Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Suspect Required To Unlock iPhone Using Touch ID in Second Federal Case (9to5mac.com)

Posted by msmash on from the that-escalated-quickly dept.

An anonymous reader shares a report on 9to5Mac: A second federal judge has ruled that a suspect can be compelled to unlock their iPhone using their fingerprint in order to give investigators access to data which can be used as evidence against them. The first time this ever happened in a federal case was back in May, following a District Court ruling in 2014. The legal position of forcing suspects to use their fingerprints to unlock devices won't be known with certainty until a case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, but lower court rulings so far appear to establish a precedent which is at odds with that concerning passcodes. Most constitutional experts appear to believe that the Fifth Amendment prevents a suspect from being compelled to reveal a password or passcode, as this would amount to forced self-incrimination -- though even this isn't certain. Fingerprints, in contrast, have traditionally been viewed as 'real or physical evidence,' meaning that police are entitled to take them without permission.Ars Technica has more details.

5 of 233 comments (clear)

  1. TFA is not terribly clear... by LichtSpektren · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Was he compelled to actually put his finger on the phone, or was he just compelled to surrender his fingerprints? TFA is not precisely clear about that. If it's the former then that's incontrovertibly a violation of the Fifth Amendment. If it's the latter then it's just routine--he's going to leave a trace somewhere eventually.

    In either case, the moral of the story is, don't use your biometrics to lock your phone.

    1. Re: TFA is not terribly clear... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think it makes a difference. It's well known that in IT security, the authentication factors are who you are, what you have, and what you know. The Constitution only protects the what you know factor. The who you are factor, which is almost entirely biometric, has almost zero protection. Why? Because all three branches of the government can compel you to identify who you are, and there is nothing in either the Constitution or any written laws saying otherwise.

    2. Re:TFA is not terribly clear... by Aaden42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's (not a lot of...) case law that suggests a truly deadman switch that erases a device isn't considered destroying evidence. If you *do* something actively that triggers it, that's destruction and you can be charged. If by doing nothing, the device is erased, that's okay. You're also not under any obligation to mention such a thing exists.

      So for example if you set something up to wipe the device if you sent a magic text message, that would be a problem. Something that wipes if you don't touch it for a week is generally considered legal. It generally goes with the idea that you can be held to consequences for your *actions*, but there's a higher bar to hold you accountable for your *inactions*.

  2. confusion about self-incrimination by supernova87a · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A lot of people are confused by what self-incrimination means. Self-incrimination is forcing someone to testify (testimonial obligation), be a witness against their own interest/side in a criminal action, or generally be forced to say/admit anything that might be used against them unwittingly later as part of a prosecution. The right to non self-incrimination does not mean you are immune from having evidence produced that incriminates you!

    The key thing is that it is a right to not testify, or be a witness, which is the act of saying or stating something. If a person can be compelled to produce his/her fingerprints (something which in itself is not a testimonial act), then just because that unlocks something that incriminates the person does not mean they have been self-incriminated.

  3. Nothing to hide != nothing to fear by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Moral of the story is Don't leave evidence on your phone. Or anywhere else for that matter.

    Idiotic statement. Sometimes what isn't actually evidence of anything can be used against you. Just because you have nothing to hide does NOT mean you have nothing to fear.

    If you need an explanation why watch this video.