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.
First Case Surfaces of Law Enforcement Forcing Suspect to Unlock iPhone With Face ID
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Face ID isn’t very reliable for me. I would say that unless I am fully dressed, shaved, smiling, and in the sun it simply doesn’t work. I doubt I would meet those requirements if law enforcement was involved.
[doublepost=1538394507][/doublepost]
Wait... what? The buttons that take a screenshot also turn off Face ID? Really? Why would they do that? I can’t lift my X without pressing them...
[doublepost=1538394507][/doublepost]
Wait... what? The buttons that take a screenshot also turn off Face ID? Really? Why would they do that? I can’t lift my X without pressing them...
Laws try to provide some general principles such that they can be applied to situations not envisaged by the creators of laws. That will always result in a few edge cases where the simplicity of a principle appears to be at odds with how the creators of the law might have judged a certain situation.
You cannot force a suspect to give up the location where he or she buried the loot or other evidence from a crime. That can be extended to not being able to force somebody to give up a password. On the other hand, you can force people to provide their fingerprints (or DNA) to link them to a crime. Providing a finger(print) to unlock an electronic device falls right into the middle between those two. It's been shown that with enough effort, you can fool a fingerprint sensor with an artificial finger(print). While this seems to be harder with Apple's FaceID, it is probably not impossible. Now where would the law stand on this?
Well here’s an example why you might not want a policeman/policewoman to have access to your passcode unless you absolutely have to surrender it, and I suppose this could happen to a male, too, depending on the officer:
https://www.cnet.com/news/cop-charged-with-stealing-nude-photos-from-suspects-iphone/
(a) You have to press them several seconds (or multiple times in quick succession, I don't remember exactly)
(b) This only enables FaceID for the next unlock, ie, it requires the passcode for it, and after you have unlocked your phone via the passcode, FaceID is enabled again automatically.
Very well said. Forcing someone to log into an offshore account is a great example of self incrimination.
Exactly what I was thinking. Just close your eyes. Police can’t force them open without blocking part of your face with their hands.
Activating SOS (hold power and volume) also require the passcode afterwards.
Doesn't matter. If they have a warrant, you'll sit in jail until you unlock your phone for them. Probably best not to knowingly carry incriminating evidence on your person and then trust engineers at Apple to save your bacon. Or even better, not be involved with illicit activities unless you are prepared to take the fall for the cause.
Hold the volume up button and sleep/Siri button for something like three seconds (ie, the 'gesture' to shut down the phone) and FaceID gets disabled for the next unlock and you get a slider to call emergency services (but it does not call them unless you actually also slide the slider).
Pressing the sleep/Siri button several times (3 to 5 times) in short succession automatically calls the emergency services after a short timer calldown during which you can still cancel it. This is accompanied by an alarm sound.
You don’t even have to do that. Hold the power button and up volume button like you’re gonna then it off and it asks for password when you try to go back. Takes all of 2 seconds
As I said in another comment above already, if taking your fingerprint for identification is legal, it is hard to avoid the police using said fingerprint to try to create an artificial finger with it (which has been shown to be possible).
most tin-foil hat people who happen to want the latest and greatest have all started "require passcode to unlock" when they are at border crossings, TSA, etc. They swipe up 5 times I think without looking at the phone and it defaults to passcode required.
And how do you know when it is safe to open your eyes again?
(Maybe opening just one eye is the answer to this.)
You can choose not to use it should you have sensitive material in your iPhone though.
Interpretation and comprehension IS in within itself, in the eyes of the beholder.
This strikes me as the sort of ruling which fails to enforce the true intent of an old law, made in 1791 along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, enacted before "biometric" identification was a thing. No, you can't "hide" your fingerprints or face without masks or gloves; however, if I refuse to enter or reveal my password aren't I covering up whatever neural network within my brain is aware of it? Isn't that also a biometric entity, where I might be compelled to reveal it via some sort of "truth" drug? At the time of the enactment of the fifth, fingerprints weren't even an acknowledged biometric, and face id as a useful identifier was totally dependent upon human memory of how a person looked. So using the original logic of the fifth, one wasn't required to use one's own memory for self identification, but anyone else may identify as a witness. Using that same logic, isn't it a violation of one's rights, granted under the fifth, to force self incrimination via biometrics only accessible via my person? The logic which protects my right to not reveal my password should also allow me to refuse my fingerprint or face to unlock my personal information. It's all forced self-incrimination. It would be revealing to see the logic behind the ruling of the judge(s). I'll bet it was counter to the intent of the Founding Fathers - but, I'm no lawyer.
All victims of political persecution would probably have a very different opinion about this -- not to mention the victims of Holocaust or genocide.
I think you're worried about the wrong enemy in this case. It's much easier to protect yourself against criminals than it is to protect yourself against the police or your own government that suddenly decides to take away your civil rights.
Only because it currently exists in a bit of a grey area. Eventually higher courts will decide the question of holding someone indefinitely to try to get them to provide an unlock/password.