They should just issue a warrant to cut off a felon's finger. Then the Arresting Officer can just pick up the finger and use it to unlock the phone. So simple.
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.
Norway to Force Accused Criminal to Unlock His Phone via Fingerprint
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If there is anything on your phone that you would be uncomfortable with being on your moms Facebook page, it is an issue. This included pictures, browser history and any comment you have made anywhere online.
It could be considered a violation of the 5th amendment by compelling someone to unlock their phone. Though in this case, the police do have a right to your fingerprints, so...
...if you're a criminal, and you've sent tons of text to your various coke mules around the city, use a passcode.
My daughter tried to enroll her nose. She was not successful. A friend of mine attempted to enroll.... Another body part.... He was successful.
Wtf???!
Holy crap!!!
For possession??!!
That's insane. So, this guy was NOT a drug dealer... nor even a heavy drug user. Clearly didn't have any kind of quantity on him to suggest that or they would've charged him accordingly... a "lowest level" criminal I can imagine... & he's the one they're making a big deal over????
Jesus Christ Norway, chill the eff out!
Holy crap!!!
For possession??!!
That's insane. So, this guy was NOT a drug dealer... nor even a heavy drug user. Clearly didn't have any kind of quantity on him to suggest that or they would've charged him accordingly... a "lowest level" criminal I can imagine... & he's the one they're making a big deal over????
Jesus Christ Norway, chill the eff out!
Most of the time that is true, however it is very naive to believe that there aren't corrupt police out there that might misuse their authority.
And that's different from giving your finger prints, tissue samples, urine, DNA, blood, or blowing through a tube in the case of DUI (although you can refuse that and forfeit your license) how? It's all self incriminating and courts can order you to cough it all up.
[doublepost=1455042190][/doublepost]
Then it'd be a violation of our 4th amendment and the police don't have probable cause. The dumbest public defender could defend that with very little effort.
I hope this was sarcasm, and you're not that naive.
Think of it as biological goop you leave all over the place anyway (you nasty bastard), vs. privately held information.
The former has no expectation of privacy. If you sneeze, you're blowing snot all over the place. If you get cut, you're going to bleed all over your friend's nice couch. If you touch something, you'll leave your fingerprints. Therefore, you can be compelled to give it up.
But something like the combination to your safe, or your passcode ID for your various computers, or what you were doing in Texas on Nov. 22, 1963? You don't have to say a word.
You don't have to sneeze, bleed out, or touch something for the courts to compel you to give it up. Biometric data is not covered under the 5th amendment, hence whey the police can finger print you. The courts are telling this guy to use his fingerprint to unlock his phone.
Right, since your body fluids are left everywhere anyway, you can be ordered to give them up. That's why the police can demand you unlock a phone that's been fingerprint locked.
But they can't do the same for one that's been passcoded.
[doublepost=1455043990][/doublepost]It would be interesting if he tried to smash the phone once they present it to him to attempt to unlock it.
Norwegian police will force a 27-year-old man accused of drug possession to unlock his iPhone with Touch ID, according to local website Bergensavisen [Google Translate]. The police believe the confiscated smartphone may contain evidence about where he obtained the illegal substance.
The man, who reportedly admitted he was culpable, has refused to unlock his iPhone for police since being charged, but the Nordhordland District Court's recent verdict allows Norwegian police to force the accused's thumb on to his Touch ID-secured iPhone. Local police will also analyze his phone call and data history.
It remains unclear if Norwegian police are aware that Touch ID requires a passcode as supplemental verification after 48 hours of disuse, a restart, or three failed fingerprint entry attempts. The accused was arrested on January 25, so it may be impossible for authorities to unlock his iPhone with Touch ID without taking additional measures.
In the U.S., a Virginia court ruled that fingerprints, unlike passwords and passcodes, are not protected by the Fifth Amendment. In his ruling, Judge Steven C. Frucci opined that "giving police a fingerprint is akin to providing a DNA or handwriting sample or an actual key," which is permitted under federal law.
Note: Due to the political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.
Article Link: Norway to Force Accused Criminal to Unlock His iPhone With Touch ID
Yes, because I'd want a charge of tampering with evidence and obstruction of justice tagged on to whatever else they already have me on.
You may have assumed that no one will pass (or invent, or discover) a law you break by your very existence. The laws of equal protection are not designed to protect criminals. They're meant to protect individuals from crimes against their human rights. "Breathing while a Democrat" is still a protected privilege... today.
This guy should "accidentally" burn or cut his finger. That might make unlocking a little more difficult.
Note to criminals: Don't use Touch ID.
Note to criminals: Don't use Touch ID.
The thing that stands out to me in this is that the ruling isn't really regarding the actual offense:
He's already admitted it (and presumably was physically possessing the item), and anything on the phone (or from the other stuff they're doing) will have no impact on the outcome of that.
What the investigators are looking for is information that could lead to a different crime committed by someone else, in a different location. Or failing that; perhaps the guy did more bad things they don't know about yet.
He's already admitted it (and presumably was physically possessing the item), and anything on the phone (or from the other stuff they're doing) will have no impact on the outcome of that.
What the investigators are looking for is information that could lead to a different crime committed by someone else, in a different location. Or failing that; perhaps the guy did more bad things they don't know about yet.
"I'm sorry your honor... For the life of me I just can't remember that passcode. Obstruction & Contempt? Oh well, still better than what it would be if you unlocked that phone!"
Well you can't acknowledge being in possession of illegal drugs and expect authorities to ignore the source. That would be terrible police work.
Every person who gets picked up for a drug offense should be held until they rat out the distribution channels? That would be a terrible justice system.
Go look up the number of people arrested for petty weed use. Then look up the number of prison cells at your local station.
I'm sure these numbers won't balance!
Who said anything about being held? Police do have the right to investigate everything on the person that has to do with the crime at hand. Not to so would be like disregarding computers of suspects in child porn cases.