IMO bricking on touch ID issues is extreme, but maximises the security of the device.
We are all smart people here and there are several ways to have security without bricking expensive hardware.
First, the update can wipe the device instead of bricking it.
Second, Apple can provide an option to replace the fingerprint chip and charge, $150-$200 or whatever it costs for it.
There would be several better solutions that the most profitable company in the world could figure out if they wanted to. It's funny how their particular solution happens to make them even more money through shutting down third party repairs and making people buy new phones.
This is like your home alarm software(made by the home builder) remotely burning down your house and telling you to build a new one because someone may have tampered with home access and could possibly enter your home.
Second, Apple can provide an option to replace the fingerprint chip and charge, $150-$200 or whatever it costs for it.
>When Olmos, who says he has spent thousands of pounds on Apple products over the years, took it to an Apple store in London, staff told him there was nothing they could do, and that his phone was now junk. He had to pay £270 for a replacement and is furious.
I find the stores are somewhat inconsistent in their application of policy. (Particular if the policy isn't well defined ahead of time, as in this case)
(As an aside, the practice of requiring an appointment to talk to a support person or even just drop off a broken computer is maddening.)
The phone would still work perfectly fine and safe if Touch ID would be disabled and input from the sensor wouldn't be trusted.
What are you even talking about?
If the fingerprint scanner is suspicious, just disable it and leave the rest running. And this is in fact what happens, until a software update is installed and then the phone suddenly decides to brick itself completely.
The fact that you need to enter PIN right after boot, just shows that they use "two factor authentication" to make it even more secure.
It doesn't IN ANY WAY show that TouchID is "the less secure authentication" method of the two.
I believe ApplePay requires TouchID.
> To help ensure the security of Apple Pay, you must have a passcode set on your device and, optionally, Touch ID. [...] To send your payment information, you must authenticate using Touch ID or your passcode.
By feeding numbers into the scanner instead of fingers, you can accomplish the same effect as feeding random strings into a password box. Further, it's also possible to take fingerprints through social engineering, or by getting at the database of a company that uses fingerprints as security. Five bucks says someone's already storing a bunch of fingerprint data as plaintext.
Isn't this exactly why they DON'T allow you to use the iPhone with a potentially tampered with HW/TouchID -- e.g. the very feature/issue we're discussing?
I'd argue that fingerprints for security are just silly to begin with.
The correct solution there would be to pop up a warning saying the TouchID hardware has been tampered with, and giving the user an option to validate it.
I think it's totally OK not to accept authentication from an unvalidated device, but a legitimate user should be able to do the validation.
Couldn't they just ask the user? Use the backup password to authenticate.
If it's my device, I want to be the one who chooses what I trust.