First Case Surfaces of Law Enforcement Forcing Suspect to Unlock iPhone With Face ID

[Abazigal]

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...

https://support.apple.com/en-sg/HT208076

The same shortcut which enables emergency SOS also requires you to key in your passcode the next time you want to unlock your phone (effectively disabling Face ID or Touch ID).

I had no idea that was also the shortcut for taking screenshots (I am using a 8+, so still using the home button + power button shortcut). That is one overloaded command.

 

[BenTrovato]

This got me to thinking. Why doesn't Apple add an option for an emergency wipe password? That way if someone is making you give up the pin to an iPhone. You can give them the wipe pin. Then the phone will immediately wipe the encryption key, perform a crash reboot to immediately clear the RAM then start the factory reset process.

____________________________________

As for this case. If guilty, hopefully the guy rots in jail. I don't see why anyone would see using a face or fingerprint to unlock a phone would be any different than any other warrant using your body to obtain evidence. Matching fingerprints, DNA, facial recognition with witnesses and surveillance and so forth. It' novel for now but will be common.

The difference between a password and face id/fingerprint unlocking is to due with the method. You can't be forced to give a password because you can't be forced to relinquish any knowledge that incriminates yourself. You're face, prints, DNA, &c are not knowledge. They are just a part of your person. You're person can be searched with a warrant.

Person 4th amendment protection
Knowledge (Self Incrimination) 5th amendment protection

A wipe feature is way too secure! I doubt this ever comes to the iOS platform. I would have thought though, that Apple by now would have implemented "Not Your Face" where when the device detects a different face on your phone for longer than "X" seconds, the phone will lock - or something along those lines.

Great post btw. I'm not sure many understand the definitions of person.

 

[bbeagle]

The issue is the 5th amendment in the bill of rights, which basically says you can't be forced to testify against yourself. (That includes providing password to your devices and/or accounts) Just because someone has a warrant to search your house for physical evidence, doesn't mean they have a warrant to search you brain for thoughts and memories.

Just wait until we get technology that can read people's brains.

I can't imagine the depths to which law enforcement will want to use those technologies.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

Do the moderators not know the definition of forced?

Right. The way's written almost implies they where forcing him to look at the camera. Not the case.

 

[Abazigal]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument

Your point being?

I get it. Just because I feel that I have nothing to hide from law enforcement doesn't mean that I should just surrender my privacy without putting up a fight. At the same time, all this paranoia against the authorities feels quite dismaying to me. They are supposed to be serving the people, yet it seems that a lot of energy is invested in just looking over our shoulders and keeping them out of our daily lives.

I guess I should consider myself fortunate that law enforcement in my country is quite trusted and respected.

 

[BigDO]

I’m pretty sure that’s a woman.

Are you assuming zir gender??!?

 

[Tiger8]

I’m pretty sure that’s a woman.

Mac rumor updated it, the original image had a guy

 

[Pangalactic]

Privacy and security go out the window with a search warrant listing electronic devices. Seriously think you have a say about your phone when being investigated for CP?

In this case, of course, you don't. But if they want to "check in just in case" - and trust me that happens A LOT with the police - then the password with no other unlocks will make it impossible.

 

[BvizioN]

"Your Face is Your Paswword" Thanks Apple.

Nothing to do with Apple.
You have the option to use a long password if you wish.

 

[AngerDanger]

I can’t believe we live in a world where you’ll need to disable FaceID if you want to exploit children for sexual gratification. Think of the milliseconds wasted by those poor souls entering their passcodes! This is truly a sad sad day.

 

[Southern Dad]

If you think there is a reason that someone might serve a search warrant upon you, maybe it is a good idea to turn your iPhone off or not use face recognition to unlock it. (After a reboot you need to enter the code.)

 

[mazz0]

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.

Well I'm no expert in US law, but I thought they couldn't force you to provide your password? Locking you up until you do so would count as forcing you to do so, I suspect.
[doublepost=1538398860][/doublepost]

Did you just assume their gender?

He did.

 

[curtvaughan]

I can’t believe we live in a world where you’ll need to disable FaceID if you want to exploit children for sexual gratification. Think of the milliseconds wasted by those poor souls entering their passcodes! This is truly a sad sad day.

A necessary side effect of laws granting citizens certain rights, in this case under the U.S. Constitution, is the necessity of granting the rights to both possible criminals as well as the innocent. That is why law enforcment must often jump through "inconvenient hoops" to make an arrest, and why innocence must be presumed until guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. To pursue justice outside of law is to become a vigilante.

 

[RedGala]

Poor guy in the Apple marketing image used in this article - it kinda looks like you're saying he's the one arrested for using child porn.

That's a woman.

 

[Blakjack]

When I was a kid, I got whoopings. It was the price to be paid when I did bad things. As adults when we do bad things the price we pay is more costly. Our rights are taken away. I wouldn’t care if they had to slam his face into the phone to get it to open. Don’t do bad things.

 

[pl1984]

A necessary side effect of laws granting citizens certain rights, in this case under the U.S. Constitution, is the necessity of granting the rights to both possible criminals as well as the innocent. That is why law enforcment must often jump through "inconvenient hoops" to make an arrest, and why innocence must be presumed until guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. To pursue justice outside of law is to become a vigilante.

I think he was being sarcastic. At least that's the way I read it.

 

[jonnysods]

My friend grabbed my phone while we were at a wedding this weekend and unlocked it and tried to monkey around with it. I wasn't happy! He folded his arm and took a photo of the crease in his elbow to make it look like his bum and made it my lock screen wallpaper.

 

[curtvaughan]

Your point being?

I get it. Just because I feel that I have nothing to hide from law enforcement doesn't mean that I should just surrender my privacy without putting up a fight. At the same time, all this paranoia against the authorities feels quite dismaying to me. They are supposed to be serving the people, yet it seems that a lot of energy is invested in just looking over our shoulders and keeping them out of our daily lives.

I guess I should consider myself fortunate that law enforcement in my country is quite trusted and respected.

The violation of basic Constitutional rights, the frequent use of excessive force by law enforcement, and excessive intrusion and spying by the government is unfortunate fallout from reaction to the attacks of 9/11 18 years ago. That you live in a place where law enforcement is widely trusted and respected is likely testament to your government abiding by lawful rights supposedly granted to citizens. Consider yourself fortunate.

 

[alleggerita]

If you have the setting "Require Attention for Face ID" on, then you have to have your eyes properly open to unlock the phone. With that setting on I find that it will stay locked if I look at it by squinting.

Or if you enrolled your Face ID with a straight face, then simply just smile widely or open your mouth wide. I’ve failed to unlock my phone so many times because I was yawning or I was laughing at someone’s joke.

 

[spazzcat]

Basically this is why you shouldn't ever use Face ID or Touch ID or Windows Hello or anything like that if you care about security (and also why all the governments are so happy about these new "security" measures)

If you just have a strong password, it will take the government quite a bit of effort to crack it, interrogations etc, which obviously will require a lot of permissions and pushing the law.

On the other hand, forcing you to place your finger on a scanner? Or scanning your face? That hardly takes anything and it's pretty hard to argue against your rights being violated since there were no force or interrogation techniques applied.

Or learn the key combo that will disable the feature.

 

[Small White Car]

Huh ? How's even possible for such a rule to exist ? We're talking about two different methods to access the same device/information. Under which logic only one of the two methods is protected by law against self-incrimination and not the other ? So, if one uses passcode is entitled to deny to unlock his/her device but in any other case government has the right to demand to a person to self-incriminate ?

If your storage locker has a physical key and the police have the physical key and a warrant to search the locker, that is fine. No problems there.

If they need a password out of your brain, they have a problem.

There is actually nothing weird about this and the law actually doesn’t need changing.

WE ARE the consumers who decided to move our security from inside out brains to outside of our body. That takes them out of the 5th Amendment’s purview.

But that’s our fault, not the Constitution. Apple gives us the ability to disable face/touch ID. If this kind of stuff matters to you, you should do that.

Me? I leave ‘em turned on cause the convenience outweighs the other factors for me.

But we all have that choice to make. It’s not the government’s fault. It’s our choice.

 

[curtvaughan]

Well I'm no expert in US law, but I thought they couldn't force you to provide your password? Locking you up until you do so would count as forcing you to do so, I suspect.

I would think that someone locked up for not furnishing information protected by Constitutional rights should be able to be released via habeas corpus within 24 hours, at least to be able to be formally charged with a crime by a judge. I'm not saying that habeas corpus is always honored, especially without access to a decent lawyer, but in the best of all possible worlds ... If a judge continues to enforce incarceration in such a case would be a clear violation of protection against self incrimination, at least it would seem to be so.

 

[Guda.FL]

That image is a lie. Mine will not even detect me if I'm standing over the phone. And I have the Xs

 

[ThunderSkunk]

Cool. CP has been the ultimate justification for abuses of power for at least half a century. Want to ignore a plebs constitutional rights, toss the law out the window and destroy someone? Just say the magic words “child pornography”, and viola, you have full public support of dragging your target into a back alley and beating them to death.

Luckily, one of the most popular websites on the internet, 4chan, visited by hundreds of millions of people a month, fairly regularly saw the dumping of CP on it, making nearly anyone under 30 a potential perpetrator, & you can now justifiably discard their rights and blaze a path of legal, ethical, and physical abuse to their browser cache.

Won’t somebody think of the children???
Law means nothing outside of a courtroom.

 

[tallscot]

Yeah, if you cheat on your partner or do illegal drugs, you shouldn't be using the face recognition unlock or the thumbprint unlock. The courts have ruled that cops don't need a warrant for those. They can compel you to use those to unlock. They need a warrant for you to enter in a code, though. There was a story about a woman using the thumbprint unlock or face unlock on her boyfriend who was asleep and she caught him cheating via his phone. lol