Norway to Force Accused Criminal to Unlock His Phone via Fingerprint

[Googlyhead]

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.

Ok: I'll bite.
What does someone's mobile phone have to do with possession of illicit substances?
If I saw a random person staggering down the street with a bong or cooking something in a rusty teaspoon; I would not be able to tell if they have a dealer saved to their contacts as opposed to having obtained it from a "friend"/rave/street-corner etc.

Besides which; the specific crime was possession. If not dealing, then surely that's as far as it goes? Actually supply of the substance(s) is a different person and a different offence.

 

[Candlelight]

So for people like me that have Touch ID disabled by default, does that mean they would force me to enter my passcode instead?

 

[Googlyhead]

So for people like me that have Touch ID disabled by default, does that mean they would force me to enter my passcode instead?

Sooner or later there will probably be a ruling that any passcode protected device must be switched to biometric authentication so that the permitted access by fingerprint to the data can occur.

 

[theBostonian]

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.

You're wrong, the police should only check what the warrant authorises them to check, and which they have probable cause to suspect contains evidence of a crime. What you're suggesting is akin to saying, before the advent of computers, that someone suspected of a crime should have had their entire study confiscated, with the contents of their safe, bookshelves and desk, sifted through to find any evidence of the crime. Then any subsequent evidence which could be used against them would lead to subsequent charges.

What people seem to forget or fail to appreciate is that just because something is against the law or illegal does not make it evil or immoral.

 

[LIVEFRMNYC]

Ok: I'll bite.
What does someone's mobile phone have to do with possession of illicit substances?
If I saw a random person staggering down the street with a bong or cooking something in a rusty teaspoon; I would not be able to tell if they have a dealer saved to their contacts as opposed to having obtained it from a "friend"/rave/street-corner etc.

Besides which; the specific crime was possession. If not dealing, then surely that's as far as it goes? Actually supply of the substance(s) is a different person and a different offence.

It has everything to do with possession of illicit substances. According to the actually source ... "The man acknowledge culpability for storing cocaine". 520 grams of cocaine is not some petty score for self consumption. Of course any person with half a brain would believe he has contacts in his phone that can lead to more trafficking suspects, the source, and potential buyers.
[doublepost=1455053539][/doublepost]

You're wrong, the police should only check what the warrant authorises them to check, and which they have probable cause to suspect contains evidence of a crime. What you're suggesting is akin to saying, before the advent of computers, that someone suspected of a crime should have had their entire study confiscated, with the contents of their safe, bookshelves and desk, sifted through to find any evidence of the crime. Then any subsequent evidence which could be used against them would lead to subsequent charges.

What people seem to forget or fail to appreciate is that just because something is against the law or illegal does not make it evil or immoral.

The police were authorized by the courts.

Did anyone read the actual story?

 

[LizKat]

"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!"

It would be scary if you really couldn't remember the passcode at that point. I mean every time I change an ATM pin then just thinking about whether I'll remember the new one sometimes makes me forget it.

 

[oneMadRssn]

If you don't participate in criminal activity then this is a non-issue.

If you have nothing good to say then taking away your freedom of speech would also be a non-issue?

 

[LIVEFRMNYC]

If you have nothing good to say then taking away your freedom of speech would also be a non-issue?

In criminal context, YES. People get arrested for online comments on the regular.

 

[jkcerda]

If you don't participate in criminal activity then this is a non-issue.

EXACTLY, the GOVT should be able to monitor ANYTHING they want as they see fit........

 

[LizKat]

If you have nothing good to say then taking away your freedom of speech would also be a non-issue?

From your lips to God's ear on some days in this forum...

 

[garylapointe]

That would be destroying evidence.

If you were a criminal mastermind, you'd have that rule already set with someone. If I'm in jail or the hospital, I might not have my phone with me, please remote wipe it for me in case it's in the wrong hands (before you learn that my phone might be evidence).

Although, I'm sure (eventually) police procedure will be to put phones into airplane mode when taken in as evidence.

I hope Apple lets users adjust this time limit to require passcode in the future. Some people who are not concerned with the security this might prefer the time limit to be longer, say 1 week. Other people more concerned with security might prefer this limit to be shorter, say 6 hours.

Also require the passcode if the phone has been put into airplane mode!

Gary

 

[ptb42]

I wonder if they know that at any time he could probably delete the phone through iCloud.

If they did, they could prevent it by simply putting the phone in airplane mode. Depending on how the phone is configured, it's possible without unlocking the phone.

But if someone remotely erases a phone being held as evidence, they could be prosecuted for obstruction (due to destruction of evidence of a crime under investigation). This is in the US -- elsewhere, YMMV.

Of course, a conviction for obstruction may carry a lower penalty than whatever evidence of a crime the phone held. But, if his lawyer knowingly participated or even suggested it, he could be disbarred.
[doublepost=1455058416][/doublepost]

Fusion Center Issues New Statement on Its Warning That Police Should Watch Out for Don't-Tread-on-Me Flags

http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/09/fusion-center-replies

 

[simonmet]

Doesn't matter which country you're in, police everywhere are the same. A law unto themselves.

Choosing to damage your own body in a way that doesn't put anyone else at risk is not a crime (at least it shouldn't be), no matter which way it's done. Ok using drugs and putting someone else at risk of harm such as driving is. I don't deny that certain drugs increases the risk of harming others, including legal ones like alcohol, but posession for personal use alone does not prove that that such crimes have taken place and personal use of drugs should be decriminalised. There are many that argue (with some validity perhaps) that cannabis is safer than alcohol.

This war on drugs undertaken by most countries is more about repressing the socio-economically disadvantaged even further and ensuring that profitable tax streams are maintained through legal channels and nothing else. Governments are petrified of the potential loss of funds they can use to bribe the public if people can make or grow their own drugs safely at home.

F the police!

 

[RogerWilco]

It would be scary if you really couldn't remember the passcode at that point. I mean every time I change an ATM pin then just thinking about whether I'll remember the new one sometimes makes me forget it.

I don't know the law in Norway, but in the U.S. legal system defendants can't be compelled to verbally answer any question. That is why the various three letter agencies are working tirelessly to find extralegal methods and venues to get the information. For the safety of our precious children, of course

 

[Nunyabinez]

My daughter tried to enroll her nose. She was not successful. A friend of mine attempted to enroll.... Another body part.... He was successful.

I guess there has to be some texture for the sensor to map... I just threw up in my mouth a little while typing that.

 

[imola.zhp]

What if he hadn't?

Then he has nothing to hide, unlock the phone, lmao. The OP says he was caught with something, so apparently he has.

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.

I have nothing to hide, maybe my life is boring? At some point in your life dirty pics just don't do it anymore.

I hope this was sarcasm, and you're not that naive.

Not sarcasm, I don't participate in criminal activity therefore I should never be forced to unlock my phone by court order. If for some reason I am, go for it, I have nothing to hide.

If you have nothing good to say then taking away your freedom of speech would also be a non-issue?

Because that is comparing apples and apples, right? *rolls eyes*

EXACTLY, the GOVT should be able to monitor ANYTHING they want as they see fit........

I think you forgot to read the original post. It doesn't say anything about anyone monitoring you. Wow.

 

[wikiverse]

If you don't participate in criminal activity then this is a non-issue.

Police don't only investigate guilty people. They often interview, investigate and sometimes arrest multiple suspects of a crime - even if they're innocent.

You could be forced to hand over all your messages, photos, and data to the police even if you haven't participated in any form of criminal activity.

 

[imola.zhp]

Police don't only investigate guilty people. They often interview, investigate and sometimes arrest multiple suspects of a crime - even if they're innocent.

You could be forced to hand over all your messages, photos, and data to the police even if you haven't participated in any form of criminal activity.

But that is not what this post is about. This individual has been caught with something illegal.

 

[wikiverse]

But that is not what this post is about. This individual has been caught with something illegal.

I see you don't understand how legal precedents work.

Once the police have been granted permission to force a suspect (he is not yet convicted) to unlock a phone using TouchID, then that is the legal precedent.

From then on, the police can force ANY suspect to unlock a phone using TouchID, even if there is only flimsy circumstantial evidence linking them to a crime (such as knowing another suspect, or simply being near a location when the crime occurred, or even just not having an provable alibi for the time the offense occurred).

The rules around police searches must be strictly enforced, and police power strictly limited. It is the only way to prevent a police state.

 

[kycophpd]

And they are strictly enforced. It has been decided that you have to provide your fingerprint if court ordered. No one is making you use touchID so stop using it. Simple enough. It has been clearly decided that they cannot order you to give something in your head (a passcode) so just use that only.

That's why I don't use TouchID anymore and I'm a cop!

I will remind you that bad things happen to all kinds of people good and bad. It's easy to say "they shouldn't get access no matter what" until it's your family raped, murdered, etc and the ONLY evidence is on the phone.

Disclaimer: yes I'm aware that this was about a drug case but as stated above, things don't become case law until cases are decided so you treat crimes and searched the same no matter what the circumstances.

 

[unplugme71]

If you don't participate in criminal activity then this is a non-issue.

Unless of course you are wrongly accused and they find a text of you jokingly saying you want to kill someone in the government.
[doublepost=1455069598][/doublepost]

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.

Touch ID is not in violation of 5th. Only forcing to tell authorities your passcode.

 

[wikiverse]

It has been decided that you have to provide your fingerprint if court ordered.

Providing your fingerprint =/= unlocking a device containing private information.

This is where US law goes full retard. The police can take your fingerprint/DNA for identification purposes.

With TouchID, they're not using your finger PRINT, they're using your finger. And they're not using it to identify you, they're using it to force you into giving them evidence that may incriminate you.

 

[theBostonian]

It has everything to do with possession of illicit substances. According to the actually source ... "The man acknowledge culpability for storing cocaine". 520 grams of cocaine is not some petty score for self consumption. Of course any person with half a brain would believe he has contacts in his phone that can lead to more trafficking suspects, the source, and potential buyers.
[doublepost=1455053539][/doublepost]

The police were authorized by the courts.

Did anyone read the actual story?

I was replying to the comment I quoted. Do you actually have reading comprehension and understand the concept of context or do you just absorb everything in a vacuum?

 

[LIVEFRMNYC]

I was replying to the comment I quoted. Do you actually have reading comprehension and understand the concept of context or do you just absorb everything in a vacuum?

You quoted my comment, try again.

 

[techwhiz]

So for people like me that have Touch ID disabled by default, does that mean they would force me to enter my passcode instead?

Not here in the US.
Even so, "I do not remember".