Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Hardware News Technology

LG's New Fingerprint Sensor Doesn't Need A Button (mashable.com) 65

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Mashable: LG Innotek has developed a fingerprint sensor that's placed under a glass surface instead of in a physical button, the company announced Sunday. The new sensor could lead to smartphones that you can unlock by placing your finger on the phone screen. The LG-owned electronics parts manufacturer achieved this by cutting out a 0.01-inch thick slot in the lower part of a smartphone's cover glass, and then inserting a very thin fingerprint sensor into it. In other words, the sensor is still under the cover glass, but the slot moves the sensor close enough to the surface to read a fingerprint. That way, the sensor is protected from water and scratches, and can be installed anywhere under the phone's glass surface.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LG's New Fingerprint Sensor Doesn't Need A Button

Comments Filter:
  • Wow, the technology that was once shown in cheesily-uninformed future-guessing depictions in Mission Impossible and other action movies 10 years ago, is actually coming true...
    • you mean that actually existed and was use more than 10 years ago. Also Motorola was the first to have fingerprint reader in Atrix smart phone in 2011,

  • by frnic ( 98517 ) on Monday May 02, 2016 @08:53PM (#52032451)

    I expect some serious testing to see just how easy it is to break the glass with the hole has been cut into it.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      I doubt it will make much difference. The glass used on phones doesn't rely on thickness to be strong, it is tensioned and the microscopic imperfections in the surface which cause it to crack are filled. Essentially it is being permanently compressed, so that when it is impacted instead being stretched it actually just relaxes and doesn't shatter.

      There is usually a coating on top too, which adds additional protection and stuff like anti-glare and anti-fingerprint properties. A 0.25mm deep cut-out section is

  • That's useful (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02, 2016 @08:58PM (#52032491)

    Now you can put sensors under any and all glass surface where random passers-by will put their fingers and safely and securely read their fingerprints, whether they like^Wknow it or not. Didn't we predict that fingerprints are the safest and securest passwords ever? I think this pretty well clinches it, don't you?

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      I think that was just Hollywood movies and law enforcement trying to make out that fingerprint evidence was infallible. Both Google and Apple have been more sensible and only used fingerprints as a shortcut authentication mechanism under certain circumstances, not as the keys to the kingdom.

    • Now you can put sensors under any and all glass surface where random passers-by will put their fingers and safely and securely read their fingerprints, whether they like^Wknow it or not. Didn't we predict that fingerprints are the safest and securest passwords ever? I think this pretty well clinches it, don't you?

      Like many (most?) you deeply misunderstand biometric security.

      Password authentication security is based on password secrecy. Revealing the password means that the attacker can enter it and authenticate as you, because anyone can enter a password.

      Biometric authentication security is based on measurement integrity. Revealing the biometric accomplishes nothing unless the attacker can arrange for the measuring device to receive the value and accept it as a real measurement. Secrecy of the biometric data is

  • Apple announces breakthrough fingerprint ID tech that was on competitors smart phone five years ago

    • by Desler ( 1608317 )

      And the fact that 99% of people neither know nor cares shows just how great the Atrix was as a product. The 5s probably had more preorder sales than the Atrix had in its entire lifespan.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by iggymanz ( 596061 )

        Just shows most people are fashion-tards that buy based on image rather than technical capability. I hate when I have my employer's on-call phone every six weeks, that stupid iphone is much thicker than my android, not to mention longer for same sized screen.

        • by frnic ( 98517 )

          I completely sympathies with you, and I feel you should immediately sue your employer for cruel and unusual work conditions. It is awful for someone to be forced to use such a horrible hone.

  • File "phone with no button" along with "thinner phone." I don't need or want it. I don't care if my phone has one button, or three, or none. For that matter, I don't really care if my phone has a fingerprint reader due to legal [slashdot.org] and practical [arstechnica.com] reasons.
    • If the button is on the back I agree with you, if the button is on the front then no. I must be an outlier but I hate the hardware buttons on the iPhones and Samsungs. I prefer as small a bezel as possible.

      That said I would have a thicker phone for a bigger battery....

  • The new sensor could lead to smartphones that you can unlock by placing your finger on the phone screen.

    And they couldn't put is someplace besides the one place people don't want extra fingerprints?

  • As long as I can unlock it without a finger print I'll consider it
  • I would never want a fingerprint secured device.

    a) the government can make me unlock it.
    b) Anyone with a rubber hose can make me unlock it.
    c) There is a non-zero inducement to cut off my finger.
    d) If someone figures out a way around it, you'll have a very hard time arguing it wasn't you who unlocked the device.

    It's more like risky performance theater art.

    • by tlhIngan ( 30335 ) <slashdot@wor f . net> on Tuesday May 03, 2016 @01:52AM (#52033471)

      I would never want a fingerprint secured device.

      a) the government can make me unlock it.
      b) Anyone with a rubber hose can make me unlock it.
      c) There is a non-zero inducement to cut off my finger.
      d) If someone figures out a way around it, you'll have a very hard time arguing it wasn't you who unlocked the device.

      It's more like risky performance theater art.

      And the reason to have a fingerprint sensor is the fact that a majority of smartphone users have no passcode or other security measure set. The reason is simple - a phone is accessed extremely often - I believe Apple quotes easily a thousand times or more a day. When you're using it that often (most of the time it's used for under 5 seconds), a passcode gets in the way - who wants to enter a passcode that many times? End result, they don't secure their phone at all.

      The fingerprint sensor lets a user choose a passcode and access their phone without taking significantly longer (it would suck if it took longer to enter your passcode than you were going to use it). So while the OS is resuming from low power state the sensor can be reading the fingerprint and the secure enclave can determine if it's a valid fingerprint, so when the OS is ready the decision is ready.

      Of course, Apple also has ways to ensure that the fingerprint is overridable - three bad reads triggers a passcode, a power cycle triggers a passcode and no unlocking for 48 hours also triggers a passcode request.

      The law is currently unclear as to what happens when this is triggered.- if you are forced to unlock the phone by fingerprint, but the phone now requires the passcode...

      • by Punko ( 784684 )
        Fingerprint is fine for telling the machine who I am. but without a following password to be entered, the information is simply not secured. The inability to change the passcode makes the use of a fingerprint generated hash pointless.
      • by arth1 ( 260657 )

        The reason is simple - a phone is accessed extremely often - I believe Apple quotes easily a thousand times or more a day.

        That doesn't pass the litmus test of critical thinking.
        If a person sleeps for 8 hours, and spends 2 more hours doing things that should preclude using a phone (showering, driving, making love), that leaves 14 hours, or 840 minutes.
        You (or Apple) believe that users "easily" on average access their phone more than once a minute?

        That there are hardcore users who access it once every 10 minutes, I can buy. But not "easily a thousand times or more a day".

      • If I was in a position to want to keep my iPhone contents secure in that scenario (E.G. I was a drug dealer, journalist or both) I would want a kill code too. Use a specific finger, wipe the device keys. Use a specific code, wipe the device keys.

    • Fingerprint readers are not perfect, but they're good enough for 99.99% of the population for whom there's not much chance that a government or underworld thug will forcibly compel us to unlock our phone. The idea that a fingerprint reader puts you in any more physical danger than you are now is rather far-fetched. Sure, there are a handful of people in this would to whom that might actually apply, but it's highly likely that neither you nor I are among them, despite your dystopian ruminations.

      I'm looking

      • If you can pay for items with your phone/watch/etc. and it uses a biometric the risk is non-zero.

        All they have to do is forcibly drag your finger across the finger reader or drag your handily detached finger.

        Criminals do bad things. It's not distopian, it's realistic.

        As for the government,

        http://www.latimes.com/local/c... [latimes.com]
        "There, authorities obtained a search warrant compelling the girlfriend of an alleged Armenian gang member to press her finger against an iPhone that had been seized from a Glendale home.

  • by wonkey_monkey ( 2592601 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2016 @03:25AM (#52033681) Homepage

    Am I the only one whose new posts don't insert themselves properly when submitting? The input box disappears, "Working..." appears, but it never goes away. A refresh shows my post in place as expected.

    Also clicking "Disable advertising" has no effect. Not that I should have to keep doing that every few weeks, anyway.

    • Nope, not just you. I assumed it's because the JavaScript is now coming from a domain that I haven't whitelisted, but I haven't cared enough to figure out for sure.
  • Neat, we can finally do convenient two-factor auth on a smart phone. Looking forward to this coming to market.
  • I guess we now know what Tim Cook now has in the "innovative" pipeline for Apple, errr ..... now.

    Then, they'll ignore all previous history and claim they invented it.

I find you lack of faith in the forth dithturbing. - Darse ("Darth") Vader

Working...