Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Thats exactly the problem. You should not need a “license” to practice law

Wait. What? Why not? Personally, if I need to hire a lawyer I like to know that they’ve been educated, are held to ethical guidelines, etc. It’s not like licensure is a new thing, either.
 
Side button and volume up or down button a couple seconds, Face ID disabled.
Thanks for the reminder of this feature. This solves all the issues really for the criminally paranoid. Do this if your being pulled over, do this at border crossings, do it while your phone is in your pocket - and leave your hand in there till directed to slowly pull it out, WITHOUT the phone - the faceID was disabled by the step, just leave it in your pocket so you don’t get shot.

For the less criminally inclined, FaceID is awesome and works 100% reliably for me, and none of my friends have bypassed it when I have challenged them to.

The story isn’t some proof that FaceID is flawed. Really just the opposite IMO, and law enforcement is simply trying to preserve all attempts, face or code, available. Probably wanting to preserve the gruesome option of using FaceID on a corpse that has had it eyes glued open. It is unfortunate that they have forced people to use biometrics to open their device. I didn’t realize that was different than forcing someone to use a pin.
 
Thanks for the reminder of this feature. This solves all the issues really for the criminally paranoid. Do this if your being pulled over, do this at border crossings, do it while your phone is in your pocket - and leave your hand in there till directed to slowly pull it out, WITHOUT the phone - the faceID was disabled by the step, just leave it in your pocket so you don’t get shot.

For the less criminally inclined, FaceID is awesome and works 100% reliably for me, and none of my friends have bypassed it when I have challenged them to.

The story isn’t some proof that FaceID is flawed. Really just the opposite IMO, and law enforcement is simply trying to preserve all attempts, face or code, available. Probably wanting to preserve the gruesome option of using FaceID on a corpse that has had it eyes glued open. It is unfortunate that they have forced people to use biometrics to open their device. I didn’t realize that was different than forcing someone to use a pin.

It is precisely the same as advising law enforcement personnel to not try and make several attempts to unlock it using a passcode. Basically law enforcement will always put your phone directly in a black bag as untouched as possible. From there a warrant will be issued or if not your phone should be returned still sealed.

Making repeated attempts whether it is via biometric authentication or by the means of a passcode the protocol I think will remain the same. Apple has some of the best security in the business and has responded to law enforcement efforts to side with their customers. They made it so that USB input needs passcode authentication if more than an hour elapses by default if I remember.

Apple is one of the most respected of the big companies(privacy) in the industry these days. Which would bring me to the question of don't Samsung and Google phones suffer from the same problem? If the weakness is systems like Face ID itself then I believe that Apple has the most locked down system in this regard.
 
I disabled all security check on my Iphone. With no passwords, no Face ID, I'm saving so many seconds and if I forget my phone somewhere it can be easily returned to me.
My private data is not worse than average and I have nothing to hide.
With my "unsecured" Iphone 6s, I have a faster reaction time than any 2018 Iphone with Face ID on.

Good for you. I can imagine you save tons of nanoseconds every day, risking the phone with all your data should not be a concern as long as you keep saving these nanoseconds. Very smart indeed!!
 
Thanks for the reminder of this feature. This solves all the issues really for the criminally paranoid. Do this if your being pulled over, do this at border crossings, do it while your phone is in your pocket - and leave your hand in there till directed to slowly pull it out, WITHOUT the phone - the faceID was disabled by the step, just leave it in your pocket so you don’t get shot.

For the less criminally inclined, FaceID is awesome and works 100% reliably for me, and none of my friends have bypassed it when I have challenged them to.

The story isn’t some proof that FaceID is flawed. Really just the opposite IMO, and law enforcement is simply trying to preserve all attempts, face or code, available. Probably wanting to preserve the gruesome option of using FaceID on a corpse that has had it eyes glued open. It is unfortunate that they have forced people to use biometrics to open their device. I didn’t realize that was different than forcing someone to use a pin.

Just one simple question for my understanding - given some "law enforcement" had you in restraint. Wouldn't it be possible, to bag the phone and strap you to a chair and then holding the phone right under your nose and strip the bag to unlock it?

I was just wondering. Because forcing you to look at your phone is a lot easier then forcing your finger to touch the home button I guess.
 
While your waiting for Apple to make an official method, some clever person/people came up with this Shortcut:
https://www.icloud.com/shortcuts/2d68cb1ee7b84f08ace2fd600b9855b5
Based on what MacRumors member rjtyork posted it does the following:
"Just by saying “Hey Siri, I’m getting pulled over”, Siri will pause your music, turn on do not disturb, send your location and a message to pre-determined contacts, dim your screen, start recording video from your front camera, upload that video to iCloud Drive or google drive, and send the video to any contacts you choose."

This shortcut sounds great.
If you trigger the shortcut via voice will it run/record while locked?
If the phone needs to be unlocked to run the police could grab it. If you try to stop them from grabbing your phone so you can lock it you're likely to get shot.
 
If the police ask you for your pass code to unlock your phone, you can invoke your 5th Amendment right and stay silent.

Yes, the government can't compel you to reveal your passcode.

But it can, under some circumstances, compel you to enter the passcode yourself and decrypt your phone. The law in this area isn't settled yet. We've had conflicting decisions with regard to the circumstances under which the government can compel you to use a passcode to decrypt things.

The issue is the proper application of the forgone conclusion rule. That rule applies when an act of production - e.g., turning over certain documents as might be required by a subpoena - involves an element of implied testimony. For instance, if retrieving the documents to turn them over necessarily implies that you know of the existence of the documents, and the government can't otherwise demonstrate that fact, then the government likely can't compel you to produce those documents. The government needs to be able to demonstrate that the (useful) information conveyed by the act of production is a foregone conclusion. (The law in this area is somewhat more nuanced than I suggest here, but I don't want to get lost in that.)

When it comes to decrypting things, the question is what is the relevant forgone conclusion. Is it, e.g., that particular information is on the device (or rather, would be if it were decrypted)? Or is it, e.g., just that the person (who might be compelled to use a passcode to decrypt it) knows how to decrypt the device? Different courts have come to different conclusions in this area. A federal district court in California recently concluded, in U.S. v Spencer, that it is the latter. That would mean that the government can compel you to enter your passcode to decrypt a smartphone if it can independently demonstrate that you know the passcode. I fear that is the standard which will ultimately be settled on (by, perhaps, the Supreme Court).


What citysnaps said is more or less correct. Generally speaking the government can't compel you to reveal your passcode, even if it can compel you to use your passcode to decrypt a device. The forgone conclusion rule is an exception within act of production doctrine. It doesn't apply when it comes to actual statements by defendants, it only applies to implied statements that are inherent in acts of production.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CarlJ
Doesn't turning the power off make you need to use a passcode when you turn it on again?
Yes, but try turning the power off when the phone is in your pocket and you don't want to take it out.
[doublepost=1539611175][/doublepost]
Just one simple question for my understanding - given some "law enforcement" had you in restraint. Wouldn't it be possible, to bag the phone and strap you to a chair and then holding the phone right under your nose and strip the bag to unlock it?

I was just wondering. Because forcing you to look at your phone is a lot easier then forcing your finger to touch the home button I guess.
Let's say it's the USA. The police can either do things and not admit to them, or they can do things and admit to them. If they do what you describe and they admit to it, any evidence will be thrown out in court. If they are willing to do things and not admit to them, they can get your passcode without leaving any traces on your body.
 
Apple already has it. It's called iCloud backup.

Are you sure its securely encrypted? I am not sure synced data is encrypted.

Can officers ask your for your Apple ID and to log in/your password? just wondering how far they can take it.
 
Question in general:

I see this come up so often that I have to ask.
Which websites are you people "visiting"? Because you all seem quite paranoid that someone will know you've "been there".

I see this comment so often that I have to ask:
Can you please prove that you don’t care, by posting a file with a copy of your entire browsing history?
Put up, or shut up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CarlJ
Yes they can. I posted an example of a federal circuit court holding a guy in prison, to this day, for contempt for failing to do so.

Here it is some more.

https://www.tomsguide.com/us/phone-password-jail-florida,news-25212.html
https://9to5mac.com/2017/06/01/fifth-amendement-passcodes-passwords-law/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...-not-giving-iphone-passcode-article-1.3209681
[doublepost=1539546505][/doublepost]

Wrong.

See above, including a case where a guy is in prison for contempt and his defense is “I forgot.”
This is not true because he didn't say "I forgot". From the article:

"'I swear, under oath, I've given them the password,' a handcuffed Wheeler told Circuit Judge Michael Rothschild, according to the newspaper."

So they concluded he lied and that's why he went to jail. If you're going to offer information to the authorities, it's best to not give them reason to think you are lying.

Lastly, all of these one-off exceptions are from Florida. How about some other states?
 
This is not true because he didn't say "I forgot". From the article:

"'I swear, under oath, I've given them the password,' a handcuffed Wheeler told Circuit Judge Michael Rothschild, according to the newspaper."

So they concluded he lied and that's why he went to jail. If you're going to offer information to the authorities, it's best to not give them reason to think you are lying.

Lastly, all of these one-off exceptions are from Florida. How about some other states?

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/20/appeals_court_contempt_passwords/

https://itknowledgeexchange.techtar...ry/man-jailed-forgetting-encryption-passcode/

He claimed to have forgotten. He went to jail.

And as this article states, this is the law in at least the third and eleventh circuits. So delaware, pennsylvania, new jersey, alabama, florida and georgia.
 
Last edited:
Yes they can. I posted an example of a federal circuit court holding a guy in prison, to this day, for contempt for failing to do so.

Here it is some more.

https://www.tomsguide.com/us/phone-password-jail-florida,news-25212.html
https://9to5mac.com/2017/06/01/fifth-amendement-passcodes-passwords-law/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...-not-giving-iphone-passcode-article-1.3209681
[doublepost=1539546505][/doublepost]

Wrong.

See above, including a case where a guy is in prison for contempt and his defense is “I forgot.”

That's not the same as "forcing him to do it," as is a quite real possibility in other jurisdictions.

And I suspect that if that were run all the way up the ladder, it would probably be found unconstitutional.
 
That's not the same as "forcing him to do it," as is a quite real possibility in other jurisdictions.

And I suspect that if that were run all the way up the ladder, it would probably be found unconstitutional.

I comment not on what the law SHOULD be, but what it is. In at least these states, you can be held in contempt and go to jail for not providing passcodes (in certain situations).

My point, which i've made repeatedly, as that the armchair lawyers who confidently state that "the government can't make you unlock your device if all you use is a passcode instead of biometrics" are giving bad advice.
 
Face ID has only been out a year, less than a year actually.

How often does this really come up? I mean are there that many situations where “bad people” using expensive new iPhones are trying to lock law enforcement out?
Nope all "bad people" are poor. There are no politicians, or rich people that do anything wrong because well you know... They are honest people...
Like really? Tons of corrupt people out there with more money than you can think of.
 
Nope all "bad people" are poor. There are no politicians, or rich people that do anything wrong because well you know... They are honest people...
Like really? Tons of corrupt people out there with more money than you can think of.

I think you missed the point a bit. Obviously people of all kinds have money.

To me it’s more of an odds thing, like how many bad people plus the number of iPhone X models out there doing malicious things are there?

Can’t be too many scenarios as of yet where this is a major law enforcement issue.

Yes I know bad people use iPhones lol and have money. Maybe it was my wording.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.