Despite Apple's attempts to keep the next iPhone's features secret until it is formally announced, developers are unearthing more clues about the handset's support for payments.
One developer has found evidence that "Pearl ID," Apple's codename for facial recognition, will be used to authorize payments, The Verge reports. The new system will be able to store multiple faces and also be accessible to third party apps, according to the article.
A customer takes a photograph using an Apple Inc. iPhone 6 Plus at KT Corp.'s Olleh Square flagship store in Seoul, South Korea, on Friday, Oct. 21, 2016. Samsung Electronics Co. will be without its highest-end Galaxy Note 7 smartphone that was supposed to compete against Apple's iPhones and other premium devices during the holiday shopping season. Photographer: SeongJoon Cho/Bloomberg
SeongJoon Cho/Bloomberg
The term "multi-biometric" has also come up recently, suggesting that Apple may turn to a multifactor authentication method, possibly based on adding facial recognition to its current Touch ID fingerprint scans.
It makes sense that Apple would move toward biometrics that are advanced beyond its current TouchID fingerprint scans to connect individuals to devices, particularly given rumors that Apple's next iPhone will move or remove the home button that doubles as a fingerprint scanner.
The payments industry has been dabbling with facial recognition tools more heavily the past few years, with Samsung, Mastercard, Android and UnionPay all having some form of it in a payments or security scheme.
Years before it became a security option in mobile commerce, the Federal Trade Commission urged the use of facial recognition in commerce.
The largest U.S. banks took less of a capital hit under the Federal Reserve's hypothetical stress scenario than they did last year, but averaging the two sets of results could impact next year's regulatory requirements.
Time is running out for the 90-day pause on most of President Trump's tariffs. But at least two bank CEOs are confident there won't be a summer sequel to "Liberation Day."
The company sought to pay far less than a New York court had imposed as a result of the lawsuit the SEC brought against it. In a twist, the new SEC leadership argued on the company's side against the prior administration's position.
