Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Google Security

Google Adds Selfie Video As a Log-In Option (engadget.com) 54

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Engadget: You'll now be able to use selfie videos to log into your Google account. It has long been possible to log into Google using your face, via your phone's face unlock or if your passkey login uses biometrics for verification. This is yet another option to get into your account using your face to authenticate your identity, which could be especially useful if you don't have access to the phone or computer you typically use or if you got locked out of your account and none of the other log-in options are working.

[...] Google will ask you to turn your head in certain ways during the verification and every time you use the option to log in. The company says it's to fend off impersonation attempts, such as deepfake videos, and prove you're currently in front of the camera. It will, of course, have to save your selfie video and use it for comparison for future logins.The company says it will encrypt your video and only use to help you sign in, but if you ever change your mind, you can delete it from your Google account.
It's worth noting the option is currently unavailable for Workspace accounts, child accounts and those enrolled in Google's Advanced Protection Program.

You can set it up and give it a try at g.co/signin-selfie.

Google Adds Selfie Video As a Log-In Option

Comments Filter:
  • What's wrong with passwords. I can type mine in while I'm driving. I sure as hell can't scan the phone 2 orbits around my head under ideal light conditions in order to satisfy the face/selfie unlock crap.

    But honestly, why do we have accounts at all? 99% of the crap we do on our phone doesn't actually need it. Forcing people to log into web sites in order to post seems like a good idea, but really it's still full of bots and sock puppets. Tear off the bandaid and lets all just go fully anonymous. If I don't

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Because most people have things like email and photo storage that they really don't want to lose access to.

    • by SumDog ( 466607 )
      > But honestly, why do we have accounts at all? 99% of the crap we do on our phone doesn't actually need it.

      I don't. I haven't signed into a Google account on my phone in years. I run Lineage without Gapps or even microG stubs and just use F-droid.

      https://battlepenguin.com/tech... [battlepenguin.com]

      ..but I realize I'm an outlier. It use to not be that way. In the 90s/2000s every tech enthusiast would wipe a machine and reinstall Windows when they got it to get rid of the bloatware. Replacing a phone OS would not
    • Because... gotta have Facebook and Twitter/X (still, calling it X sounds like I'm talking about a porn site), gotta have at least two emails (that you remember), gotta have all the online movie and game sites (because physical discs are going obsolete because "everybody has 500MB/s download speeds"), you get paid electronically, you do your taxes online, you file for Social Security online.

      There is no being truly anonymous anymore... you leave breadcrumbs everyplace you go, not to mention the fact that all

  • by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Friday July 24, 2026 @12:09AM (#66254318)

    Facebook has added a Dick Pick login option.

  • I am sure there is no way to out another phone in front of a locked phone and play a video with a face.

    And in the era of the AI making such a video from a photo should not be really difficult.

    • Re:Surely safe! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by unrtst ( 777550 ) on Friday July 24, 2026 @11:00AM (#66254870)

      I am sure there is no way to out another phone in front of a locked phone and play a video with a face.

      I'm making an assumption, but TFS notes that it directs you to look in various directions. If it varies what directions it asks for, that can be used to ensure it's not simply a prerecorded video.

      Though a live AI generated video for it would entail too much lag at the moment, that still seems like a huge weakness. Even worse, if they're saving these videos, then THEY can easily create a video of your login motions in any order. It's essentially enough info to build a full 3d model of your face. That means they could use it to login to OTHER sites on your behalf, unlike locally saved and verified biometric data.

  • We promise we're not using these videos for weird sexual purposes. Well, other than Steve that sick freak.

  • Does it also work when you have a bleeding nose and a broken jaw? Asking for a friend.
  • by Todd Knarr ( 15451 ) on Friday July 24, 2026 @02:37AM (#66254384) Homepage

    The worst part isn't that now anyone who can get a few pictures of your face off the Internet can log in on your account. The worst part is that you can't recover from it. You can't change your face so once they've got it all you can do is disable this feature completely, and hope Google doesn't re-enable it.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      As it points out in the summary, it requires you to turn your head on command, to prevent people using photos of you.

      Google has form here. Their Pixel phones with face unlock cannot be fooled by photos, or even videos of people's faces. The only thing that works is an identical twin.

      • >As it points out in the summary, it requires you to turn your head on command, to prevent people using photos of you.

        Yeah, no way you could use a real-time avatar program to fake that. Last time I checked, the cheap ones couldn't do profiles... but for just how long do you think that will remain true?

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          I'm sure someone will publish a proof of concept if it really is so easy, but if they are using the same tech as the Pixel phones (which don't have IR, just ordinary cameras) then so far nobody has been able to get past it with a real time avatar app.

          • by gweihir ( 88907 )

            For phone use, it is probably a lot easier to get into the phone some other way. Especially if you just want to reset a stolen phone to sell it in some country where the government does not care and hence the Telcos will accept devices on the list of stolen ones.

            • For phone use, it is probably a lot easier to get into the phone some other way. Especially if you just want to reset a stolen phone to sell it in some country where the government does not care and hence the Telcos will accept devices on the list of stolen ones.

              No, if you don't have the LSKF (Lockscreen Knowledge Factor, i.e. PIN/PatternPasscode) for a Pixel, you can't reset a stolen device, not since Android 15. The anti-reset feature (called "Factory Reset Protection") dates back to 2014, but it had some holes, which I fixed in Android 15.

              The way it works is that there's a "boot secret" stored in TrustZone (TZ) and in a directory in /data. The device always boots in the "I'm stolen" state, and until the correct secret is sent to TZ, it remains in that state.

              • by gweihir ( 88907 )

                Yo are apparently easy to convince as long as the ones manipulating you use big words.

                • Yo are apparently easy to convince as long as the ones manipulating you use big words.

                  What have "they" convinced me of?

              • The anti-reset feature (called "Factory Reset Protection") dates back to 2014, but it had some holes, which I fixed in Android 15.

                Actually I mostly fixed it in Android 14. The solution architecture was the same as described above, except that TZ's role was played by a low-level userspace daemon instead. This means that "I'm stolen" mode on Android 14 doesn't disable KeyMint, and it opens up more userspace/kernel attack vectors. The reason for doing this is because leaving it in userspace for a year gave me a chance to flush out any corner cases I had missed. Privileged low-level flashing tools could bypass it -- which is not true

      • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        As it points out in the summary, it requires you to turn your head on command, to prevent people using photos of you.

        Google has form here. Their Pixel phones with face unlock cannot be fooled by photos, or even videos of people's faces. The only thing that works is an identical twin.

        Yeah, no. Turning your head on command? I see a future where a side view and a head shot is all you need, and AI will generate the head turning from those. Then you'd just loop a video of the head in each position to simulate li

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Let us know when this future arrives and can beat their system.

          Given how careful Google has been with account security, with zero mass hacks ever, unlike say Apple where their incompetence was responsible for a huge crime wave of stolen iCloud photos, I would be very surprised if this wasn't secure.

      • The thing that sucks is, for people who wear glasses, those video selfie things usually want you to take your glasses off... without my glasses on, and the phone held far enough away that my head fits in the box, I can't see what directions it's telling me to turn my head in.
        (Trying to set up an account on CoinBase was half an hour of just that step in the KYC process)

      • Yes, as if nobody could feed some photos into a genAI chatbot and have it generate a video of that face performing those actions on command. Right, nobody could possibly do that, not in our lifetime... wait a minute, I'm getting an update from the studio...

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Indeed. Pretty much true for all biometrics that can easily be stolen. Like, you know, the ones that store your biometric data in a cloud.

  • Training AI (Score:5, Informative)

    by MarkHughes4096 ( 6345560 ) on Friday July 24, 2026 @03:05AM (#66254406)
    This will give them lots of faces to train their AI on, That's really all it's for, Not for our security or anything that might benefit the end user.
  • by devslash0 ( 4203435 ) on Friday July 24, 2026 @04:52AM (#66254486)

    VERY bad idea.

  • ... subject says it all.

    Maybe rename the article to "Google admits passkeys are unusable for normal people."

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Ah, yes, passkeys. The magic that will likely screw you over. Funny how basically no actual security experts talk about them, except to point out they are not that good.

  • Data harvesting? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by codeButcher ( 223668 ) on Friday July 24, 2026 @05:41AM (#66254510)

    They sure seem to be keen on collecting a lot of facial and related data on individuals, examples being this, and the upcoming registration of Android app developers [keepandroidopen.org] which requires Gov ID for each one.

    Yeah, I also don't use fingerprint or facial recog on any of my other devices. That's like leaving post-it notes with your password on it pasted on every glass and door handle you use, or tattooing it on your forehead and walk around in public. In the stupid way I see things. (Also, I have quite faint fingerprints - presumably congenital - and every damn electronic fingerprint scanner takes multiple tries. Paper and ink seem to work fine though.)

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Indeed. It looks like they are trying to get as much face data as they can. At the same time, this is not something that will increase security meaningfully for more than maybe a few weeks. Hence they are likely lying about their intentions.

      Hmm. Does Google have some "smart" glasses with facial recognition in the pipe?

  • by Reemi ( 142518 ) on Friday July 24, 2026 @05:55AM (#66254514)

    We all know that MFA wants to have at least two of these: Something you know, something you have or something you are.

    This will reduces it to one, something you are, and then a real insecure version of it. As this works from any device, it is relatively simple for an attacker far away to use a devise setup for deep-fake injection to gain access.

    How does this differ from apps using fingerprint or face recognition? Note that the biometric data is stored on your phone and that the authentication is done on that specific phone. Not somewhere else in the cloud. This means you both need that specific device and your face. It is much less likely that an attacker has remote access to your phone AND is able to inject a deep-fake into the path of your camera.

    In my opinion, this is a really bad idea. Both from a security perspective and by providing Google with your biometric information.

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Yes. Only using only biometrics is _really_ the dumbest version of 1FA. And Google will know that. I guess they are just putting on a show.

    • There's no reason this can't be the 2nd FA combined with a password. TFS maybe suggests it will be 1FA, but certainly does not say so explicitly. And since this is /., I will not be reading TFA to see what it says.
  • is whilsrt you can delete the video you can not delete all the biometric data they processed.
  • Then this will also be broken routinely. If it takes that long.

  • I have actually written captcha bypasses for webcam/video based webcams. This is an absolutely terrible idea. Them being manipulated for account registration is one problem, using them to login to pre-existing accounts is a completely different, far worse problem. I cannot imagine the smoothbrain thought process that lead to this making it out of a brainstorming session as a real thing.
  • A short, low-res video that's analyzed by an automated system? You mean that thing that AI can generate in minutes?
  • They don't need help stealing our likenesses with even greater detail
  • I'm sure the technopeasants and the AI brows and their bots electronic or otherwise will like this.

Never buy from a rich salesman. -- Goldenstern

Working...