If you believe only lawbreakers are arrested, why should we have courts at all. Let the police shoot all law breakers in the streets. After all, if you don't want to get shot by police, don't break the law.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Court Rules Police Can Force Users to Unlock iPhones With Fingerprints, But Not Passcodes
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If you believe only lawbreakers are arrested, why should we have courts at all. Let the police shoot all law breakers in the streets. After all, if you don't want to get shot by police, don't break the law.
I LOVE this idea, except that wiping isn't necessary. The "Distress Finger" could just be a locking finger, causing the phone to either shut down or go into "pin only" mode.
----------
If you believe only lawbreakers are arrested, why should we have courts at all. Let the police shoot all law breakers in the streets. After all, if you don't want to get shot by police, don't break the law.
Right on. Falls in with the "people only run/keep secretes/ask for a lawyer when they have something to hide" logic.
Which I believe is used often by police or government agents who are about to violate your civil rights anyway.
So the cops can't force me to give up my password, but they can force me to unlock it with my thumbs?
My freedoms really ARE under attack, aren't they?
My freedoms really ARE under attack, aren't they?
Federal snooping
I think what many are missing in the headline generating nature of this case is the underlying motivation of federal agencies. The Justice Department in particular has been railing against Apple, not because Apple has done a bad thing, but because the Feds can't snoop with impunity into the private matters of "We The People."
The state had a duty to abide by the law, in this case the Constitution. We see time and again that this administration views the Constitution as an obstacle to its political ends. The state, much as it thinks it is all powerful, is not. It derives its power from the concent of the governed.
Ours is not a "Gotcha System." At least it's not supposed to be. Out of control witch hunts should have ended in Salem, Massachusetts. The state has no right to wrongfully seize evidence, even if the defendant is guilty as sin. The Weeks case established that in 1914.
I think what many are missing in the headline generating nature of this case is the underlying motivation of federal agencies. The Justice Department in particular has been railing against Apple, not because Apple has done a bad thing, but because the Feds can't snoop with impunity into the private matters of "We The People."
The state had a duty to abide by the law, in this case the Constitution. We see time and again that this administration views the Constitution as an obstacle to its political ends. The state, much as it thinks it is all powerful, is not. It derives its power from the concent of the governed.
Ours is not a "Gotcha System." At least it's not supposed to be. Out of control witch hunts should have ended in Salem, Massachusetts. The state has no right to wrongfully seize evidence, even if the defendant is guilty as sin. The Weeks case established that in 1914.
Ok, I must say I'm confused. Yes, a fingerprint can be used as evidence. I also understand the concept of a search incident to an arrest. What I don't understand is how the Constitution differentiates between the warrantless unlocking of your phone via your fingerprint and the warrantless unlocking of your phone via your passcode.
yep, too many liberties is the problem... :|
And also: the "distress finger" idea is great. Question is, can TouchID deferentiate between fingers that good? I mean, if you register a finger for access and one for distress it means the sensor can pick up your fingerprint, but can it tell which is which?
This judge is way off base. Scotus case law covers providing fingerprints as part of any criminal investigation...this is a far cry from forcing you to activate a device with a fingerprint and at that point is covered by the 4th amendment. However, if a valid search warrant is issued for your device, then you can still choose not to comply, but can be charged with obstruction.
There's another thing that bugs me.
If the police/judge/FBI can force you to unlock your phone or encrypted hard drive, then take that drive off to the back room "for analysis", what's to prevent them from planting evidence on your device?
"What reason would they have" is a terrible way to justify this. There are plenty of reasons. They could do it to prove themselves right when it turns out that their search warrant is only going to produce family pictures or boring poems. There's that promotion they want. Or to prove their pal the prosecutor right. Or just because they don't like you. Or they like your wife better.
I am in favor of solid encryption because I think the government has way too much power, and way too many conflicts of interest.
If the police/judge/FBI can force you to unlock your phone or encrypted hard drive, then take that drive off to the back room "for analysis", what's to prevent them from planting evidence on your device?
"What reason would they have" is a terrible way to justify this. There are plenty of reasons. They could do it to prove themselves right when it turns out that their search warrant is only going to produce family pictures or boring poems. There's that promotion they want. Or to prove their pal the prosecutor right. Or just because they don't like you. Or they like your wife better.
I am in favor of solid encryption because I think the government has way too much power, and way too many conflicts of interest.
You are correct that they are different and this judge is a moron. No phone can be searched without a valid warrant under the 4th amendment, but being fingerprinted unrelated to this.
----------
One key thing to remember is that if you ignore a warrant a judge or jury are allowed to make an inference of guilt. This is longstanding case law. So, if you refuse, they can assume you are hiding something incriminating if a warrant was disobeyed.
So the judges and the courts are utterly and blatantly corrupt and have less regard for the US Constitution and Bill of Rights than a tinpot dictator. Big surprise.
The corrupt judges fit nicely into the scheme of things with the rest of the self-serving corrupt bureaucracy -- the corrupted "law enforcement officials" and the corrupted legislators and the corrupted administrators/executives.
A nice circle of corrupt ruling-class power-warped plutocrats in cahoots, with each branch of "checks and balances" rubber-stamping the police-state control-freak whims of the adjacent branches. Can't have the plebs and the rabble getting away with too much autonomy, after all.
But rest assured it's "for your own good" and "for the public safety" and "for the children"; and it's "surely you have nothing to hide?" as they hold up your personal effects for warrantless scrutiny and possible planted evidence (oh, the nice __policeman/govt agent/state-sanctioned psychotic/overly ambitious prosecutor__ would NEVER break trust in such a way!) -- and never mind that gaping hole where the border used to be, with millions of unknown quantities streaming across without so much as a second glance. And never mind that gaping hole where your intrinsic rights used to be.
The corrupt judges fit nicely into the scheme of things with the rest of the self-serving corrupt bureaucracy -- the corrupted "law enforcement officials" and the corrupted legislators and the corrupted administrators/executives.
A nice circle of corrupt ruling-class power-warped plutocrats in cahoots, with each branch of "checks and balances" rubber-stamping the police-state control-freak whims of the adjacent branches. Can't have the plebs and the rabble getting away with too much autonomy, after all.
But rest assured it's "for your own good" and "for the public safety" and "for the children"; and it's "surely you have nothing to hide?" as they hold up your personal effects for warrantless scrutiny and possible planted evidence (oh, the nice __policeman/govt agent/state-sanctioned psychotic/overly ambitious prosecutor__ would NEVER break trust in such a way!) -- and never mind that gaping hole where the border used to be, with millions of unknown quantities streaming across without so much as a second glance. And never mind that gaping hole where your intrinsic rights used to be.
Last edited:
Because police in America never ever mistakenly arrest the wrong person. Because no member of law enforcement would ever think using his or her office for personal gain or as "payback" for a personal offense.
The difference is this:
Your fingerprint is on your finger.
Your passcode is in your brain.
They can't force you to speak. "You have the right to remain silent"
They can however force you to give blood, hair samples, fingerprints as long as they have a warrant. Blood, hair samples, fingerprints and other stuff can not testify.
Also you seem to be confused on the warrant part in regards to this story.
This story is not about warrant-less searches. The state went to the judge to ask for a warrant to compel the defendant to unlock the phone with his finger. The defendants lawyers attempted to squash the warrant because obviously they do not want the state getting pictures or video off the defendants phone. The judge ruled on the warrant and granted it to the state.
So a warrant is involved and the state got it. It probably won't do any good since it's probably been more then 48 hours and you need a pass-code with which the defendant can now not give them since that would be forcing him to testify against himself.
So anything that's physical is subject to the 4th Amendment requiring a warrant. Everything in your mind however is covered under the 5th Amendment and they can't force you to divulge it and testify against yourself.
So the best thing to do is use a pass-code on your phone at all times or stall and delay for at least 48 hours or shut the phone off and reboot.
Of course the absolute best thing to do if one is inclined to be a criminal is to not record your criminal activities on your phone in the first place.
----------
They got the warrant.
This case is about a warrant. The state wanted one. The defense fought against it. The defense lost.
And fingerprints are covered under the 4th Amendment. They are not covered under the 5th Amendment.
The state wanted a warrant to search this man's phone and part of the warrant was that he give them his fingerprint to unlock the phone. It's the same as getting a warrant to search a house and part of the warrant is the owner provide the key for the door to be opened.
The judge is not a moron. He made the right call.
Looking at your posting history.... Must be a difficult life to live when you're in full-blown paranoia mode all the time. Lemme guess, you also open carry don't ya?
My beloved state of Virginia has gone to hell. May they RIP, buried alongside the Constitution. This is an obscene ruling and that judge? IMPEACHED.
----------
Okay, Canuck, since you brought it up that way let me remind you that you have never had the freedom to do what you are attempting to make a joke albeit poorly. Perhaps contribute to the thread rather than make a sorry attack on another member.
----------
Okay, Canuck, since you brought it up that way let me remind you that you have never had the freedom to do what you are attempting to make a joke albeit poorly. Perhaps contribute to the thread rather than make a sorry attack on another member.
Yeah... must agree.
I read an interesting counter-argument that relates back to a court case from 1966. Apparently, it involved a suspected drunk driver who was taken to the hospital after the accident. A police officer at the hospital ordered that his blood be drawn so they could determine if he was intoxicated (without him having the ability at that time to give verbal or written consent first).
It was ruled that the officer was in the legal right to be able to do that, since the defendant wasn't being asked to divulge any information stored in his head. He wasn't asked to communicate a single thing.
They seem to be basing this ruling on that same logic.
Personally, I have a problem with it amounting to a "letter of the law" situation vs. "intent of the law". By the fact the individual locked his phone (regardless of the mechanism used to make the lock work), it indicates the INTENT of keeping the content closed off from plain view to all who run across the device.
We know that today's smartphones tend to keep all sorts of personal information in them that if kept in a physical form, would be subject to certain legal protections (a warrant required to obtain and look through it). So why can't that be respected as fact, vs. trying to play legal games to find loopholes to bypass the INTENT of our existing laws?
----------
I know exactly why MY reaction would be if this happened.
I'd say, "WTF kind of useless cop are you, if you didn't make an effort to find any other evidence besides some idea you'll get the answers out of this guy's phone??"
I'm pretty darn sure that you haven't done your work to bring a case to trial for rape and murder if you're still saying you need to look through a cellphone to have enough evidence to present it to the court!
I read an interesting counter-argument that relates back to a court case from 1966. Apparently, it involved a suspected drunk driver who was taken to the hospital after the accident. A police officer at the hospital ordered that his blood be drawn so they could determine if he was intoxicated (without him having the ability at that time to give verbal or written consent first).
It was ruled that the officer was in the legal right to be able to do that, since the defendant wasn't being asked to divulge any information stored in his head. He wasn't asked to communicate a single thing.
They seem to be basing this ruling on that same logic.
Personally, I have a problem with it amounting to a "letter of the law" situation vs. "intent of the law". By the fact the individual locked his phone (regardless of the mechanism used to make the lock work), it indicates the INTENT of keeping the content closed off from plain view to all who run across the device.
We know that today's smartphones tend to keep all sorts of personal information in them that if kept in a physical form, would be subject to certain legal protections (a warrant required to obtain and look through it). So why can't that be respected as fact, vs. trying to play legal games to find loopholes to bypass the INTENT of our existing laws?
----------
I know exactly why MY reaction would be if this happened.
I'd say, "WTF kind of useless cop are you, if you didn't make an effort to find any other evidence besides some idea you'll get the answers out of this guy's phone??"
I'm pretty darn sure that you haven't done your work to bring a case to trial for rape and murder if you're still saying you need to look through a cellphone to have enough evidence to present it to the court!
Which one? People who think that they're not breaking the law almost never are the people who make the laws and determine what's right and wrong. You know what else is easy? Being a sheep, which is what your comment says you are.
It's not just rape and murder and "pillaging" so to speak that are considered crimes.
You might be doing something that you aren't aware is a crime while you're doing. But because you think it's lawful and somebody wants to put you in jail and take everything you own because they want to get a promotion at work at their government job, you would be destroyed.
Please don't be such an easily lead fool all your life.
I truly hope that you are a government employee because that is the only way your comment makes sense, because it's coming from somebody who has little to fear from the incompetence of their own actions as everyone else is already paying or will pay for them.
Actually if you decide to ever read the constitution (which is what they're talking about in this article) not just one judges interpretation of how it affects conduct by law-enforcement and accused individuals, the victim is never mentioned in regards to the fifth amendment or any kind of search and seizure.
The concepts in the Constitution, known as where all of our rights and all of the government's authorities are derived from regarding the enforcement of law, is based on the freedoms and protections of the suspect are the only thing discussed.
The victim, including the government itself, in regards to things such as violations of its employees, laws or tax code, or never actually referenced.
The only people who matter according to the Constitution are those being accused by the government, even when they are representing another citizen making accusations that they were harmed by another citizen (the suspect) under the criminal code that they have been said to have violated.
How many black men have been hung by the accusations of white women during the early centuries of this country's existence? I do not mean to make this a racial issue but the court also said slavery was legal and has made several other gross misjudgments.
If I remember correctly, Virginia is the only state that doesn't allow radar detectors.
Everything the judge did is within the bounds of the Constitution.
Your fingerprints have never been considered to be something that could cause you to testify against yourself. Neither has your blood, DNA, or hair or anything else that you can produce upon receipt of a valid warrant from a court.
I would suggest that it is you that needs to read the Constitution along with accepted case law in this country. No it's not perfect, your slavery example shows that, but it works well enough.
In this case the state wanted the defendant to use his finger to unlock his iPhone. The state went to the court and asked the judge for a warrant to accomplish this. The defendant claimed the state had no right to do this as it would violate his 5th Amendment rights against testifying against himself. The judge correctly said that fingerprints are not covered by the 5th Amendment as your fingerprints can not cause you to testify against yourself. The judge correctly said that the fingerprint issue is covered under the 4th Amendment and the state was granted the warrant for the defendant to unlock the phone with his finger. It is not unreasonable of the state to seek out a warrant to compel a defendant to provide access to the iPhone.
However the judge threw in one caveat. An important one. That is the state can ask the defendant to open the phone using his finger as that is no different then the state asking for the key to the defendants house BUT if the iPhone was locked with a pass-code the state could not get a warrant because at that point the pass-code would be covered under the 5th Amendment and you could not compel the defendant to speak.
So for those who like you seem to border on paranoid mass-hysteria at every little court ruling because you don't understand the Constitution or case law simply turn off the fingerprint sensor on your phone or turn it off/on or stall the police for 48 hours or just don't put anything incriminating on your phone.
Or even better don't take your phone with you to the crime scene since the police will get a warrant for your cell phone with the cell phone companies since you are being tracked by the cell phone towers. Use a burner phone.