Court Rules Police Can Force Users to Unlock iPhones With Fingerprints, But Not Passcodes

[Swift]

The distinction is absurd

Yes, you are protected from giving evidence against yourself. But here is the fact: the man was under suspicion of murder. There might be evidence of it in a cell phone. If it was in his apartment, a search warrant would be given for the contents of his apartment. Since it's in his house, is this "giving testimony against himself"? No. He'd have to unlock the door or have it broken in. With a key. But what if he had one of those iPhone locks, which would unlock the door with Touch ID? Or with a passcode? It's irrelevant. It's a warrant to search his home, and his possessions, because of the reasonable suspicion that there will be evidence of a crime. The police have the right to break down the door! The warrant gives that to him. They can't mess with everything, they're looking for evidence of a crime they reasonably suspect of him. What difference does it make if it's something he knows as a lock rather than something he has?

 

[ethanwa79]

Here's how you beat this case:

The judge said that information in your mind is protected, but your fingerprint isn't. What the judge failed to realize is that the information as to which finer unlocks the device is IN YOUR MIND. It's protected.

So they can't force you to give up the information of which finger unlocks the device.

Guy needs to get a new defense attorney.

Plus, you can just tell them the wrong finger, try X number of times, and then you're forced to unlock with a passcode. Or just reboot the device. EASY to get around this dumb law.

 

[dysamoria]

Ha, no no that makes way too much sense. Let's figure out a way to break the law and get away with it.

It's depressing how many people here fail Freedom 101. I wonder how many are fellow USA citizens.

Due to secret evidence and classification of activist activities and other forms of free speech as terrorism, you could be arrested for not breaking a law, or breaking a contrived law you know nothing about.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-the-united-states-still-the-land-of-the-free/2012/01/04/gIQAvcD1wP_story.html

This article is a sampling of what freedom has been lost in the USA and given a blind eye by the people saying "you don't have to worry if you aren't a criminal". It's not remotely complete and says nothing about the freedom of speech that is eroding by "national security" and corporate lobbying, loss of freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and the constitution-free zone that 66% of Americans live in thanks to subscribing to the contrived "border crisis" scapegoating of foreigners by the politicians and corporate CEOs that have destroyed American employment and industry.

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights-governments-100-mile-border-zone-map

 

[dfmmacrumors]

you can't trust the cops

We are speaking about police, not the press. Even if they see my personal data, there's nothing interesting for them.

You are so naive it's a wonder you haven't been sold the Brooklyn Bridge. Twice.

Cops have been known to twist innocent actions into "evidence" of a crime, "evidence" they then "leaked" to the media. Remember Richard Jewell, the man falsely accused of the Atlanta Olympics bombing? His alerting police and helping to evacuate the area before the bomb exploded was twisted into a claim that he planted the bomb so he could "find" it and be a hero. It was splashed all over the media and his life was wrecked.

You NEVER voluntarily give any information to the cops. The cops have one interest and one interest only: to make an arrest and clear the case. They don't care if they have the right person, they don't care if the real criminal is still at large, they don't care if the prosecutor gets a conviction. A cop with lots of clearances looks good to his superiors.

 

[Dr McKay]

I can see a cop taking your iPhone after arresting you & forcefully unlocking your iPhone with TouchID as you are handcuffed on the hood of the patrol car. They will just claim they found it unlocked (if forcing you to unlock it was illegal).

Register your nipple as your Touch ID and only ever use your code to unlock it. If the Cop starts trying fingers they'll just lock it out.

 

[liavman]

I wonder if the passcode is written on a piece of paper and it is found with the person, can the cops then use the passcode to unlock the phone? Or that will be an unlawful search and seizure?

 

[thingstoponder]

Yet another reason to not buy a device with Touch ID...

As if there's any reason...

You don't even need to use it if you're really that paranoid about it.

 

[B2k1977]

America is the best place for murderes and pedophiles. We hold to our absolute bogus liberties to aide criminals. Everyone should come to America and start conmitting terrible crimes because the ACLU will protect a murderes rights for free

And those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.....

 

[Windlasher]

Apple should let us enroll a "distress finger". So that when it is used it wipes the device.

Multiple touch codes. IOS 8.2 or a jailbreak?

You could actually have to use several fingers in the right order which could be considered a code right? Finger 1 twice, finger 4 once. Thumb, thumb, finger1.

Even if you only use 2 fingers, the cops won't know. But I will bet that 99% use their thumb.

 

[proline]

what absolute nonsense. first, you can disable it if you so wish. second, it requires passcodes after certain periods, as mentioned in the article you didnt read.

Just report the bugger for trolling and don't respond.

 

[Keirasplace]

You're looking at this backwards. In this case, the fingerprint is no different than a key to a door. If I get a warrant to search your house, I can compel you to provide the key to open the door. The fingerprint is the key to the phone's door.

The argument made by the judge here is that a passcode itself might be self-incriminating under the 5th amendment - the passcode itself, not what's behind it on the phone. The passcode is protected knowledge, it's not a physical key like a fingerprint can be.

Oh right... So, if I use a passcode to lock my doors they can't get in... Because its all in my head... Is that what your saying. I think this judge is grasping I straws here. So, if I don't use a the index finger for touch ID, can I compelled to tell them. How is that different than a passcode? Telling them which finger is the right one?

The whole reasoning is really convoluted. In the case of house, that you have a key, a passcode, or whatever, if someone wants to get in, and they got a warrant, they will get in. In the case of an encrypted phone, they won't. A huge difference just there.

 

[Jovian9]

We don't live in the same country. You might want to wake up and realize that.

I have no interest in what country you or anyone else lives in. This topic is about a court ruling in the United States of America. Therefore unless I specifically start mentioning Italy or any other country one should understand my comments reflect the country that the topic is actually about.

 

[majordude]

use the wrong finger 5 times. It looks like the phone just isn't recognizing your fingerprint. After the 5th time, the ability to unlock your phone with touch id is completely removed, and you will have to enter your passcode to unlock.

Just a reminder: Use a complex password, not a 4 digit pin.

brilliant idea!

 

[Keirasplace]

Multiple touch codes. IOS 8.2 or a jailbreak?

You could actually have to use several fingers in the right order which could be considered a code right? Finger 1 twice, finger 4 once. Thumb, thumb, finger1.

Even if you only use 2 fingers, the cops won't know. But I will bet that 99% use their thumb.

having to put more than one finger would be hypersecure but you'd lose the ease of security you have now. Not sure it is a good tradeof.

 

[charlituna]

In his case he did the right thing.

some folks might disagree that he did the right thing by committing a crime to expose so called crimes. Some folks might even disagree that what he exposed was a crime at all.

But in the end it doesnt really matter because he admits he committed a crime and he will be made to pay for it one way or another, even if by permit banishment from his home and lost of everything he owes etc. and he's okay with that. because he felt that the ends were justified by committing his crime. Its like the father whose child is killed by a drunk driver who through legal games gets off scot free so daddy kills the driver in cold blood knowing it means life in jail or perhaps the death penalty

 

[Strange Famous]

Why does this thread remind me of Robocop... we are doomed.

 

[grjj]

Easy: don't break the law.

Ever heard of Civil Forfeiture?
Ever heard of wrongful arrest?
Ever heard of police misconduct?
Ever heard of coerced confession?
Ever heard of wrongful conviction?

There are lots of reasons you might end up involved in court but not have actually committed the crime you are charged with.

Given all that: after 5 wrong scans or after a restart the iPhone requires the passcode be entered. If you know you're guilty and the proof is on the fingerprint protected iOS device, just touch 5 times with the wrong digit or wrong part of the digit.

 

[charlituna]

The law is not 'right' or 'wrong'.

i disagree with that somewhat. Sometimes things that are the law are wrong. There was a time when many places had laws that it was totally okay for a white man to hit or even beat a black man, woman or child for any reason or none at all. It was the law, but it was wrong.

I'm reminded of the play, turned movie "A few good men". If you've seen it hopefully you remember the words of the older soldier at the end. If you havent seen it do it. Its an appropriate movie in some ways for this discussion. Especially that last bit.

I'm also reminded of the whole iphone 4 thing with Gizmodo. Giz could have kept their mouths shut about the source of the info and not admitted they bought what was under Cali law 'stolen goods'. by the same token, Snowden could have found a way to leak the information without the glory of revealing himself. But both did so both have to pay a price.

 

[greytmom]

Y'all know "they" are watching this thread, right?

 

[Spiritgreywolf]

That will be pretty hard if you are in cuffs.

It won't matter. With the new iOS 8 update, my iPhone 5s sucks battery juice like it's going out of style. Even if you don't power cycle the phone, give it a few hours and it will just die on it's own. I doubt the police would know to immediately put it on a charger

 

[grjj]

Oh right... So, if I use a passcode to lock my doors they can't get in... Because its all in my head... Is that what your saying. I think this judge is grasping I straws here. So, if I don't use a the index finger for touch ID, can I compelled to tell them. How is that different than a passcode? Telling them which finger is the right one?

The whole reasoning is really convoluted. In the case of house, that you have a key, a passcode, or whatever, if someone wants to get in, and they got a warrant, they will get in. In the case of an encrypted phone, they won't. A huge difference just there.

Exactly. The Judge just made a stupid ruling, not taking in to account the ramifications on a larger scale. Anything that is protected by a biometric system is weakened by this.

 

[burgman]

You mean because that little on/off switch on the screen says off that means they aren't recording the prints and sending them direct to the NSA?

Please post a picture of your Tinfoil Johnny Depp pirate hat

 

[lawrencewinkler]

I'll have to read the decision. I'm not convinced of the accuracy of the reporting or of the decision, whatever it was.

 

[T-R-S]

ahah!
The judge did not say the guy had to tell the police WHICH finger to use.
3 guesses oops wrong finger touch ID disabled .....

 

[Fzang]

Say that you have to use the bathroom. Come back with slightly wet fingers. Flunk no matter which finger is used.