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
Not to diminish your point, but let's work this out: go to jail for contempt of court, or go to jail for murder.... hmmm....
Even if they have no need to see my data, there's nothing in my phone they can use AGAINST me.
If you have something to hide to the police, something is wrong.
You don't have to live in America lol. Plenty of countries where it's WAYYYYY worse.
They did.... Still there is nothing in my iPhone that can be used by police against me.
----------
Again: yes I can be wrongfully arrested, still my iPhone doesn't contain anything illegal the police can use AGAINST me.
That's not the point though. This is a free country and that means they have to have a very good reason to search anything of yours. Let's be realistic, there are many extremely stupid laws and rules that are completely victimless to break..I'll use the casual cannabis grower for example. Someone growing a few plants on their patio has ZERO affect on anyone else yet this person is viewed as a felon and the Neanderthal DEA goons will be all over someone like this.
Even that aside, I would MUCH rather a few guilty criminals walk as opposed to innocent people get hassled by the overly obnoxious police.
Besides, can't you just "lose your phone in a boating accident"?
I'm not criminal and have nothing to hide but this makes no sense and is complete ********. That's what I have a problem with.
Why? I want to hide to the police my salary, pictures of my kids, and my emails (in which I talk of very personal subjects). Nothing criminal, again.
Privacy is not a crime.
And the data spills out onto the sidewalk, right?
It does seem like this issue is headed in that direction.
We are speaking about police, not the press. Even if they see my personal data, there's nothing interesting for them.
read the full constitution, this is wrong
Most of you are too young to have been taught true American history in public school. So let me tell you some history of the constitution.
The part about not being compelled to testify against yourself was understoon long ago to broadly mean you did not have to offer up evidence against yourself. Or assist in that.
But there is another amendment, the 5th, that talks about traveling about your business unimpeded.
Think: should a cop be able to randomly stop people and search them looking for some evidence that he can use? This was decided long ago to be unconstitutional, because of the 5th amendment.
So a cop may stop you if he has "probable cause" whatever that means. Even so, he may not grab you and drag you around unless he is in the process of arresting you. In lieu of arrest, he has NO RIGHT to put his hands on your body, nay, not even to detain you without evidence of a crime.
Therefore the ONLY circumstance a cop could legally use your fingerprint is when he puts his hands on you and forces it in the process of arresting you.
This then goes back to the other amendment. I personally believe you cannot be compelled to provide DNA, fingerprints, or anything else to provide evidence to the cops if they have no evidence already.
Finally, think ahead.
Brain scans for knowledge extraction are just around the corner. In 10 years a cop may want to force you to put the cap on, and the rationale would be the same as the fingerprint.
Do you all REALLY want to live in a world where you are spied on by bureacrats and dumbsht cops can roust you for data and proof against yourself anytime they like?
Wake up. There will be no freedom left if we stay on this path much longer.
Most of you are too young to have been taught true American history in public school. So let me tell you some history of the constitution.
The part about not being compelled to testify against yourself was understoon long ago to broadly mean you did not have to offer up evidence against yourself. Or assist in that.
But there is another amendment, the 5th, that talks about traveling about your business unimpeded.
Think: should a cop be able to randomly stop people and search them looking for some evidence that he can use? This was decided long ago to be unconstitutional, because of the 5th amendment.
So a cop may stop you if he has "probable cause" whatever that means. Even so, he may not grab you and drag you around unless he is in the process of arresting you. In lieu of arrest, he has NO RIGHT to put his hands on your body, nay, not even to detain you without evidence of a crime.
Therefore the ONLY circumstance a cop could legally use your fingerprint is when he puts his hands on you and forces it in the process of arresting you.
This then goes back to the other amendment. I personally believe you cannot be compelled to provide DNA, fingerprints, or anything else to provide evidence to the cops if they have no evidence already.
Finally, think ahead.
Brain scans for knowledge extraction are just around the corner. In 10 years a cop may want to force you to put the cap on, and the rationale would be the same as the fingerprint.
Do you all REALLY want to live in a world where you are spied on by bureacrats and dumbsht cops can roust you for data and proof against yourself anytime they like?
Wake up. There will be no freedom left if we stay on this path much longer.
If you scuff up your fingers, Touch ID won't recognize your fingers for awhile either. You can easily scuff up fingers in handcuffs.
read the full constitution, this is wrong
Most of you are too young to have been taught true American history in public school. So let me tell you some history of the constitution.
The part about not being compelled to testify against yourself was understood long ago to broadly mean you did not have to offer up any type of evidence against yourself. Or to assist in getting the evidence.
But there is another amendment, the 5th, that talks about traveling about your business unimpeded. Meaning nobody puts their hands on you.
Think: should a cop be able to randomly stop people and search them looking for some evidence that he can use? This was decided long ago to be unconstitutional, because of the 5th amendment.
So a cop may stop you if he has "probable cause" whatever that means. Even so, he may not grab you and drag you around unless he is in the process of arresting you. Arrest may only happen if the cop has EVIDENCE of a crime. In lieu of arrest, he has NO RIGHT to put his hands on your body, nay, not even to detain you without evidence of a crime.
Therefore the ONLY circumstance a cop could legally use your fingerprint is when he puts his hands on you and forces it in the process of arresting you. This then goes back to the other amendment. I personally believe you cannot be compelled to provide DNA, fingerprints, or anything else to provide evidence to the cops if they have no evidence already. Not even with court order - there must be evidence prior to a court order, otherwise the court order is simply a vendetta.
Finally, think ahead. Brain scans for knowledge extraction are just around the corner. In 10 years a cop may want to force you to put the cap on, and the rationale would be the same as the fingerprint.
Do you all REALLY want to live in a world where you are spied on by bureacrats and dumbsht cops can roust you for data and proof against yourself anytime they like?
Wake up. There will be no freedom left if we stay on this path much longer.
Most of you are too young to have been taught true American history in public school. So let me tell you some history of the constitution.
The part about not being compelled to testify against yourself was understood long ago to broadly mean you did not have to offer up any type of evidence against yourself. Or to assist in getting the evidence.
But there is another amendment, the 5th, that talks about traveling about your business unimpeded. Meaning nobody puts their hands on you.
Think: should a cop be able to randomly stop people and search them looking for some evidence that he can use? This was decided long ago to be unconstitutional, because of the 5th amendment.
So a cop may stop you if he has "probable cause" whatever that means. Even so, he may not grab you and drag you around unless he is in the process of arresting you. Arrest may only happen if the cop has EVIDENCE of a crime. In lieu of arrest, he has NO RIGHT to put his hands on your body, nay, not even to detain you without evidence of a crime.
Therefore the ONLY circumstance a cop could legally use your fingerprint is when he puts his hands on you and forces it in the process of arresting you. This then goes back to the other amendment. I personally believe you cannot be compelled to provide DNA, fingerprints, or anything else to provide evidence to the cops if they have no evidence already. Not even with court order - there must be evidence prior to a court order, otherwise the court order is simply a vendetta.
Finally, think ahead. Brain scans for knowledge extraction are just around the corner. In 10 years a cop may want to force you to put the cap on, and the rationale would be the same as the fingerprint.
Do you all REALLY want to live in a world where you are spied on by bureacrats and dumbsht cops can roust you for data and proof against yourself anytime they like?
Wake up. There will be no freedom left if we stay on this path much longer.
Strange... This is a turn for the worst...
People like Touch ID, but when something like this comes about with "the law can allow you to demand for unlocking your TouchID-enabled phone" all of a sudden this tech is now "good-turned-bad" overnight?
I can't keep up...
As i always said, Passwords are better, and this is the reason.... While TouchID is secure, and some would say more secure than a password, the weakness would be this ...Police can force you since its something u have, not something u know.
And i know i won't give it up
People like Touch ID, but when something like this comes about with "the law can allow you to demand for unlocking your TouchID-enabled phone" all of a sudden this tech is now "good-turned-bad" overnight?
I can't keep up...
As i always said, Passwords are better, and this is the reason.... While TouchID is secure, and some would say more secure than a password, the weakness would be this ...Police can force you since its something u have, not something u know.
And i know i won't give it up
It doesn't matter if you have anything interesting or not. In the US the police has no right to infringe your privacy unless there's an immediate need or they get a warrant.
But you live in Italy, with daily wiretappings' transcripts published on every newspaper...
I am reminded of the quote from MARTIN NIEMÖLLER: "First they came for ...." Your inability to see the repercussions of your views is quite alarming.
Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.
They don't care about your salary. Or your emails.
They are looking for something illegal, and you shouldn't have anything illegal in your phone, don't you?
I have the right to privacy. If they are looking for something illegal, they can get a warrant. That's the law. The fact that I have something to hide or not does not matter until the warrant is signed by a judge. That's how the US legal system works.
You'd better wash your mouth before speaking about a country that had laws when your country was populated by tribes ....
Hi there citizen, from the data on your phone it has come to our attention that you have been speeding and have run some stoplights. Please send us $500 for breaking the law.
My take is that Touch ID is used in place of, and equivalent to, a security code.
It doesn't matter what is in your phone, it should be protected from illegal search.
*I can think of numerous scenarios where using information (photo, email, text, etc) could be used to build a circumstantial case against a person without evidence of a crime itself, and even if you are not guilty of a crime.
It doesn't matter what is in your phone, it should be protected from illegal search.
*I can think of numerous scenarios where using information (photo, email, text, etc) could be used to build a circumstantial case against a person without evidence of a crime itself, and even if you are not guilty of a crime.