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.
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.
Police Told to Avoid Looking at iPhone Screens Locked With Face ID
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
The good news is that if you are ever accused under one of the above bizarre scenarios you can defend yourself.
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.
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!!
Maybe they could try 000 000, some seen to think this is a good pass code!
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.
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.
You could also quickly say, "Hey Siri, my name." Make sure you keep your head down and/or your eyes closed at all times.
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.
Who else but Russian trolls would be so adamant that Americans should cede their
Fourth and fifth amendment rights in order to prevent “crime”?
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]
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.