The thing about that is that, if it's provable, the extremes you've gone through to protect your personal information could be used against you. This is especially true if they've got a warrant out for you over drug trafficking or child pornography.
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
The thing about that is that, if it's provable, the extremes you've gone through to protect your personal information could be used against you. This is especially true if they've got a warrant out for you over drug trafficking or child pornography.
I have seen this countered in court with legitimate use such as sensitive financial data or confidential R&D data held. Again, there is a lot of Linux builds out there that do panic passwords. Why it is not implemented in more commercial systems such as Mac or Windows is probably an IP issue.
[doublepost=1462231344][/doublepost]
Just turn off the phone or touch the button with a wrong finger for several times. Boom! Touch ID disabled.
With the right pantomime, this could be pulled off.
Correction: 'Criminals' instead of 'People'.
Someone linked to organized crime or terrorism does not deserve to have any rights.
Last edited:
There are plenty of legitimate excuses to have a panic setup like that. Even in a situation where it's presence is suspicious, it can't be used as evidence against someone by itself. It'd be like getting pulled over for speeding, and the cop catches you reformatting your smartphone while you're sitting in the car. Sure, it looks guilty as hell, but if he didn't pull you over for anything other than speeding, he can't arrest you, and say you were destroying evidence, since he had no reason to assume anything incriminating was on your smartphone. The act of taking even overly extreme measures to protect your data means nothing by itself, and can't be used against you.
...though he could probably use it as an excuse to search your vehicle. If he happens to find 10 kilos of coke in your trunk, it'll become a whole different story.
It's the same situation with a panic password, equipped with an EMP generator to wipe a harddrive. By itself it means nothing. But if the police have been investigating you because your name and internet activities have been traced to a few prominent child pornography chat rooms, it becomes something that could be thrown in your face in court, with your only defense being a compelling excuse that can be backed up with proof.
[doublepost=1462233210][/doublepost]
Everyone has rights, even the worst among us.
Court order prevailing, using the wrong finger is quickly seen as what is known as "contempt of court". Now if she can prove the court is corrupt or provide evidence that suggests the court is not acting evenhandedly or if there is a conflict of interest on the part of the court then a relevant cause for objection could be made... However, that seems unlikely.
It's like being a suspect for a murder trial and you keep your shovel locked in a closet. The victim (if such entities still exist anymore since some say everyone is a victim nowadays?) was bludgeoned to death with a shovel. You're innocent, your tool closet has three shovels but none contain the DNA of the dead person. Do you comply with the request? Why or why not?
Depends. Search warrants are supposed to be specific. Not a fishing expedition. Let's see what happens when someone with some bucks gets the same and can afford legal counsel to push back.
When you get a jail sentence you lose your right to be free. So, after all, people who commit crimes lose certain rights. That's the whole idea behind their punishment.
Even then people have certain rights. You can't be subjected to cruel or unusual punishment, for instance.
It has nothing to do with being a criminal.... that line of thinking is silly and dangerous. How many people convicted of a crime have been proven innocent? Lots of them. Providing a fingerprint is NOT the same as using that fingerprint to open a phone.
I completely agree that anything pulled off my phone without my consent or a warrant would probably not be allowed in court. However, wasn't my concern. Like I said, I don't have anything on my phone (or anywhere else for that matter) that I am worried about getting me in legal trouble. However, I do know of instances where officers have gone on rummaging through a person's phone after a minor traffic stop (without a warrant or the owner's consent). The owners of the phones were upset about it but to the best of my knowledge all they did was file a complaint against the officer, they did not file a lawsuit.
I really don't think this is what the 5th amendment was for. If I commit a crime and a search warrant is served on my home, they can look in my computer, my filing cabinet, my underwear drawer.... how is a phone any different? Evidence is evidence. Pin codes? Yeah, if you had a murder weapon in a pin code locked safe, sure they can't make you give them the cod.... but they can and will drill out the lock and get in there. I'm all for privacy protection, but making a criminal give up a fingerprint?
And they could always take the fingerprints on file and use them. It is a simple and effective way to bypass a finger print sensor.
And they could always take the fingerprints on file and use them. It is a simple and effective way to bypass a finger print sensor.
Turning off the phone is possible while it is locked. No pantomime required.
Once your phone is turned off, the encryption key enabling Touch ID access is deleted. So you will need to re-enter your passcode after you restart the phone.
Don't ruffle the tin foil hat crowd
[doublepost=1462242797][/doublepost]
So what is only on your phone that isn't littered all over your digital life? How is a phone more private than your residence and contents , bank accounts etc. ? I just don't get this false sense that your phone is somehow unique and keeps your secrets.
If you are dumb enough to put incriminating content on a phone then break the law, you deserve whatever happens to you.
Last edited:
With a name like Paytsar Bkhchadzhyan, can you really blame her for identity theft?
If what's on your phone is littered all over your digital life then the cops don't need access to your phone. Case closed.
The phone is not unique. There are many ways to keep your secrets that the government and authoritarians can't do anything about; Die Gedanken sind frei. You could keep a diary where each character is represented by a number which is a position on a random page (or multiple random pages) of a novel. If they don't know the which novel, they can't read the diary. They can seize the diary under warrant and keep it as evidence against you, but without the key, it doesn't help their case.
If you're smart enough to encrypt some or all of the contents of your phone so that the government can't access it without your passcode, then you deserve to keep your secrets secret, even if you commit a crime or if you are charged with some crime that you didn't commit.
I see no difference with a passcode. It's functional a key in your memory. If the judge decides that there's is probable cause for a search, I myself don't see a difference between a code and a fingerprint. If the cops come to your house with a search warrant, you have to open the door for them. Period. What I hate about people is that they always imagine these issues as if the law is totalitarian. A lawful warrant, based on sound principles, is the basis for rational, fair laws. The woman in this case is just the sort of person-- if she has done what is alleged-- who would keep the evidence on her smartphone. It's not a conviction. If the police don't find evidence, well, maybe they've got the wrong person. The 4th amendment made the person inviolable-- except with a warrant, for reasonable cause. That is part of the rule of law.
[doublepost=1462249091][/doublepost]
You deserve to get away with it if you're smart? What is this, Nietzsche?
[doublepost=1462249091][/doublepost]
You deserve to get away with it if you're smart? What is this, Nietzsche?
You deserve to keep your secrets if you're smart enough to protect them. Secret from anyone who would use them against you (including governments and criminals).
Whether that means you get away with "it" is another question.
And if the government (or the criminals) manage to break your code and access your secrets, then they are no longer secrets and you weren't smart enough.
A warrant was issued to unlock the iPhone what privacy issue is there when the court did the right way it's like arguing well there should be a better way to open a can. If you are not a criminal than don't worry about unlocking iPhone other than you got nude photos of yourself. Can't understand why are people so paranoid when the Government has always been tapping everyones phones even when there was no cell phones just pay phones or land lines only.
I have to say, that this is a non issue, if you power off your phone you need to enter a passcode and touch ID doesn't work until you do.
I would think it possible that an option might be added to power off the phone or lock touch ID if a finger print is used that is not recognised.
You could then force a passcode either by someone else attempting to open it or clicking the home button or by you using a finger not registered. I think it makes sense and then you could not be compelled to self incriminate.
I would think it possible that an option might be added to power off the phone or lock touch ID if a finger print is used that is not recognised.
You could then force a passcode either by someone else attempting to open it or clicking the home button or by you using a finger not registered. I think it makes sense and then you could not be compelled to self incriminate.
well it was "A finger" the question is which one.
The irony of all this with a finger we get at as "its clearly can't be protected" but when it came to FBI vs Apple case, people had no idea just because of "an act"
Comparing things is what i like to do
Last edited:
