The Fifth Amendment deals primary with self-incriminating testimony in a trial. Conversely, we don't have the right to refuse to have our house searched for evidence if the court issues a warrant. The iPhone issue seems more like the house being searched than being forced to testify against ourselves.
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.
Judge Grants Search Warrant Forcing Woman to Unlock iPhone With Touch ID
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Just curious, but has anyone heard of using a fingerprint lifted off a glass, or from fingerprints taken on paper, to unlock a biometrically-locked item of any kind? Something along the lines of the old Mission Impossible sort of trick wherein a latex copy of the fingerprint is placed over another person's finger to allow them to open the lock? Since courts have long held that fingerprints can be taken from a perp, this seems like a logical hack-around from the police end of things.
Generally I am with you, but I think we need to pause before jumping to any conclusions here.
When arrested, every criminal is already required to get fingerprinted. those fingerprints then go into a database. So we have precedence in terms of having to give your fingerprints. We also have proven solutions of converting a fingerprint into something that can access a phone. I think if someone is truly concerned, they should not use TouchID and instead use a long passcode which one would not need to divulge. Or to be real snarky, use something other than your fingers for TouchID.
Wouldn't be interesting if IOS let you register a finger that immediately wipes your phone. That way you could give the FBI "the" finger.
A competent lawyer should be able to delay long enough for touchid to no longer work. And as long as they have a warrant I see this as no different than being forced to give up a key. And just like you could forget where you put that key I don't see why you couldn't forget which finger you used.
Did you even read any of the article?? A cursory glance would have sufficed.... and prevented you from embarrassment.
Mike
Simple Public Service Announcement reminder:
If you are about to be taken into custody, reboot your phone. This stops your biometrics from working to unlock it and transfers you from the "no speech" side of the Constitutional Rights question to the "protected speech, maybe" side.
From a legal perspective, the SCOTUS has deemed lock combinations (although not specifically encryption passwords) to be speech and thus protected from compulsive self-incrimination, but biometric data including fingerprints and DNA to be intrinsic features not so protected ... on the other hand the SCOTUS is unclear on if someone can be compelled not to reveal the password of a device but still be forced to unlock it under penalty of contempt of court, which might carry an indefinite stay in jail which may or may not be applicable to any later sentence when you finally cave).
Frankly,it is widely understood amongst constitutional legal scholars that the SCOTUS long ago screwed the pooch on this one (by allowing compulsive gathering of biometrics without option of declaring one's fifth amendment rights), is going to have a hell of a time trying to making it consistent, and probably never will be able to. So, get used to silly and counterproductive law on this.
If you are about to be taken into custody, reboot your phone. This stops your biometrics from working to unlock it and transfers you from the "no speech" side of the Constitutional Rights question to the "protected speech, maybe" side.
From a legal perspective, the SCOTUS has deemed lock combinations (although not specifically encryption passwords) to be speech and thus protected from compulsive self-incrimination, but biometric data including fingerprints and DNA to be intrinsic features not so protected ... on the other hand the SCOTUS is unclear on if someone can be compelled not to reveal the password of a device but still be forced to unlock it under penalty of contempt of court, which might carry an indefinite stay in jail which may or may not be applicable to any later sentence when you finally cave).
Frankly,it is widely understood amongst constitutional legal scholars that the SCOTUS long ago screwed the pooch on this one (by allowing compulsive gathering of biometrics without option of declaring one's fifth amendment rights), is going to have a hell of a time trying to making it consistent, and probably never will be able to. So, get used to silly and counterproductive law on this.
This was done soon after Apple release TouchID, it's not a quick process and I'm not sure if it's 100% reliable but it can be done.
I've even heard of people taking a dead relative's phone to the morgue and getting it unlocked. Not sure on the veracity of that story though because Apple claim that the TouchID sensor only works with a live finger!?!?
This has nothing to do with the Fifth Amendment, which is about the government not being able to compel a suspect to answer questions or testify against him/her self in a trial.
An accused asserting his/her fifth amendment right does not bar the government from conducting lawful searches with a court order signed by a judge.
Pleading "no contest" is in essences an admission of guilt without explicitly pleading guilty. Besides, she's an identity thief, I'd say string 'er up. I haven't had my identity stolen yet (knock on my head). But I have a friend who's identity was stolen; it ruined her credit history and made a mess of her life. The DMV didn't believe she was who she said she was even with her driver's license. For 3 months she drove with an expired license. Not cool. Banking was a nightmare as well.
Identity thief, eh?
Get a rope.
Up to 48 hours, but the legal system works well at expediting the appeals process (or at least granting injunctions) if there is a short deadline like this. In other words: you won't be able to delay long enough.
I can understand the slippery slope arguments to an extent, but since I'm not a criminal I do feel comfortable knowing that an agent of the government or police would need to have a judge sign off on a search warrant to get into my phone. Call me naive, but I'm cool with that. They can do the same to search my car, house, financials, you name it. It just seems like if you go through life being a halfway good person these issues will not affect you 99.99999999999% of the time.
I'm struggling with having an issue with this. This is no way similar to the San Bernadino case. This is a (alleged) criminal under investigation and the courts have issued a warrant to have the person unlock their phone. How is this different then they getting a warrant to search your locked briefcase, house, car, etc. There's privacy and there's aiding a criminal. The only reason the FBI was in the wrong was because they were asking for a master key/Backdoor into every iOS device. This is just for one criminals device. I'm honestly kinda shocked how jaded this websites members seem to have become with legal issues, almost as if every issue is Apple vs the government or somehow related to the San Bernadino case. Idk, maybe I'm wrong but I see nothing wrong with this case right now.
There is a button on the side or top of your iPhone which does this. Hold it down for a few seconds until the screen goes dark.
Unless that print somehow has a heartbeat and multiple levels of skin, it's not going to work on TouchID.