pin number. In addition to their regular pin, everyone had a "duress" pin. The thoery was if you were being forced to open the door you would enter the duress pin and the door would open, but also notify security.

Re:potential for injuries & other mischief (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 2 years ago | (#41239481)

That's actually far more clever than I would have expected from such an industry.

Re:potential for injuries & other mischief (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 2 years ago | (#41239459)

We've had finger/palm/retinal scanners for a while now. I haven't heard of any rash of theft. That said what's to stop someone from taking your photo and holding it up to the device?

According to the USPTO, Apple filed first (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41239399)

Looking at Apple's patent application filing date (June 29, 2010) vs. Google's filing date (September 28, 2011) - it looks like Apple filed first. It'll be interesting to see where this goes given the current legal environment between the two...

Not only facial (1)

danhaas (891773) | more than 2 years ago | (#41239469)

The patent claim includes any image generated by the user, not only facial images.

I wonder how many people already use, um, other body parts to unlock devices.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?