The innocent are arrested (or have arrest warrants out for them) all the time. Snowden and Manning are two high profile examples of this. Your 5th amendment is nice in theory but a little pointless in practice of people refuse to abide by it.
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
The innocent are arrested (or have arrest warrants out for them) all the time. Snowden and Manning are two high profile examples of this. Your 5th amendment is nice in theory but a little pointless in practice of people refuse to abide by it.
That's not really the issue here. The issue is even with a valid warrant can you be made to give up the passcode or other needed entry. IF it's a passcode the decision has been made no. So now we have a judge saying that your finger isn't the same and they can forcibly man handle you to get the phone open.
----------
Actually there was a time that that was basically possible. Because Apple kept a master key. Which they didn't bother creating for iOS 8, which is why the FBI is peeved at them
Just reboot phone before interaction and you can record interaction without entering passcode, and device won't unlock for fingerprint.
I think it was said the average person breaks 3 laws per day.
Common ones were:
1) not completely stopping at a STOP sign
2) driving over the speed limit. Yes, even 1 mph counts even if not enforced
3) connecting to an unsecured WiFi network
4) playing poker for money at home
5) driving without seatbelt
6) drinking and driving
But that's basically the point. They take it so you can't erase it but who is to promise they can get the warrant within the 48 hours or before the phone runs out of battery and reboots. In which cases the touch id is disabled anyway
All you need is five second warning to shut your phone down. How often do you get arrested without a five second warning?
Snowden is NOT innocent. He has admitted without shame to breaking several laws. That is not the point in his case, rather that it was worth it to break the law to expose the 'evils' that he had uncovered.
Or, ya know, cutting your hair without your spouse's permission, seducing an unmarried girl, sleeping with your shoes on, or having two drinks in front of you at the same time.
http://www.dumblaws.com/
Snowden and Manning have committed a crime. It's no secret, they violated several laws and NDAs.. Now, I agree with their decisions, and I think they served their country (up to an extent), but they infringed the law and the law will prosecute them. I am not agreeing with the law, but they are paying the consequences of such law.
And as far as I know the 5th amendment was not involved in their case.
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?
Boy, this is a toughie.
Being forced to supply a fingerprint to unlock your iPhone, is tantamount to being forced to give evidence against yourself, which is exactly what our forefathers in their infinite wisdom decided to exclude via the fifth amendment.
What makes it slightly more complicated is the knowledge that hardened criminals, or even terrorists can use this to not just refuse to "be a witness against themselves" but actually actively withhold crucial evidence necessary for a conviction. I know that sounds like exactly the same thing, but I believe there is a distinction between spoken evidence and material evidence.
As a (mostly) law abiding citizen, I'd hate upon mere suspicion, to be bullied by the police to hand over my iPhone, with all it's contents, but looking at the other side of the coin, how many serious crimes could be solved, and how many potentially horrible terrorist acts can be averted with this lower court's ruling.
There is not a shadow of a doubt Judge Steven C. Frucci's ruling will go all the way to SCOTUS.
It would be nice if their was a duress switch of some kind...like having a specific fingerprint that would lock the phone (Or you could make it reset the phone...but I feel that would be a bit extreme for most people.)
Or maybe something like triple tapping home (Like reachability, but three taps) that would temporarily disable touch ID.
I guess the temporary solution would be to smear your finger around while scanning so that it doesn't read correctly (Assuming you can't turn the phone off or reset it.)
Or maybe something like triple tapping home (Like reachability, but three taps) that would temporarily disable touch ID.
I guess the temporary solution would be to smear your finger around while scanning so that it doesn't read correctly (Assuming you can't turn the phone off or reset it.)
If you can't find 4 seconds to power down your phone before you get arrested and cuffed, you're not very aware of your surroundings.
I am really tired of people popping off that someone is paranoid when they express concerns about privacy.
Or calls 911. A "distress finger" for when you were in trouble was one of the first use cases I thought of when they introduced Touch ID. Honestly, I thought Apple would have implemented something like that by now.
In this case the fingerprint IS the passcode that is protecting a citizen from self incrimination. I will be interested in how the ACLU reacts to this and the expected lawsuit over it.
The other side of the coin does not jusitfy sacrificing freedom. One of the thoughest and most horrible crimes is domestic violence, especially on women and children. Would you agree if the government put cameras inside your house, connected 24 hours, in order for them to react at the first sign of violence? It would stop domestic violence, and it would kill freedom.
Calling 911 isn't going to help when it's the very police who are forcing you to unlock your phone.
That's some over the top paranoia right there.
How do you even use technology?
Worry that the camera is recording you for the NSA when you use your phone?
Yes, exactly. They get my phone before that, I will shut it off if they present it to me - or just continuously use the wrong finger. Security-wise, why would you use the obvious thumb or pointer? Convenience? gna....
In his case he did the right thing. It's not his fault that the law stated his good deed was a crime. If the US government didn't act against the law with their intelligence organisations, there'd have been no need for Snowden to do what he did. Cause and effect there.
US government committed crimes. Snowden exposed those crimes (and broke the law as it's illegal to expose the US governments illegal actions), thus in exposing the US governments crimes, Snowden committed a crime.
The US military committed many crimes by murdering innocent civilians and covering it up. The collateral murder videos were the evidence of the US military's crimes and the government covering it up was the government's crime.
So you are saying it's a crime to expose other crimes committed by the government and military?
