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
If you're comparing your fingerprint to a key then its a key you leave copies around on everything you touch throughout the day. You're fingerprint is no secret, but the teeth layout on your safe deposit box key are.
That being said, she could use the wrong finger a few times or reboot it and it'll require a passcode.
[doublepost=1462285175][/doublepost]
Correct
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
This ruling is just a bogus as the Apple ruling.
All,
We're talking about the law, here.
At least in the US, if the court legally issues a search warrant, then you either comply or go to jail for however long in comtempt of court. The choice is still yours (if they're asking you to compel information).
Where they can look is irrelevant, as long as that "where" is covered in the legal warrant.
Digital devices should not be treated differently than physical ones. If you have child porn in a closet at your house is and should be the same as having it on your phone.
This is not an issue of whether it's unfair or anti-privacy. We must abide with the law, and its enforcers, period.
At least until the law is changed.
This is far, far different from forcing a company to install a backdoor to its devices.
Anarchy is like communism: it only works in theory, and when human nature is not involved.
We're talking about the law, here.
At least in the US, if the court legally issues a search warrant, then you either comply or go to jail for however long in comtempt of court. The choice is still yours (if they're asking you to compel information).
Where they can look is irrelevant, as long as that "where" is covered in the legal warrant.
Digital devices should not be treated differently than physical ones. If you have child porn in a closet at your house is and should be the same as having it on your phone.
This is not an issue of whether it's unfair or anti-privacy. We must abide with the law, and its enforcers, period.
At least until the law is changed.
This is far, far different from forcing a company to install a backdoor to its devices.
Anarchy is like communism: it only works in theory, and when human nature is not involved.
Of course not. There are basic rights that should never be taken away from a person, even if he/she is considered a criminal.
But in this case, there shouldn't be any legal restrictions to avoid complying with a warrant so a criminal unlocks his/her own phone either by pin or fingerprint. '
It's a criminal, a person who can't be trusted, so it's not allowed to privacy.
If Airport police has the power to do a body search on a person and invade that person's privacy, then looking into someone's phone shouldn't be any different.
You are using this example and missing the point. The title actually hinders understanding. Until you are convicted, you are a suspect and have rights under assumption of innocence.
As for airport police, those under the TSA/Homeland Security can do this. Not the standard airport police unless you are under suspicion and in the process of being detained. There is a difference.
I don't like this one bit.
I don't like any sort of coercion whatsoever. The courts can coerce you into giving blood, tissue sample and now fingerprints.
You can't be compelled to give a password at the moment but that's because we can't read minds. If one day, we have the tech to read minds you'll be compelled to give up your passwords and anything else in your head. Your right to remain silent will be gone.
I don't like any sort of coercion whatsoever. The courts can coerce you into giving blood, tissue sample and now fingerprints.
You can't be compelled to give a password at the moment but that's because we can't read minds. If one day, we have the tech to read minds you'll be compelled to give up your passwords and anything else in your head. Your right to remain silent will be gone.
guess what: seatbelt law is "coercion". food safety is "coercion". fire safety devices installation laws are "coercion"
I am sure Apple have already been granted a patent for this? I'd expect/hope to see it in iOS10 given recent events...say, one finger that will lock the phone down. No need for wiping it - just trigger the passcode prompt.
I have a profile installed which set the number of passcode attempts before wiping to just five.
Well, this proves that the law can be bent depending on who's in charge....
Oops I accidentally hit the on/off button at same time as ID button and phone rebooted, sorry needs passcode now.
Searching a house does not give someone minute to minute GPS information of where one has been, but a phone might. This is another level of intrusion, and the authorities LOVE intrusion.
If an investigator can convince a judge to sign a search warrant authorizing access to that location information, being critical evidence useful for prosecuting a suspect for committing a crime that's under investigation, I see absolutely no problem with that.
While there is no perfect system, a carefully thought out password still beats using a fingerprint.
Apple pushes "convenience" knowing how impatient people are. Giving their mundane reader a catchy name like "Touch ID" is but one of Apple's marketing techniques. In fact it's Apple's brilliant marketing that keeps them at the forefront of the tech sector.
I use a complex password and find TouchID and other fingerprint sensors on other devices are a great shortcut.
I do see that at some point a suspect with cash will mount a legal challenge to the fingerprint use process. Just a matter of time.
Well, I have a graduate degree in STEM and I am in networking and security. I can guarantee that my efforts in my spare time go towards making sure that the government has as hard time as possible prying in the affairs of citizens. Maybe they can still do it in the end, but I will do my best to make sure they spend as many resources as possible along the way.
