Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

With iPhone’s New FaceID, Cops Can Unlock Your Phone

DNichter said:
I am sure you are smart enough to see that it was just an example. I just think these things are overblown. Cops could do the same thing with Touch ID. They could also put a gun to your head and demand that you put in your passcode. I try not to worry about things I have no control over. As others have said, use a passcode or don't use Face ID. Either way, people can get access to your phone one way or another.
Click to expand...

I'm liking the way you think!
 
Well a corrupt cop could also handcuff you and put your home button against your thumb or finger to do the same thing. You can't really blame Apple for what cops might do illegally to people.
How about just don't get arrested?
 
SharepointGuy said:
I think you're missing one important part of your title, Cops Can only Unlock Your Phone with a valid search warrant. If the police office cannot show probable cause of a crime to the court then it is illegal for them to forcibly do this. Read up on the touch ID case and you'll see that there was a lot of legal steps that had to be done before the individual was forced to open his phone.
Click to expand...

I think you are missing the point that the government has and will continue to do as they wish, law or no law.

Safest to only use a passcode, but they have even ways around that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ta0jin
eyoungren said:
Privacy

In Constitutional Law, the right of people to make personal decisions regarding intimate matters; under the Common Law, the right of people to lead their lives in a manner that is reasonably secluded from public scrutiny, whether such scrutiny comes from a neighbor's prying eyes, an investigator's eavesdropping ears, or a news photographer's intrusive camera; and in statutory law, the right of people to be free from unwarranted drug testing and Electronic Surveillance .

The constitutional right to privacy protects the liberty of people to make certain crucial decisions regarding their well-being without government coercion, intimidation, or interference. Such crucial decisions may concern religious faith, moral values, political affiliation, marriage, procreation, or death. The federal Constitution guarantees the right of individuals to make these decisions according to their own conscience and beliefs. The government is not constitutionally permitted to regulate such deeply personal matters.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/privacy
Click to expand...

Privacy is important, but it is not absolute, particularly when it comes to searches under the 4th amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Click to expand...

Usually, the government has to go to a judge and get a warrant to search a particular place, especially if there is a high expectation of privacy in that place (e.g., like your home). Other places, like the trunk of your car, do not have such a high level of privacy expectation, so the standard the government uses to search is is less (only probably cause, no warrant needed). So the question is, do you have that same expectation when you are traveling in a public place on a common carrier with private information on a locked phone? I can see arguments on both sides here, especially when it comes to travel and national security.
 
Newtons Apple said:
I think you are missing the point that the government has and will continue to do as they wish, law or no law.
Click to expand...

If you are referring to the NSA or other covert government agencies misusing the technology then sure, but that would happen either way as evidenced by how quickly they were able to hack the San Bernadino terrorist's cell. The difference for cracking an iPhone with face ID or one with a pass code is probably mere seconds for them.

If you are referring to your everyday, average police then that's just an absurd statement. 95% of LEOs are hard working by the book people who follow the rule of law and would seek an injunction from the court if they actually suspected something. For those 5% who may like to play vigilant cop, they will find a harsh reality when the first words out of the defense's mouth is "please show the court where you got consent from my client to open his phone without a warrant" and they lose the case and make their whole department look bad and potentially open themselves up legally.
 
SharepointGuy said:
If you are referring to the NSA or other covert government agencies misusing the technology then sure, but that would happen either way as evidenced by how quickly they were able to hack the San Bernadino terrorist's cell. The difference for cracking an iPhone with face ID or one with a pass code is probably mere seconds for them.

If you are referring to your everyday, average police then that's just an absurd statement. 95% of LEOs are hard working by the book people who follow the rule of law and would seek an injunction from the court if they actually suspected something. For those 5% who may like to play vigilant cop, they will find a harsh reality when the first words out of the defense's mouth is "please show the court where you got consent from my client to open his phone without a warrant" and they lose the case and make their whole department look bad and potentially open themselves up legally.
Click to expand...

Have nothing against the cops but have no use for their unions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back