Feds Walk Into a Building, Demand Everyone's Fingerprints To Open Phones (dailyherald.com)

An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes the Daily Herald: Investigators in Lancaster, California, were granted a search warrant last May with a scope that allowed them to force anyone inside the premises at the time of search to open up their phones via fingerprint recognition, Forbes reported Sunday. The government argued that this did not violate the citizens' Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination because no actual passcode was handed over to authorities...

"I was frankly a bit shocked," said Andrew Crocker, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, when he learned about the scope of search warrant. "As far as I know, this warrant application was unprecedented"... He also described requiring phones to be unlocked via fingerprint, which does not technically count as handing over a self-incriminating password, as a "clever end-run" around constitutional rights.

Comments

I tell them that I use wanker auth

[Anonymous Coward]

and say they need to suck it for the phone to unlock

Re: I tell them that I use wanker auth

[BlytheBowman]

I wouldn't be suprised if some men (circumsised with dry penis heads) do just that, as there are crease patterns all over it's dome

Re: I tell them that I use wanker auth

[Anonymous Coward]

I only ise my middle finger for authentication. There is no chance I would cooporate with a fucking search like this.

Re: I tell them that I use wanker auth

[Anonymous Coward]

This was really unnecessary.

Re: I tell them that I use wanker auth

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean that apostrophe in the possessive pronoun that turned it into the contraction for "it is"?

Re: I tell them that I use wanker auth

[FatdogHaiku]

I only ise my middle finger for authentication. There is no chance I would cooporate with a fucking search like this.

Actually, that's close to a good idea... one finger print that might nuke a selected data set while opening the actual phone app for a call (like when you answer without unlocking), others that would open the phone like normal. If they are not requiring you to turn over self-incriminating evidence then they could hardly claim you took an action that destroyed the non-evidence they want you to not hand over... I think that's it.. it's very confusing not confusing...

Re:I tell them that I use wanker auth

[Anonymous Coward]

best first post ever

Re: I tell them that I use wanker auth

[tlambert]

I wouldn't be suprised if some men (circumsised with dry penis heads) do just that, as there are crease patterns all over it's dome

Of course they do. Then the phone camera is already in the right area for the drunken picture sent to their mom instead of their girlfriend.

Re: I tell them that I use wanker auth

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe the misspelling of circumcision, or the act itself?

Re: I tell them that I use wanker auth

[ArmoredDragon]

That could make you liable for obstruction of justice/evidence tampering if they forensically determined that your phone was programmed to delete information in such a manner. It wouldn't matter whether that information was incriminating or not, you'd still get busted, and could face at least a few years of prison time.

It would be better to just have a certain finger trigger your phone to reboot, thus requiring a password to decrypt the disk contents. They're pretty much SOL at that point since it then comes down to the "what you know" authentication factor, and "what you know" is constitutionally protected information, unlike the "who you are" authentication factor, which is what a fingerprint is, and the government can always compel you to identify "who you are" with probable cause or a search warrant.

Re: I tell them that I use wanker auth

[davester666]

It doesn't even need to do a reboot, just signal the OS to ignore the fingerprint reader until after the correct passcode has been entered (effectively making it the same as the phone being rebooted, without doing it).

Re: I tell them that I use wanker auth

[michelcolman]

Well, if you see them coming in demanding everybody unlock their phones, just quickly take it out, unlock it and turn it off. Takes about 3 seconds. Then when they get to you, it's too late because the phone will now require a password which you don't have to give.

Doesn't work if you're the first one they ask, of course.

Re: I tell them that I use wanker auth

[Anonymous Coward]

That could make you liable for obstruction of justice/evidence tampering if they forensically determined that your phone was programmed to delete information in such a manner.

The whole point of such a game is to hide stuff - so of course there won't be any "forensic traces". An app created to act on the "panic finger", would delete itself as the final part of the panic action. It would leave the cops with an unlocked phone with no interesting "information" or "special software". You would have to download/buy the app again in order to re-arm this trap.

Logs and "special folders" can be deleted/sanitized. Empty space in the filesystem can be overwritten with garbage data looking like "old but uninteresting data". Advanced forensics would merely find old spam and deleted titty images.

Re: I tell them that I use wanker auth

[Anonymous Coward]

You think the Feds, who deal with this day in and day out, who TRAIN at popping up out of nowhere specifically to prevent destruction of evidence as you describe, are going to leave the door open to this? They'll have a list of whose phones are active when they pull up to the building, and will cross check that against the evidence they're able to obtain. On the slim chance that they don't have an agent for every employee in a building and you do manage to turn your phone off, expect a THOROUGH follow-up when they can't get your data. This is a fishing expedition after all, and you've just made yourself look like a whopper.

Re: I tell them that I use wanker auth

[modecx]

Or just use the wrong finger several times to 'try' to unlock it when pressured. When it locks out from too many attempts, the only option is the pin. Can't coerce that from you, as easily. Oopsie!

Re: I tell them that I use wanker auth

[Kiralan]

If you use your thumb instead of your index finger for your unlock, and they find your index finger doesn't work, would compelling you to say which finger unlocks it then violate the 5th amendment?

Re: I tell them that I use wanker auth

[Anonymous Coward]

Or just don't use fingerprints to unlock.

Re: I tell them that I use wanker auth

[SQLGuru]

They'd probably make you go through all of your digits. There are only 10, so that "brute force" (pun intended) approach wouldn't take very long.

Re: I tell them that I use wanker auth

[KingBenny]

heh ... my phone doesnt unlock by fingerprint ... o actually i lost it OR it got stolen same result .. but im starting to think the US and belgium are a bit in a contest on who can bend the law most ... Art. 29 Het briefgeheim is onschendbaar. De wet bepaalt welke agenten verantwoordelijk zijn voor de schending van het geheim der aan de post toevertrouwde brieven. i dont know if google translates ... this place is the swiss cheese of legalism ... it states roughly communications are protected for letters delivered to the post office so any lawyer can probably bend that into but the sms on your phone is not ... belgium still wins on bureaucracy and izms .. thats constitution there, probably not updated since 1830

Re: I tell them that I use wanker auth

[amRadioHed]

The phone locks after 4 or 5 invalid attempts, so they can only really brute force the most commonly used fingers.

Re: I tell them that I use wanker auth

[Anonymous Coward]

Android 6.0 at least does this automatically. On reboot you have to enter your password before you can use your fingerprint again.

Re: I tell them that I use wanker auth

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why you don't do the unlocking. Just set your phone on the table, put your hands out flat on the table, and let them grab a finger and try unlocking the phone. Remember, you have the right to remain silent. But IANAL, and someone might be able to claim it as a boobytrap, which do tend to be illegal in their own right.

Re: I tell them that I use wanker auth

[Anonymous Coward]

circumsised with dry penis heads

How do you perform the surgery with dried up penis heads? Sure, you can sharpen, say, a polar bear penis bone into a surgical instrument but it's still blunt compared to a fresh sliver of flint-stone or obsidian.

Re: I tell them that I use wanker auth

[easyTree]

Or deliberately and unashamedly baiting Grammer Nazis?

Re: I tell them that I use wanker auth

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if you see them coming in demanding everybody unlock their phones, just quickly take it out, unlock it and turn it off. Takes about 3 seconds. Then when they get to you, it's too late because the phone will now require a password which you don't have to give.

Doesn't work if you're the first one they ask, of course.

Or.. you know... don't have your finger print unlock your phone.

Re:I tell them that I use wanker auth

[fahrbot-bot]

and say they need to suck it for the phone to unlock

You are either (a) really flexible or (b) have really good friends with you all the time. If just "a" then the upside is that you're probably not using the phone while driving...

Re: I tell them that I use wanker auth

[Anonymous Coward]

So they could use the Plant Evidence application.

Re: I tell them that I use wanker auth

[Anonymous Coward]

no need to unlock in order to reboot. Just hold power button for 3 or so seconds and swipe to reboot from lock screen.

Re: I tell them that I use wanker auth

[Anonymous Coward]

I use my toe to unlock my phone, much safer that. Not inconvenient at all, expecting the feds knocking on my door any day now. Surely it will pay off! Especially since the feds can't bend the law in any way, shape or form to make whatever they're doing completely legal.
Thankfully we have these trustes enforcers of the law that can make everything I do seem illegal and they are always right. Always.

Hooray for security making me feel so secure!

Re: I tell them that I use wanker auth

[ArmoredDragon]

The decrypt key would still remain in your phone's memory, leaving a potential hole, which is potentially exploitable via a zero-day USB vectored exploit or who knows what else.

Re: I tell them that I use wanker auth

[michelcolman]

Right, use a passcode that you use every time you take out your phone, giving plenty of opportunities for others to see you type it.

Re: I tell them that I use wanker auth

[locofungus]

You don't even need that. One finger unlocks the phone as normal. The other unlocks the phone but requires a pin as well (only needs to be one digit long) and an incorrect pin means that the phone shuts down. (or even that finger can make the phone shut down - however it should probably still require a pin even if there's *no* pin to unlock.

Don't know about obstruction of justice issues though...

Re: I tell them that I use wanker auth

[Big Hairy Ian]

I thought everyone used nipple prints these days

Re: I tell them that I use wanker auth

[Anonymous Coward]

Easier solve, just use Tasker (or similar) to engage the screen lock and/or change the unlock method. On many devices using a software to engage the screen lock forces you to use the password/pattern. If it doesn't, you can just change the unlock method in the settings.

Then you can have it engage when you flip the phone over (or a handful of flip overs).

Re: I tell them that I use wanker auth

[stoatwblr]

Apples will lock after 10 failed attempts. Androids don't (but they do start delaying retries) - and a duress print is a very good idea that's not in them.

At least they got it right about requiring a passcode after restarting. If you can switch it off they can't unlock it.

Re: I tell them that I use wanker auth

[Gallomimia]

You seem to have missed that the story says the feds demanded people's fingerprints. They didn't ask people to unlock their phones, they got the fingerprints and used technology to unlock the phones after they were confiscated.

Re: I tell them that I use wanker auth

[Anonymous Coward]

Just don't use fingerprint unlocking. Done. I've typed in codes to access my phone for over 8 years now. It's really not all that difficult. And yes, just like on my good ole' Crackberry I have the phone set to wipe after 10 incorrect attempts. And no, I have nothing to hide legally, but I'm not gonna make it easier for 'em.

Re: I tell them that I use wanker auth

[Anonymous Coward]

Grammer????

Re: I tell them that I use wanker auth

[david_thornley]

I'd advise someone to ask a real lawyer about this. In general, you aren't required to keep information that might be evidence until told you need to, and in the meantime you're free to delete as long as it's according with policy. I think you'd be OK with this eventually, although the police might be unhappy about it and you for a while.

Re: I tell them that I use wanker auth

[GaryHayman]

Absolutely, it was totally unnecessary to give away the pass code of a different body part... so much for security.

Re: I tell them that I use wanker auth

[Anonymous Coward]

...third base!

Re: I tell them that I use wanker auth

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't obviously apply to Samsung phones. The fingerprint recognition doesn't work anyways, so I'm always forced to use PIN-locking anyways... ...but I'm guessing it's not that hard to crack the phone as Samsung is always lagging over a year behind in their updates. - Don't know how secure the KNOX is though. Never used it as there's nothing that interesting on my phone anyways.

Re: I tell them that I use wanker auth

[Anonymous Coward]

Quickly set it to a random password and you'll never be able to unlock it, no matter what.

Re: I tell them that I use wanker auth

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bet it would work even with a circumcised penis. I knew someone who used his nose on the fingerprint reader.

Hold down power button and ...

[dgatwood]

... keep holding it down.

Seriously, this is such an unconscionable violation of basic privacy that even people who have done nothing wrong should automatically have that reaction. And anybody who has done something wrong should know better than to use a fingerprint for unlocking anyway. What was this supposed to prove other than that they have a judge who will rubber-stamp any order no matter how appalling?

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

That might be viewed as obstruction of justice, although it's arguable that what they were doing constituted any form of "justice" - it's not even clear if it was lawful. Remember, it's going to be viewed as strange in a courtroom if your phone was off when the police arrived. Who turns their phone off? Mine complains that it hasn't been switched off for months at a time.

The next step for this country is to get a tyrant at the helm. That's something that's going to happen any time now, and after that we can all just stop pretending we're not living in a totalitarian police state.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[jcr]

The next step for this country is to get a tyrant at the helm.

That's already happened, several times.

-jcr

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[drnb]

Remember, it's going to be viewed as strange in a courtroom if your phone was off when the police arrived.

I "held it wrong" when the police asked for it, it was accidental.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[drnb]

And anybody who has done something wrong should know better than to use a fingerprint for unlocking anyway.

That is so severely misinformed. Prisons are full of people who made simple mistakes, who should have "known better" than to leave some particular bit of evidence.

What was this supposed to prove other than that they have a judge who will rubber-stamp any order no matter how appalling?

Actually its probably far more complicated than you suggest. Obtaining a fingerprint from a *suspect* is something that is well established in law. The fact that fingerprints can now be used to unlock certain information does not somehow undo the long established precedent of fingerprint collection and use. While it may be a novel interpretation of "use" its a bit hysterical to characterize it as rubber stamping. Its more a mundane example of the law not keeping up with technology and needing to be updated: that fingerprint use with respect to identification is not self incriminating, but fingerprint use with respect to unlocking is self incriminating. The current law may simply not address the difference and simply refer to use with characterizing the use. If so the failure is in the legislature not necessarily the judiciary.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... keep holding it down.

Seriously, this is such an unconscionable violation of basic privacy that even people who have done nothing wrong should automatically have that reaction. And anybody who has done something wrong should know better than to use a fingerprint for unlocking anyway. What was this supposed to prove other than that they have a judge who will rubber-stamp any order no matter how appalling?

One thing this election should have taught us is that our information security is not good enough, and a simple fingerprint is no exception. The key is what do you do about it. I've been entering a pin code for a long time, but it is deeply annoying and can sometimes pull your focus away from possibly important tasks. Had I a fingerprint reader I'd consider using it, even though I know it isn't the best security.

Eventually we might have some kind of implant that works like on ghost in the shell or similar, where you can effectively use the features of a smart phone without actually holding it. That is a long way away, but perhaps with something inside your body, you would have more rights to the information contained. Of course, the idea is also a little disturbing.

But what if there is a middle ground? Would it be possible to put an authentication mechanism inside your body that is more than a simple swipe type thing. What if that authentication mechanism was directly controlled by a thought, or perhaps even thinking the password to unlock the authentication device, which has much longer and more secure authentication means.

I wonder if the future of authentication is something along those lines? The encryption technology is small enough now, though long term power is a problem. The interface so we assure only the assigned user can unlock it is the hard part, and of course making sure it doesn't poison you or cause other problems.

Imagine, going to sit down at a computer, and small, very short range, wireless signal authenticates you to the computer, unlocks your email, etc.

Certainly, I can't imagine a judge to order surgical removal on anything less than very compelling evidence, and I' not sure even that would stand up in a court, though again, there has to be a primary way to unlock the device somehow, and likely technologies such that it would be unlikely to work in any other environment.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

That might be viewed as obstruction of justice, although it's arguable that what they were doing constituted any form of "justice" - it's not even clear if it was lawful. Remember, it's going to be viewed as strange in a courtroom if your phone was off when the police arrived. Who turns their phone off? Mine complains that it hasn't been switched off for months at a time.

The next step for this country is to get a tyrant at the helm. That's something that's going to happen any time now, and after that we can all just stop pretending we're not living in a totalitarian police state.

It's just about to happen.

What else do you call someone who can break laws with impunity - "no reasonable prosecutor" my ass - and be given a total pass on it from a servile media?

If allowing someone to have that kind of unchecked power isn't enabling tyranny, nothing is.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[mishehu]

What's weird about turning a phone off? There's been times where I've had to turn it off so I can get some actual work done.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

What's weird about turning a phone off?

Nothing, if I go out onto the production floor I am REQUIRED to turn my phone off.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately in this case it is instead equivalent to "you get to keep the key, so forcing you to open this safe and show us all the contents of your personal documents and photo albums with no probable cause against you is in no way a violation"

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[morcego]

(...) even people who have done nothing wrong (...). And anybody who has done something wrong should (...)

The problem is that everyone has some something wrong. There is some kind of law, statute or rule that you broke... or didn't follow strictly.
This day and age there are so many rule, such broad law, that everyone had some something. Even if it as minor as jaywalking. Or driving over the speed limit for a couple minutes. Or parking a little too far from the sidewalk. Or something else completely different that in a given place is a misdemeanor.

I'm not screaming "evil big government here". I'm actually a law student and an intern in a attorney office. We all break some law several times every day. But these are such minor things that the legal system simply don't care. Maybe it is not a criminal law, but only enough for a civil lawsuit. But we are still breaking the rules.

In the eyes of the law, no one is 100% guiltless, even if they are innocent.

This is one of the problems why the legal system doesn't work. We punish too many things, so we punish badly. And, in that scenario, when the policing forces (local, state or federal) get increased powers and broader mandates, they get carte blanche to so pretty much what they want to anyone they want. After all, everyone is guilty of something.

Things are only getting scarier.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

What phones are able to be unlocked with a fingerprint?
Certainly not most of them.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The most disturbing part would be when we start seeing on the news arguments by law enforcement claiming that taking your storage drive from your skull with a few good whacks of their nightsticks on routine stops in no way constitutes a violation of your rights or integrity... and the retroactive "yeah of course it was okay police are protecting you" refusals to prosecute that follow...

Re: Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Such argument, much point

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

When the Gestapo roll in to force your finger onto the phone, do you think tricks like this will help you? Best case scenario, you get locked up for a few days and charged with obstruction of justice.

America, land of the free.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[myowntrueself]

(...) even people who have done nothing wrong (...). And anybody who has done something wrong should (...)

The problem is that everyone has some something wrong. There is some kind of law, statute or rule that you broke... or didn't follow strictly.
This day and age there are so many rule, such broad law, that everyone had some something. Even if it as minor as jaywalking. Or driving over the speed limit for a couple minutes. Or parking a little too far from the sidewalk. Or something else completely different that in a given place is a misdemeanor.

I'm not screaming "evil big government here". I'm actually a law student and an intern in a attorney office. We all break some law several times every day. But these are such minor things that the legal system simply don't care. Maybe it is not a criminal law, but only enough for a civil lawsuit. But we are still breaking the rules.

In the eyes of the law, no one is 100% guiltless, even if they are innocent.

This is one of the problems why the legal system doesn't work. We punish too many things, so we punish badly. And, in that scenario, when the policing forces (local, state or federal) get increased powers and broader mandates, they get carte blanche to so pretty much what they want to anyone they want. After all, everyone is guilty of something.

Things are only getting scarier.

"Give me 6 folders of porn from the most innocent of men and I shall find something in there to hang him."

In some places it might be porn with wrinkled 60 year old women in school uniforms. In other places, porn featuring women whose breasts are too small.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Locke2005]

Easier to implement then that. Iris scan is already a working technology, as is eye-following so you could just look at dots in a pattern in sequence to unlock your phone. At which point, it's back to them compelling you to type in a passcode in order to unlock the phone.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[BLKMGK]

Strange still isn't illegal, they can view it however they want.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[SirSlud]

One thing that /. users don't get is that while that may seem obvious to you, it's not obvious to everyone. That's why the law and regulations are constantly in search of trying to balance citizens from having to be experts about everything they buy/own/need. And the time honoured thought of "oh, only idiots will not do this, and idiots are people who deserve what happens to them" plays nicely into the hands of a dysfunctional society. If you have a "just world" mentality, that things happen to people *because* they deserve it, you may not get out enough.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Any iPhone 5s or newer has the option of using fingerprint identification instead of a PIN.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[MobSwatter]

... keep holding it down.

Seriously, this is such an unconscionable violation of basic privacy that even people who have done nothing wrong should automatically have that reaction. And anybody who has done something wrong should know better than to use a fingerprint for unlocking anyway. What was this supposed to prove other than that they have a judge who will rubber-stamp any order no matter how appalling?

This actually proves secondary to why Apple shouldn't be using biometric locking mechanism for a telephone, it is a wonder that there isn't an index finger sold along with a stolen iPhone.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[jIyajbe]

Imagine, going to sit down at a computer, and small, very short range, wireless signal authenticates you to the computer, unlocks your email, etc.

Welcome! The future is here! That is exactly what happens when I sit down at my locked Macbook (running Sierra) while wearing my Apple Watch; the laptop and watch exchange a key, and my laptop unlocks.

Actually, that is now past tense; thanks to this story (and others I've read recently), I have turned this feature off. It's clever and convenient, but not worth the risk of getting inadvertently swept up in some overzealous search warrant issued by a lazy and/or technologically-ignorant judge.

(The next generations of Macbooks will have the fingerprint sensor, and I will be unwilling to use that, too. Sigh.)

I hope Apple cares as much about privacy as they claim to, and figures out a solution to this problem. I am afraid to use these cool features of my devices, which makes these features no longer a selling point.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[bytesex]

'It was doing an OS update'

Re: Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Its because you chose militarization of police.

Re: Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

When people aim at their legs like with iot and "smart" they get the consequences. All warnings fall on deaf ears because oh shiny! The crooks profits on the gullible.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

That word...

The US has never been a tyranny, wake up. Sometimes it's a bit grim, but it's a democracy, that's what you get. As long as people strive to be good the country will persevere and prosper.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[davester666]

No, Donald Trump has never been our President.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[thegarbz]

No, Donald Trump has never been our President.

Donald Trump is an anti tyrant. He's more like a little boy who has no idea what to do or how to do it. In some ways having a child who doesn't understand politics at the top of what is shown to be an institutionalised assault on the rights of all may actually be a good thing.

The alternative is a career politician and the pure embodiment of 1%ers reaching for an even bigger power grab.

I'm glad I'm not American. I'm actually not sure I could bring myself to not vote for Trump, and that would just leave a sour taste in my mouth.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[jez9999]

Stop being so pathetic. I'd vote for Trump proudly.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[dbIII]

I think that's kind of the point.
Actions like this are to tell the people targeted that they are worthless and that the people perpetrating it can do anything they like to them.


There isn't a technical solution, it's a social one of removing the pricks on a power trip who don't seem to give a shit about doing a professional crime investigation.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Fragnet]

When you put it like that, it certainly is a violation. That's precisely the correct analogy. Someone needs to sue.

Re: Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it is a Republic, recite your pledge. More an oligarchy in practice.

Re: Hold down power button and ...

[Hognoxious]

GW: I don't like standing armies. They're too easy to use for repression.

All: Right George! Well said, Brother Washington! (etc).

[GW goes out for a piss]

All, whispering among themselves: I reckon we'll get away with it if we dress them in blue instead of red.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the eyes of the law, no one is 100% guiltless, even if they are innocent.

That's what's wrong with the US legal system - preusmption of innocence, adopted by most modern societies and the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights - is not in the US constitution.

While many americans feel, that their constitution is the model of modern society, it feels quite ancient from an outsiders view. Modernization is long overdue, yet seeing the current political situation, it's too radical to find supporters in either of the two dominating parties.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[peragrin]

Where do you think tyrants cone from? They are always immature little boys with no sense if actual fairness of empathy.

Want to know why it took a thousand plus year from the fall if time to rebuild society? It was because the average ruler started in their twenties and life expantacy dropped.

They were hormonal teenagers. It wasn't until si with progressed and life expectancy got longer that more mature thoughts started happening.

Would you give a teenager a nuke? That is what will happen when people vote for trump.

I always said Republicans would rather vote for Hitler and allow gas chambers next to their homes rather than see Hillary in office. It looks like that is what will happen. Why gas chambers? 70% of illegals in the USA fly here, to round up and deport 11 million you need to build concentration camps to hold them, while you file the paperwork to deport and allocate money for return airfares. Deporting that many would take a decade. It is why Ronald Reagan went the cheap route and granted citizenship.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[flyingfsck]

There is no reason to use planes to deport people. You could simply compel them to walk or swim home.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[flyingfsck]

The phone is already full of finger prints, including the one on the fingerprint reader. All you need to recover it is sticky tape or cyanoacrylate, make a rubber molding and apply it again to the sensor. Fingerprints are a schtoopidttt way to lock a phone. It is like leaving the key under the doormat.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[thegarbz]

Yes but you're American. The rest of the world aren't used to having a figurehead that is a complete and utter joke.

Say hi to Bush for me.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Donald Trump has never been our President.

Donald Trump is an anti tyrant. He's more like a little boy who has no idea what to do or how to do it. In some ways having a child who doesn't understand politics at the top of what is shown to be an institutionalised assault on the rights of all may actually be a good thing.

Didn't that already occur with Dubya?

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[thegarbz]

Where do you think tyrants cone from? They are always immature little boys with no sense if actual fairness of empathy.

Tyrants come from the ability to tap into unchecked power. The president of the united states is often a hamstrung puppet. Tyranny in the USA comes from the institution itself including congress and the supreme court who have shown time and time again to not represent the American people as much as their corporations.

Would you give a teenager a nuke? That is what will happen when people vote for trump.

There's a difference between Kim Jong Il with a nuke and Trump with a nuke. The former is a Tyrant. His decision to start a nuclear war would be unopposed, unchecked and supported in general. Trump on the other hand while he in theory has the ability to order a nuclear strike at his discretion is smart enough to know that it would end him in the process. So yes I would give him a nuke with the systems currently in place.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Alumoi]

Democracy? More like plutocracy with the less fortunates allowed to choose from the selected few.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[kbg]

Trump on the other hand while he in theory has the ability to order a nuclear strike at his discretion is smart enough to know that it would end him in the process. So yes I would give him a nuke with the systems currently in place.

Hitler on the other hand while he in theory has the ability to change the Weimar Constitution is smart enough to know that it would end him in the process. So yes I would give him powers with the systems currently in place.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a difference between Kim Jong Il with a nuke and Trump with a nuke. The former is a Tyrant. His decision to start a nuclear war would be unopposed, unchecked and supported in general. Trump on the other hand while he in theory has the ability to order a nuclear strike at his discretion is smart enough to know that it would end him in the process. So yes I would give him a nuke with the systems currently in place.

There is no legal way for anyone to stop the President from a first strike nuclear attack. And there is no evidence that Trump is smart enough to know that it would end him in the process. He is completely unable to let the slightest offense go without retaliation, he is unwilling to believe that he is losing this election despite all evidence to the contrary, and he has declared that he won't accept the results of the election unless he wins. What evidence do you have that he understands that the vast majority of people would be horrified and against him if he ordered a first strike against, for example, Iran, when he can't understand that the vast majority of the country won't vote for him? Based on the public statements he has made, the opinions of those who have held this power, and many of the people that know him personally, it would be extremely irresponsible to give him this power.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[naasking]

He's more like a little boy who has no idea what to do or how to do it.

Little boys and girls are tyrants. Children are sociopaths who must be trained to be civilized human beings [1]. Sometimes training doesn't take, ergo, Trump.

[1] There's a quote around there that says this better than I could, so if anyone knows it please let me know!

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Lincon was not a tyrant

-passive aggressive sig

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The alternative is a career politician and the pure embodiment of 1%ers reaching for an even bigger power grab.

You think the alternative to a power hungry 1%er is "the pure embodiment of 1%ers reaching for an even bigger power grab"? Have you read any news that wasn't from a conspiracy website?

One candidate wants to give a massive tax cut to 1%ers. The same candidate has bragged about and has been caught using money to influence politicians. I'll give you a hint- it's not the career politician candidate.

Also, a child that doesn't really know what to do or how to do it given power at the top is pretty much the recipe for a tyrant. There is absolutely no "anti-" about that. Citation: pretty much all of world history. Pick a century and read.

If you want an institutionalized assault on rights, one of the candidates has been pushing for changing libel laws so they can sue everyone who says anything bad about them, has used the fact that they want rights taken away from several groups of people as a campaign platform, and thinks the power of the office he's running for are limitless. I'll take a career politician over that any day.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[mrchaotica]

If you could set it up to require a password and the presence of the key provided by the watch, that would be nice.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Donald Trump has never been our President.

Donald Trump is an anti tyrant. He's more like a little boy who has no idea what to do or how to do it. In some ways having a child who doesn't understand politics at the top of what is shown to be an institutionalised assault on the rights of all may actually be a good thing.

The alternative is a career politician and the pure embodiment of 1%ers reaching for an even bigger power grab.

I'm glad I'm not American. I'm actually not sure I could bring myself to not vote for Trump, and that would just leave a sour taste in my mouth.

Trump is both a tyrant, and a master bullshit artist. You are a complete sucker if you believe anything he has said in his campaign.

If you don't understand what I'm talking about, you need to read, or re-read art of the deal, and read what he actually does, and blow off the flowery nonsense surrounding it.

You think he believes in rights? The only right he's concerned with is his right to take everything he can, by whatever means possible. That's why he got along so well with John Gotti's lawyer.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[drinkypoo]

Donald Trump is an anti tyrant.

What? Who told you that? And why did you believe him? He abuses his wives, he abuses his employees, what causes you to imagine that he wouldn't abuse The People?

Re: Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

This. Enforcing martial law on the state of Maryland seems about right.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[AthanasiusKircher]

Donald Trump is an anti tyrant. He's more like a little boy who has no idea what to do or how to do it.

Actually, I'm pretty sure Donald Trump has "ideas" about "what to do." He's pretty famous for them. They may be wacky or unrealistic or even impossible, but he has ideas. Some of which could have major political ramifications if he even attempts to follow through.

Anyhow, I think you may not realize that "tyrants" in world history take many forms. Relatively few of them throughout history started out as clear "twirling the mustache" evil dudes who had a Machiavellian plan to become a "tyrant." Much more common are situations where you take a somewhat average guy, put him in a leadership position, create some tough choices, and watch him choose the bad ones. A lot of "tyrants" throughout history very gradually slipped into tyranny, often with the support of the public along the way, cheered along by their fears and promises of "security" from a well-meaning leader.

You know what prevents that sort of thing? Knowledge. Knowledge of history. Knowledge of politics. Realizations that paths others have taken before have led to badness. History has shown again and again that the most ignorant "nice" folks who end up leadership positions can turn out to be the worst... they don't know any better, so they can be swayed into all sorts of bad acts.

And Donald Trump doesn't even have that "niceness" to go along with his ignorance.

In some ways having a child who doesn't understand politics at the top of what is shown to be an institutionalised assault on the rights of all may actually be a good thing.

Maybe. Or it could be even a faster track to a dictatorship. The problem is that it's completely unpredictable.

None of this should be viewed as an argument in favor of Clinton, who is also a terrible candidate. But acting like things are likely to be better because Trump is an "outsider" and less corrupt (at least by the political establishment) is just not a safe bet.

Re: Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously? We've had 8 years of Obama, with how many years of a supermajority in Congress? If Democrats were serious about change and personal freedom, they would have passed every law they could to protect and undo these types of court orders. The grim fact is that neither party supports this because the power is too appealing to those that wield it.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you give a teenager a nuke?

I would rather give a teenager nukes than a person who has been supplying weapons and money to terrorist organizations in the hope of provoking a conflict with Russia over an oil pipeline in Syria. By far.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that nearly a majority of people are voting for him because the alternative is far worse.

Clinton took away my job, my rights, and trying to take away everything I've earned.

Re: Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

ivhoughtbyoubwere talking about hillary. It looks lile they they are both preaching from the same platform.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome! The future is here! That is exactly what happens when I sit down at my locked Macbook (running Sierra) while wearing my Apple Watch; the laptop and watch exchange a key, and my laptop unlocks.

What a completely asinine idea to improve convenience at the cost of security. So all I have to do to break into your Macbook is have your Apple Watch, or any Apple Watch with cloned firmware?

Re: Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is shocking but hardly surprising. The warnings about this kind of abuse with biometric authentication have been around for some time.

I'd like to thank the FBI for being such arrogant jerks as to actually go do this in a fashion that can be highly publicized though, and the judge who issued this abusive warrant for being such a tool. I tell everyone I know to not use fingerprint recognition on phones or computers and to absolutely never use Windows Hello or whatever it's called these days.

Electronics, especially encrypted electronics, should always at a minimum be locked with something you know so as to prevent this very sort of constitutional end run. It is unfortunate that we cannot hold these phone manufacturers accountable for failing to warn people of this glaring weakness in security.

Here's another one: your cloud computing and/or backup provider isn't going to warn you that the government can go grab your data from them...so if you absolutely must use cloud backups or storage, either keep nothing at all sensitive there or encrypt it with a key you generated and which the cloud provider does not possess before sending it up. Why do you think the corporate media pushes cloud computing all the time?

Finally, it is clear that the FBI considers the Constitution to be an obstacle to overcome and a hindrance to their holy work as defined by them. That would be a violation of the oath their employees swear to uphold and defend it, and we need to start holding them legally accountable for that as well.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Bing Tsher E]

The Bushes are voting for Clinton this time around.

Go figure. It's not because Trump is a 'disaster'. It's because he doesn't represent their political class. Hillary does.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Bing Tsher E]

Busses are cheap.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is so severely misinformed. Prisons are full of people who made simple mistakes, who should have "known better" than to leave some particular bit of evidence.

What is your basis for this claim? I call BS. This sounds like the hollywood version of convictions and prisons to me.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Bing Tsher E]

I hope Apple cares as much about privacy as they claim to,

You'd better hope, since you've chosen them as the singular wardens of your privacy. However, they've proven to have a rather strong political drive to support one ideology. Make sure you support the right ideas and candidates, at least in public.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[thegarbz]

Little boys and girls are tyrants.

No, tyrants require among other things unchecked power. But children do fit all other criteria.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Mr D from 63]

Yup, we are better off with Hillary, who 'acts' nice, that is better than being one's self. And we are less vulnerable to tyranny with Hillary even though the media will send her message for her, she can lie about stuff and get away with minimal scrutiny by the mainstream media. She can cover up her tracks and get the FBI to cut a deal to allow her underlings to destroy evidence with no ramifications. She has a powerful political party AND money machine behind her.

So you think Trump, who won't have either political party at his back and who the media won't let get away with anything is gonna pull off some major control coup. Yeah, he's gonna be able to pull of a move to dictatorship under those conditions... give me a break. Obama gets away with significant overstepping of Presidential authority as it is.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[thegarbz]

what causes you to imagine that he wouldn't abuse The People

Lack of power. Real abuse comes from congress and the supreme court as brought to you by [corporation].

Re: Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

It does not matter. Small folk does not matter. You do not matter. President Hillary Clinton does. Bow to greatness.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[swalve]

Like various other historical figures, Trump will fire up the masses to such an extent that the political class can't do anything else but go along with him or lose their jobs in 2018. The tea party types are primed and ready to go. He would be the president- what's to stop him from doing daily 3 hour news conferences where he spews nonsense and vitriol? He has been on TV doing that exact thing. Two years of "trust me, they are stopping me from making you all millionaires" and he could easily turn congress around.

I don't think he can plan that far ahead, but he is certainly capable of stumbling ass-backwards into a scenario like that.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Khyber]

"All you need to recover it is sticky tape or cyanoacrylate"

Sticky tape is far better. Cyanoacrylate changes shape slightly as it cures, distorting the fingerprint.

Re: Hold down power button and ...

[swalve]

How many years of a super majority in Congress? I think zero.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[swalve]

The justice department loves putting politicians from Illinois in jail no matter what party. If there was evidence, they would have brought charges. Rod Blagojevich, known Democrat, is rotting in jail right now for far less than what the lunatics are accusing HRC of.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Mr D from 63]

"various other historical figures".. what about the really bad ones that took the path of Hillary, telling lies and putting on a false face, when the real machine in the background takes control. That's how the truly bad historical figures took control, not what Trump is doing. He has no machine behind him.

Re: Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Constitution is fine. It just need be upheld.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[currently_awake]

The ultimate result of globalization is no borders. A world where workers can just move to the jobs that exist instead of being unemployed in a high rent region.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[currently_awake]

OS file time stamps would disprove that. A better excuse would be "I put it in my pocket the wrong way, and it must have held down the power button causing it to turn off", or "I have no idea why it's off".

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[drinkypoo]

Let's take this backwards.

Real abuse comes from congress and the supreme court as brought to you by [corporation].

Agreed.

Lack of power.

The President has a certain amount of power to do things or not do things, and that power can be wielded on behalf of corporations — especially when done in concert with [corporate stooges in] congress [but I repeat myself].

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nearly a majority" is a beautiful phrase to describe a candidate who is losing. "Nearly a majority" voted for Mondale in the 80's, Bush in '92, and Romney in 2012. They also didn't win. Also, "nearly a majority" of people are of below average intelligence.

Far worse than an unstable person with access to a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons, who could literally start a war that kills the entire human population? How would the alternative actually be worse than that?

What rights have you lost? Be specific and state the right that you have already lost, not speculation on future losses.

What job? You really think Clinton is directly responsible for your specific job? That no other economic forces were a factor? Clinton directly closed your workplace?

Are you referring to a slight increase in taxes as "taking away everything you've earned", or is there some sort of direct fine that Clinton has imposed on you?

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

what about the really bad ones that took the path of Hillary, telling lies and putting on a false face

Like who? What historical figure has done this that was worse than the demagogues? Because all the really bad historical figures I can think of were demagogues.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, well let's go back to that most crooked of statements in the judicial system "Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law".

Then read this book https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

Then realize that we're all criminals. There's simply not enough time in the average human lifetime to consume all the minutia that make up "law" in this country. You *have* to be ignorant of the law to some degree because there's no way you could have known it. Similarly when someone intellectually dishonest roasts you for not knowing something simple - nope, that's a logical fallacy based on the idea that your learned experiences should be everyone else's learned experiences. It's somewhat narcissistic, and somewhat naive. Just because I didn't happen upon that book that you happened to read does not make me stupid - it minimally means I read one less book than you.

But sure, we can continue to hold people to provably impossible standards and we can continue to be intellectually dishonest. In the meantime you've *all* done something wrong and we should all be wary of police snooping round our phones. Their only intent is to find the most egregious (even if unknown) crimes that will generate the biggest headlines and the most department research dollars. If you happen to be that story then it sucks to be you.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is so severely misinformed. Prisons are full of people who made simple mistakes, who should have "known better" than to leave some particular bit of evidence.

What is your basis for this claim? I call BS. This sounds like the hollywood version of convictions and prisons to me.

Which sounds like hollywood to you ...
(1) Prisons are largely full of dumb people who carelessly left evidence behind.
(2) Prisons are largely full of smart people who took care to leave no evidence behind.

"Dumb" are "careless" are the greatest allies of the police investigator.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You will find "having someone at the top who knows what they are doing" is, more often than not, a phrase being used when a confidence game is being played.

Nobody wins in a confidence game except for the con-man.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not trying to be mean. Just trying to help you out. Your career in law will benefit from a stronger grasp of English on your part.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Donald Trump is an anti tyrant.

The reason many Americans are voting against him is because they perceive him as a wanna-be tyrant.

He's more like a little boy who has no idea what to do or how to do it.

That's true also. But I would go further and say that this may actually be strongly correlated to his tyrannical tendencies. I can easily see a confused, frustrated little boy slip into the role of a tyrant as he grows older, but never grows up.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

We all have a sense of the US government being just a bunch of puppets for some shadow government that works behind the scenes. Well, Donald Trump has been on of the people behind the scenes for a long time. My feelings are that now there's such a stink among these behind-the-scenes-people for so long, that it's reached a point where they feel that they need to do things themselves.

If you think that Trump is just a childish boy-like figure, you're not only ill-informed, but you're blind to the past, and possibly just overly-hopeful that the world isn't approaching chaos at full-scale.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since everyone has broken USA/State/Local laws and "done something wrong", everyone should just use the PIN code with No fingerprint.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[amRadioHed]

You mean the Supreme Court which the next president will have at least two positions to fill.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[amRadioHed]

It's been standard on newer phone for a few years now.

Re: Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

2009-2011

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Autocracy is universal and cannot be repealed, only concealed.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[jcr]

The US has never been a tyranny,

Tell it to Debs or Korematsu.

wake up.

Follow your own advice.

-jcr

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't he the guy who was caught in a recording trying to sell a senate seat? I mean, come on. A lot of partisan crap goes on, but, honestly? Doesn't this guy deserve it?

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[jcr]

There is no legal way for anyone to stop the President from a first strike nuclear attack.

Sure there is. The other men in the National Command Authority can refuse to concur with a launch order.

-jcr

Re: Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop watching so many movies. Nobody is nuking anyone. You are not saving the world from disaster by voting Hillary. This really is about a Supreme Court that will protect your freedom or one that will allow people like Hillary to dictate every aspect of how you live your life. That is the choice. People who are voting for Clinton are all self righteous pricks or dangerously ignorant of history

Re: Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Clinton abuses employees and her husbands victims. So yeah thats not why she is a tyrant. Its because she will drastcally curtail freedom of the press.

Re: Hold down power button and ...

[easyTree]

What was this supposed to prove other than that they have a judge who will rubber-stamp any order no matter how appalling?

More generally, what is it with these people? They want you to do wgst they say for their reasons so they go through this whole charade of 'we live in a democracy' and 'laws are made with the greater good in mind' and then you're supposed to just roll over and do what you're told even though the laws don't apply to those running for the highest office in your country and whenever there's no appropriate lawful way for them to get. what they want they accuse you of terrorism which opens up new possibilities of coetcive overeach.

Either start acting in a manner which is consistent with your purported principles or just dispense with the charade and come out and say "do what we say or else" (which is what it always comes down to anyway.)

Re: Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, so the presidential candidate who wants to appoint supreme court justices that will not restrict abortion or gay marriage is dictating how you live your life, but the one who wants supreme court justices that will make abortion illegal, who wants to use the judiciary to imprison those who oppose him, and who would violate international law by torturing the families of suspected terrorists is protecting freedom.

Start watching the actual news, and get your head out of your Brietbart. You have ignored all the lessons of history if you think that Trump is anything but a tyrant-wanna-be. You've not given anything to support your ridiculous assertions. My assertions are supported by the fact that he has repeatedly publicly claimed these things, watch the videos on any news website.

Nobody is nuking anyone since Trump is going to lose the election. He is far too unstable to have that kind of power. He does not listen to advice, even from experts, does not read any books, and hasn't the temperament to let any slight against him go. Those are indisputable, and re-proven every week.

Still waiting to hear about those rights and jobs Clinton has taken away.

Re: Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic.

Re: Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

These are not even comparable. The problem with all you trumptrash is you have no logic. No critical thought. And no perspective. Except your own tv driven bias. Lol. TRUMPTRASH

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

And then possibly be charged with treason.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Carewolf]

He's more like a little boy who has no idea what to do or how to do it.

Little boys and girls are tyrants. Children are sociopaths who must be trained to be civilized human beings [1]. Sometimes training doesn't take, ergo, Trump.

[1] There's a quote around there that says this better than I could, so if anyone knows it please let me know!

It is not training as such, but they need to grow up emotionally. And they are not sociopaths, children are "psychopaths", though we usually wouldn't use that word for pre-adolescents.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Trains are cheaper but the optics are decidedly suboptimal.

Re: Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

According to your logic intentionally not setting up fingerprints would also be obstruction.
Not so.

Re: Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, so the presidential candidate who wants to appoint supreme court justices that will not restrict abortion or gay marriage is dictating how you live your life, but the one who wants supreme court justices that will make abortion illegal, who wants to use the judiciary to imprison those who oppose him, and who would violate international law by torturing the families of suspected terrorists is protecting freedom.

If you own a bakery, people can now walk in and demand that you make a cake you don't want to make, and threaten you with ruin if you don't comply. Hillary: in favor. Trump: opposed.

Now, it doesn't matter, because only the "right" people can demand a cake. If a customer wants a cake with the prime minister of Israel on it, the bakery can get away with refusing it. In fact if someone demands a cake saying "black people are ugly" the bakery can get away with refusing it. And in practice, if a gay person went into a Muslim bakery and demanded a gay wedding cake, I'll bet nobody would force the Muslim to comply. It's just those icky Christians. This time.

The problem with handing over power to the government is that someday, somebody you don't like might get the power. If we dismantle all the checks and balances and remove the restrictions on governmental power, liberals are gonna love it today. They might not love it so much later.

Let's imagine a horrible crash of the economy, maybe even hyperinflation, and some idiot like Trump gets elected President... after Obama and Hillary have swollen the power of the executive branch. In fact, let's imagine someone just like Hillary, but willing to do whatever he/she is bribed to do. (Hillary is only willing to do a lot of things, not whatever. She has limits. She's true to the "progressive" ideals of today.)

get your head out of your Brietbart

Oh, fuck you.

You have ignored all the lessons of history if you think that Trump is anything but a tyrant-wanna-be.

I'll take a childish and churlish boor any day, if the press will be all over every move he makes and at least half the Congress will be opposed to what he does. Hillary has proven that not only will the news media help her by not reporting bad news about her, the news media will actively help her get away with serious felonies. She had the Director of the FBI run interference for her on those felonies.

She isn't even President yet and she already has shown that she will be untouchable, with Congress rolling over on everything she does and the media helping sell it to the average people. Even if I approved of everything Hillary has ever done, I would be hesitant to have a President who will have such free rein.

Vote gridlock 2016. Vote Trump. Or the USA may slide down a slippery slope to a President for Life tyrant (who starts off very popular and becomes... less so).

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

That tyrant is Hillary.
She talks a lot of bs about peace and law, but make no mistake...
she's a warmonger, a law flaunter, a loose cannon, a liar,
and ...
DOESN'T GIVE A SINGLE FUCK ABOUT YOU.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

None of this should be viewed as an argument in favor of Clinton, who is also a terrible candidate. But acting like things are likely to be better because Trump is an "outsider" and less corrupt (at least by the political establishment) is just not a safe bet.

It is good you put this caveat in there, but it doesn't go far enough.

You want to rail on about Trump's behavior, and make assumptions about what he will do in office, yet you seem to ignore the fact that Hillary has already stated she would like to do away with at least one Amendment to the Constitution. She has already demonstrated a completely cavalier attitude toward National Security, and even a passing disinterest in protecting the lives of American soldiers.
Tell me again why it is good to vote for HER?

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

He has no machine behind him.

It's not behind him, it's under his hair piece.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[dywolf]

its because trump doesn't represent anything remotely American.
its a rare case of bipartisanship.
its true that the democratic leadership is losing middle America, when the working man used to be their base.

its yet another switch up among the parties.
Nixon completed the racial switch.
now we are seeing the education/wage switch.

and this is likely to be much farther reaching, because the truth is most economic opportunity, especially of the type we tell kids will be possible with better education, isn't in middle America. its in the cities, most of which are located on the coasts (though California is a bit of a special case; its geography naturally leading to a near perfect mix; reason why its got the worlds 6th largest economy). and that only helps drive and permanently set the increasing partisan divide which is as much a divide between economic class as it is party. personally I hate that development too, as id much rather live in rural America than a city. but there's no where for me to work there.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[stoatwblr]

They may well be charged with treason, however I think you will find that very few military commanders who are authorised to issue nuke launch codes will actually do so even on a presidential order.

The Rand institute studied this in the 1980s, based on 1970s military battlefield simulations. Nuke-capable commanders only ever used them in _one_ simulation and in all subsequent runs they'd surrender rather than use them - even if the other side tossed them first.

Unlike the 3rd Reich, Rome or North Korea, USA military commanders (most countries actually) swear alliegance to their country and not their leader or their military system. Killing most of the civilian population would be a big breach of that oath. The President may be CinC, but if he issues a command which would result in the destruction of the country, men will risk treason charges to prevent that happening.

Don't forget that the job of the president is not to wield power but to divert attention away from those who do. Whoever thought Zaphod Beeblebrox would have a tribble on his head or be so spectacularly uncool?

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is like leaving the key under the doormat.

It is more like leaving a picture of the key under the doormat.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's going to be a long time before either party gets to fill a Supreme Court slot. McCain already let that slip, and him walking it back later was total BS.

If they block Obama and Clinton, why would the Dems ever allow a republican to appoint anyone?

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Dread_ed]

No excuse is even better.

Your phone is off. They ask you to open it with your finger. You can't. End of story. Don't provide excuses, or even speak to the matter at hand. It can't help, and will certainly hurt you to say anything regarding the matter.

"Am I being detained?" and/or "I want an attorney."

These are really the only statements you need to utter, ever, to a police officer under these circumstances. Keep in mind that statements you make to a police officer are only used for one reason: to prove you are guilty or to build a case against you and then prove you are guilty. You are not talking to a judge or a jury of your peers when speaking to an officer of the law that is interrogating you. This is important because only a judge or jury will prove your innocence, not a LEO. Any information you can provide is better within your control and not the control of an officer.

It is better to consider a human being in a uniform as a mechanism rather than a human being. They are trained to embody very specific roles, to act in a routine and specialized way to collect "evidence" and turn that "evidence" into convictions. Any information you provide them can and will be used to prove your guilt. That is the whole sum of their job in these circumstances.

IANAL. Any advice written above is for entertainment purposes only. Trying to obstruct an investigation by a legal authority will result in your incarceration, being falsely accused as a rapist and/or pedophile, and your eventual shooting death at the hands of unknown assailants.
   

Re: Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, lets ignore back alley abortions, judiciary vendettas, and torture, because the real freedom loss is in cakes.

You think Hillary is the one who wants to get rid of checks and balances? Have you listened to a single word out of Trumps mouth? I'm sorry, but you just aren't being realistic at all here.

I'd prefer to imagine that one of the two major political parties would not have another idiot like Trump as a candidate again, if they manage to survive after this election. And what exactly has Obama done to swell the power of the executive? By issuing the least executive orders per year since Grover Cleveland, despite having a congress committed to blocking everything he proposed? Not exactly a power grab, that.

Ah yes, the serious felonies that Republicans have spent tens of millions of taxpayer dollars trying to find repeatedly, and failing because there's nothing to find. The FBI Director was correct in stating that no prosecution should be mounted, because it would be a waste of time and money, as there wasn't an indictable offense. Read the statutes. Read the testimony. Find news from a different site, not an alt-right one or preferably the actual source material, the interpretations you have been reading are crap.

Congress rolling over for her - the same congress that has spent years trying to indict her? Your assertions do not match reality.

Vote for Trump, an idiot with many grudges that doesn't respect the limitations of the office or free elections and hates immigrants, a free press, fair trials, women, and minorities - because Fuck America. Or vote for a politician which will maintain the status quo and not destroy the country in the process.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I'm pretty sure it's because Trump is a cunt.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Chalnoth]

A similar option would be to just tap the finger print sensor a bunch of times with the wrong finger. Really don't know if this would be a safe thing to do legally, as others have mentioned, but for me it'd be almost worth it to force a fight in court over it rather than just handing them my personal information.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Chalnoth]

Is that why he's threatening to lock up his opponent once he has the power to do so? Why he's claiming that unless he wins, the election was illegitimate?

Trump is ridiculously authoritarian. Sure, he's completely ignorant of how government works. In part that means that what would actually happen in a Trump presidency is that his advisors would set most policy. But he's got an ego as massive as any I've seen, and is very likely to push for lots of absurd and horrifying policies if he ever gets a chance.

Fortunately, it's virtually impossible for him to win the presidency at the current time. There are even some (rather unreliable) early indications that Trump may end up vastly underperforming in the polls due to historically low voter turnout among Republicans.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[Chalnoth]

Ummm, I hope you learn at least a little bit about child psychology before having any children. Children very, very quickly learn to show empathy and concern for others' needs, if they are given the right environment to do so.

Children (usually) only show sociopathic tendencies if their parents treat them like that's the only option. Sadly, this kind of mistreatment of children is absurdly common in the US, particularly as many parents don't even realize that they could be have far less frustration and a far more enjoyable time as parents if they just learned to stop setting up power struggles with their children.

Of course, sometimes there's brain chemistry that gets in the way here, but most children, even toddlers, can learn to notice and respond to the needs of others in positive ways, albeit clumsily.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[naasking]

I hope you realize you just agreed with my point.

Re:Hold down power button and ...

[RockDoctor]

If I go to work, I'm required to turn the phone off while in transit, and there's no point in turning it back on until I'm back within an area of phone coverage (e.g., within 100km of dry land). It's not as if there are mobile phone towers, or unsecured wifi which you can connect to without a correctly-programmed smart card for the corporate network.

Immediately turn phone off

[dattaway]

Pattern required to start device before fingerprint reader will work.

Re:Immediately turn phone off

[Z00L00K]

Better to link fingerprint unlock to device wipe and only use a pin code to get into the device properly.

Re: Immediately turn phone off

[LanceMcGrath]

... and don't have any information worth stealing in the first place. Not sure that's an advantage.

Re: Immediately turn phone off

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahhh nothing to hide.. that's the right way of going about it citizen.

Re:Immediately turn phone off

[Anonymous Coward]

A pin code is going to help in a case like this article was about, where the cops don't really know you but randomly grab your phone and want you to unlock it for them.

But what about the case where you are the target of an investigation? What's the chance that they won't observe you tapping in the PIN at some point? I unlock my phone dozens of times a day. In public places I try to do it in a way not easily observed, but chances are that if I was being watched, they would eventually see me do it, and then they can get into my phone anytime.

Not sure what the solution is...

Re:Immediately turn phone off

[jpatters]

Yes, feature phones can explode.

Many smart phones can have a much stronger password to unlock than a four digit pin. Of course one has to balance convenience with security when considering how strong a password to use for their device, but that is ultimately up to the user.

It would be a nice feature for TouchID to distinguish between your thumb rolled a little to the left vs a little to the right; simply link one gesture to unlock the phone and the other to duress mode.

Re:Immediately turn phone off

[Anonymous Coward]

I use a password.
No fingerprints or patterns required.

Re:Immediately turn phone off

[AmiMoJo]

If your turn your phone off/reboot the moment the police turn up it means you can't film them with it. So you have to choose between filing and risking them grabbing it, or protecting your privacy.

Phones need a panic button. Say tap the power button three times quickly and it goes into a locked down mode where it records video as long as you hold the volume button down, and the moment you let go it reboots and all data is safety encrypted.

Kinda sucks that we need to use suicide bomber tactics now.

Re:Immediately turn phone off

[Anonymous Coward]

Stand back! I have a Galaxy Note 7 and I'm not afraid to use it!

Re:Immediately turn phone off

[FrozenGeek]

At work, many of our doors require both card and pin. On those doors, the pin pads are randomized. So unless "they" can be close enough to read the keys you are pressing, simply noting the pattern of your finger movements won't help. At the end of the day, there is no 100% perfect security. Even then, I suspect that rubber-hose crypto would defeat your perfect security.

Re: Immediately turn phone off

[Anonymous Coward]

Soon we'll have no choice.

Re:Immediately turn phone off

[ryanmc1]

My phone, a oneplus one, and possibly even the newer oneplus phones, will allow you to use the camera, without unlocking the phone. This way I can film without exposing my private data.

Re:Immediately turn phone off

[Carewolf]

If your turn your phone off/reboot the moment the police turn up it means you can't film them with it. So you have to choose between filing and risking them grabbing it, or protecting your privacy.

Phones need a panic button. Say tap the power button three times quickly and it goes into a locked down mode where it records video as long as you hold the volume button down, and the moment you let go it reboots and all data is safety encrypted.

Kinda sucks that we need to use suicide bomber tactics now.

Just don't lock the phone with a fingerprint in the first place. It is super weak lock mechanism in the first place.

Re:Immediately turn phone off

[david_thornley]

It's worth knowing what will happen with repeated PIN entries. If the authorities only get to try a 4-digit PIN ten times, they've got a 0.1% chance to unlock the phone, which is going to be good enough for most people.

The consumer market needs military-grade security.

[mmell]

I think we need two things:

(1): Some form of secure (preferably cloud-stored) backup/restore mechanism with appropriate encryption and access protection mechanisms, and

(2): A convenient, easy to trigger yet unlikely to be accidentally triggered mechanism to locally wipe the hardware. Factory reset plus cache clear should do the trick.

sorry my phone is off

[beckett]

if the iPhone reboots, the key code must be entered as touchID does not work. Passwords are still protected by the 4th amendment in the US, right?

Re:sorry my phone is off

[chromaexcursion]

correct.

Re:sorry my phone is off

[sew3521]

Since my S6 is encrypted I need to enter a password to boot up the phone. After I do that I need to enter another password to get into Android the first time. Once that is done I can use my fingerprint or my watch. It would be cool if there was a way to shut down your phone if the power button was rapidly pushed 5 or so times.

Re:sorry my phone is off

[Z00L00K]

Just drop the phone and place a chair leg in the display accidentally.

Re:sorry my phone is off

[stephanruby]

This is the same for any Android phone that has fingerprint recognition.

Re:sorry my phone is off

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Does the display store the sensitive information?

Re:sorry my phone is off

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need to use the fingerprint feature - even on phones that have a reader. If you like to taunt cops, just set it up with a pincode instead. For bonus points, drag finger after finger "hmm - didn't work this time either..."

But seriously, what did they hope to gain with this? If the can get a warrant for every phone, they might as well get a warrant for the telco and figure out "who called/texted who and when" with nobody even knowing the're being investigated. Or was the real point to scare somebody? As in "we're doing massive investigation around you - watch this - the whole building . . ........."

Re: sorry my phone is off

[Anonymous Coward]

Incorrect. The fifth amendment. Because a password would be considered testimony, which you cannot be compelled to provide if it would be incriminating, OR (and this is my favorite part), if you don't KNOW if it's incriminating.

Re:sorry my phone is off

[Z00L00K]

Push hard enough and you puncture the battery - with corresponding audiovisual effects.

Re:sorry my phone is off

[Sir Holo]

if the iPhone reboots, the key code must be entered as touchID does not work. Passwords are still protected by the 4th amendment in the US, right?

Beautiful! The perfect reaction to hearing of any such dragnet-style announcement should be to power-down you iPhone.

Alternatively, download your local ACLU's App. "CA Justice", for example, will record everything. If anyone attempts to operate the phone, it will automatically upload the collected A/V to an ACLU server, and provide you with a reference # in case you need to find it later. As in, "Officer, I do not give you permission to operate my phone. If you do, it will automatically upload our entire conversation to an ACLU server...", which is out of my or your control, and cannot be erased. Then, the first chance that you get, you either power it down, or if they confiscate it, use iCloud's "I lost my iPhone" to nuke it remotely.

Or just keep some sandpaper handy at all times...

Re:sorry my phone is off

[dywolf]

interesting intersection of precedent and new technology, where the new technology calls into question the validity of the precedent.
ultimately the precedent has value, and continues to do so (ie, fingerprinting or identifying a person).
but this new application is clearly a step too far.
but how to legally justify a contradiction to the precedent without upending it?

HA!

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing I don't use a fingerprint for a password, then what?

Re: HA!

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you have something to hide == terrorist == executed. Don't act smart in front of armed thugs in the service of a tyrant, just sayin'

Something you have, something you know

[jenningsthecat]

It's been said countless times here. Requiring both a fingerprint and a passcode would have protected phone owners from this fishing expedition.

As for the greater ramifications of the unprecedentedly broad warrant that was issued, well, I'm glad I'm not a US citizen and don't live there. And I'm increasingly reluctant to travel there as well, precisely because of things like this. America has become a scary, scary place.

Re:Something you have, something you know

[phantomfive]

As for the greater ramifications of the unprecedentedly broad warrant that was issued, well, I'm glad I'm not a US citizen and don't live there. And I'm increasingly reluctant to travel there as well, precisely because of things like this.

Where do you live that you think is better?

Re:Something you have, something you know

[Dunbal]

Probably somewhere that has a little less security and a little more liberty.

Re: Something you have, something you know

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada.

Re:Something you have, something you know

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably somewhere that has a little less security and a little more liberty.

You forgot the quote marks around the word "security".

You know who else had more "security"? It would be funny if it weren't so sad and if your increased "security" didn't have so much fallout on the rest of us.

Re: Something you have, something you know

[Anonymous Coward]

Your PM will bring in enough dindu and towelhead "refugees" to wipe that smirk right off your hateful white mug.

Re: Something you have, something you know

[Anonymous Coward]

I live 10 minutes from the border and haven't been to the US in 10-15 years.

Re: Something you have, something you know

[Anonymous Coward]

"dindu"? Is that like a Romanian turkey?

Re:Something you have, something you know

[Anonymous Coward]

Neh, you just need a fingerprint that will lock the phone to a password. So if forced to unlock with a finger, you use the "wrong" one. You could even have a

In normal operation I don't want to fingerprint unlock, then input a password.

Re:Something you have, something you know

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah! That's right!! USA FTW!!!

Wait... Let me think.

Umm, actually; Canada, France, Germany, Holland, UK...

Don't get me wrong, I love me some good old 'mom and apple pie', but the US makes me very sad these days. I lived in the US for 30 years and finally left about 10 years ago. It has just gone downhill from then and shockingly fast. I no longer visit thanks to the TSA. At this point the USA is sketchy as fuck. See: Everyone got guns, and the impression is that schools and movie theatres are where they are used most. Border searches, no fly list, Islamophobia, militarised police, brutal racism, dysfunctional healthcare system, for profit prisons, crumbling infrastructure... That's just a start.

Re:Something you have, something you know

[thegarbz]

Where do you live that you think is better?

You're kidding right? The USA has shown itself as of late to have nothing going for it. Freedoms no longer exist, due process no longer exists, it's not the best place for education, health, the division of wealth is simply staggering compared to many other countries, and the chicks in Sweden are far hotter.

Re:Something you have, something you know

[flyingfsck]

The Underground Railroad has always run from the USA to Canada. People have been voting with their feet for centuries.

Re:Something you have, something you know

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see such sweeping whole-building stuff in northwestern europe? People generally appreciate the police here, they don't seem to be here explicitly to harass (well, perhaps except from speed traps...) The region is nice in many other ways to. Can even bring apc on a plane without turning it on for them, they just xray it like any other luggage.

Re:Something you have, something you know

[phantomfive]

Sweden won't force you to unlock your phone with your finger? Are you sure?

Re:Something you have, something you know

[thegarbz]

No but in Sweden their English is good enough realise that the only reference to Sweden in my post was related to their women, not their phones.

Re:Something you have, something you know

[Anonymous Coward]

ROTFLMAO, security ?????
You have the highest prison population per capital in the world.
You have murder rates way higher than other 1st world countries
You have police shooting an average of 4 people a day...at a guess, because no accurate records are kept
You have police piling on trumped up charges as a means of bullying innocent people

The US is NOT safe, NOT secure, NOT free.

Look at US rankings for
Health
Mental Health
Education
Freedom of speech
Freedom of the press
Welfare
racial equality
crime, murder , rape, assault
Social mobility (the American dream is a lie)
Wealth distribution (no a more equal society is not communist)
Corruption
Democracy (Look at the efforts some states go to to hinder peoples right/ability to vote)
Capitalism

Re:Something you have, something you know

[Anonymous Coward]

I read that first bit as a "fisting expedition."

Re:Something you have, something you know

[houghi]

Hello, please give us you passcode AND your thumb, or you will be detained for a period of time during working hours. That means you will not be able to get to work and you will likely be without a job very soon.
To help that along, we will call your employer to say that you have been detained concerning a childporn investigation. Do not say anything to anybody, because then we will be angry and I or anybody in the department if I get thrown in jail, will go after you and destroy your life.
You have 5 seconds to comply.

Re:Something you have, something you know

[Lord Flipper]

...Don't get me wrong, I love me some good old 'mom and apple pie', but the US makes me very sad these days....

You're lucky you had a place to go back to. Most US citizens, like myself, unless they're rich, unlike myself, are stuck here. Other countries favor rich immigrants, unless you're a sanctioned refugee from some western power-created hellhole, somewhere.

I lived in Canada for nearly 30 years, and never bothered to upgrade my permanent residency to full citizenship, went back to the States for a supposedly "brief" business adventure, and the Trade Center thing went down, our business tanked almost instantly (for no "connected" reason whatsoever), and the next thing I knew I'd overstayed outside Canada, and now I'm still here...

We're selling our house in California, and sliding into either Vermont or Washington... It's a nasty compromise, at worst, and possible launchpad for a little late-life razzle-dazzle border jumping, at best... we'll see...

Re:Something you have, something you know

[strikethree]

It's been said countless times here. Requiring both a fingerprint and a passcode would have protected phone owners from this fishing expedition.

How about just fucking saying "No! I will not submit to your abusive warrant. Fuck you and your legal shenanigans. Throw me in jail to rot mother fucker. You can't throw everyone in jail without impacting your own quality of life mother fuckers."

In reality only 10s of thousands need to rot in jail before everyone else rolls over and shows their yellow belly.

Re:The consumer market needs military-grade securi

[Anonymous Coward]

Before that, you need a government that respects the citizens and the rule of law. Without that, everything else will be at risk.

Jealous Bastards

[Anonymous Coward]

They were just looking for naked pics texted to me

Give 'em the middle finger

[Anonymous Coward]

Android and iOS should let you designate a self-destruct fingerprint - one that when used wipes your device.

Re:Give 'em the middle finger

[grasshoppa]

Absolutely right. Most alarm systems have a "Panic" code which appears to disarm the alarm, but in fact sends out a panic signal and notifies the cops. A "self-destruct" finger print would be in the same vein.

Re:Give 'em the middle finger

[Z00L00K]

Just have a means to puncture and short the battery, just don't do it in your pocket.

A fire evacuation has a tendency to disrupt any search by cops.

Re:Give 'em the middle finger

[flyingfsck]

If a device is encrypted, then you need not destruct it. Just turn it off.

Re:Give 'em the middle finger

[Anonymous Coward]

Just have a means to puncture and short the battery, just don't do it in your pocket.

A fire evacuation has a tendency to disrupt any search by cops.

samsung 7 to the rescue! It's a feature :)

Re:Give 'em the middle finger

[Anonymous Coward]

Or just use a Galaxy Note 7.

The judge fucked up, and should be disbarred.

[jcr]

This is an obvious violation of the fifth amendment, and the judge who issued the warrant isn't qualified to practice law in the united states.

-jcr

Re:The judge fucked up, and should be disbarred.

[Anonymous Coward]

Should be tarred and feathered at a minimum.

Re:The judge fucked up, and should be disbarred.

[Anonymous Coward]

"...and the judge who issued the warrant isn't qualified to practice law..."

Note the very careful wording, both in the Warrant, (Which has yet to surface...), and the reporting about it. There is far more to this case than appears.
-No _person_ was charged or implicated either before or after the Warrant was issued and served. The Judge has not been named.
-The reason(s) for obtaining the Warrant has not been released.
-One witness has come out and expressed confusion; she claims not to know why she was ordered to comply. No explanation was given to her, and she has witnesses to this.

This seems to be a Fishing Expedition gone horribly wrong, and the Judge isn't the only one who is blameless. Somebody wanted very much to have this happen, most likely for "National Security" reasons. (Unpaid Parking Tickets seems unlikely, at least for now.) And indeed if that is the case, we may never know any more. The Law Enforcement Industry likes to keep mum on their screwups.

Too much attention is being paid to the How, and not enough people are asking Why?

Re:The judge fucked up, and should be disbarred.

[jcr]

I've often said, we'd only have to do that to a handful of those assholes every couple of years or so to make most of them clean up their act.

-jcr

Re:The judge fucked up, and should be disbarred.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Fifth Amendment doesn't say anything about searches or warrants.

Re:The judge fucked up, and should be disbarred.

[tgv]

This is what you can expect in a country where money is considered free speech.

Re:The judge fucked up, and should be disbarred.

[freeze128]

Isn't that what the Second Amendment is for?

Re:The judge fucked up, and should be disbarred.

[thegarbz]

This is an obvious violation of the fifth amendment

If it's so obvious I'm keen to hear your analysis of why. After all there are several here who say that it's not a violation of the fifth at all, and a least one post shows it's more likely a violation of the fourth.

Re:The judge fucked up, and should be disbarred.

[Anonymous Coward]

Due process for all man,
even for this judge...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:The judge fucked up, and should be disbarred.

[K. S. Kyosuke]

The cool and unusual punishment?

Re:The judge fucked up, and should be disbarred.

[Anonymous Coward]

The 2nd amendment is for the right of states to have their own militia that are paid for by the states and not by the federal government. Thereby allowing slave states to have independent (of the federal gov't) slave patrols.

Think I'm wrong... Then read the documentation of the debates at the time.

There has never been, and I'd argue still isn't, an individual right to bare arms in the Constitution. The first ruling of such a thing happend mid 2000s under the Roberts court in a 5/4 split vote.

But don't worry, that ruling will be overturned in the next 10 year after the senate abolishes the philabuster (which is NOT part of the Constitution) and Clinton appoints at least 2 more people 1) to fill Scalia's vacancy, 2) to replace RGB when she retires. 3?) Kennedy retiring because he's bored of no longer being the swing vote 4?) Thomas because he wants to leave SCOTUS and go make MONEY on the speaking circuit.

If 3 or 4 happen... a LOT of decisions that have happened since 1976 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo ) where the first decision stating that 'corporations are -people-' will start to be corrected.

Corporations are not people. They are legal entities. Shareholders are people... And people should be legally liable for their actions.

If you want to know how much the country will change, then look to next June after the SCOTUS term has ended and see which SCOTUS members look to hire law clerks for the next term. My bet is that RGB and Kennedy retire. if so... Thomas might go to... because apparently he is SUPER bored being a judge still.

Re:The judge fucked up, and should be disbarred.

[rahvin112]

I doubt it's national security, it's most likely a drug case. Other crimes just don't pay the cops as well as drug crimes. This won't change until civil forfeiture goes away.

Re:The judge fucked up, and should be disbarred.

[John.Banister]

When a Fishing Expedition goes horribly wrong, you end up tied to a dock for a couple of weeks waiting on parts while others catch the fish you were intending to catch. I hope all the publicity helps this situation play out similarly.

Re:The judge fucked up, and should be disbarred.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've brought this line of thought up before with people on the most basic of premises, and it is often times I have to explain out, why I'm questioning the way I'm questioning something.

Most recently, it's local ballot initiatives. For example, at the first glance and read, the initiative looked wholly progressive. I.e., who could possibly vote against this, regardless of you political ideology. It appears, to 'do some good'. But, the devil is in the details, and more importantly, the language. Upon reading the actual language that the ballot initiative would put in place, it was wholly contradictory with regard to what it represented, and almost a 180 with regard to the ballot initiative text stance. This wasn't a matter of interpretation, it was a matter of it being put forth in such a way, to get a specific response from an uninformed public. THAT outcome, is what really leads to the why here. Why write the initiative in such a way? Who has to gain from doing that?

If we, the citizenry, see this type of behaviour at every step of Government, here at the voting box, above at judicial enforcement, it's hard to argue that there isn't a real inherent problem in the US, every step of the way. Might be painting with a broad brush here, but the spectrum we see this at, is as wide as it gets. And that is a genuine concern people should take note of for the long run.

Re:The judge fucked up, and should be disbarred.

[Bing Tsher E]

They used to do stuff like that in the Old South.

Maybe you're wishing for something that some of us would oppose.

Re:The judge fucked up, and should be disbarred.

[Bing Tsher E]

Who are these others out catching the fish you were intending to catch? More cops? Your analogy just self-destructed.

Re:The judge fucked up, and should be disbarred.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just humans, all the way up...

Re:The judge fucked up, and should be disbarred.

[jcr]

They also did it in Boston against the crown's tax collectors, and fuck you for trying to smear me.

-jcr

Re:The judge fucked up, and should be disbarred.

[jcr]

The 2nd amendment is for the right of states

WRONG.

The militia is cited as one reason to prohibit the federal government from disarming us, but the amendment doesn't even presume to be granting the right. It acknowledges it as pre-existing.

-jcr

Re:The judge fucked up, and should be disbarred.

[Anonymous Coward]

It could be seen as hacking, impersonation, unauthorized access, a clear violation of the 4th Amendment banning general searches, a violation of the 4th Amendment banning unreasonable search/seizure, a violation of the 5th Amendment (if they demand to be told which part of which finger to use), perjury (violation of the oath to uphold the law, to defend the country form enemies foreign and domestic). Some of these would only be a problem in the case of an illegal search (including a search authorized by an illegal warrant). Remember that following illegal orders is still illegal, even if there's usually no consequences.

Re:The judge fucked up, and should be disbarred.

[Anonymous Coward]

I still would like the contextual specifics of what actually were the circumstances. Not that I disagree with the sentiment BUT all too often these stories lack detail.

everybody swap phones

[Anonymous Coward]

"open your phone." "sure, no problem. oh, it's not working."

Re: everybody swap phones

[Anonymous Coward]

That's brilliant.

13th ammendment

[Anonymous Coward]

How would this interact with the 13th ammendment? The one that says you cannot be compelled into servitude without being convicted of a crime?

My phone can sometimes be seriously annoying to turn on if it's feeling moody, it can take upwards of 20 minutes. That's not an insignificant amount of action required on my part.

Re:13th ammendment

[ooloorie]

You can be compelled to serve the judiciary; after all, jury duty is a lot more onerous than unlocking your phone.

Re:13th ammendment

[Anonymous Coward]

You can be required to serve on a jury, but they cannot require you to actually do anything other than sit there.

Re:13th ammendment

[Z00L00K]

On a jury you can always cause obstruction or at least mess up things a little by having a different opinion compared to the others.

Re:13th ammendment

[Anonymous Coward]

You can be required to serve on a jury...

...if you're a registered voter.

Welcome to America!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your cell is just over there, to the right.

how about 4A

[ooloorie]

The government argued that this did not violate the citizens' Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination

It seems to violate the 4A, the one protecting citizens against "unreasonable search and seizure".

Of course, both Bush and Obama pretty much have done away with such niceties. Hillary will continue their "noble" efforts, and kill off the 1A and 2A as well.

Re:how about 4A

[RightwingNutjob]

"I have a signed warrant to search your house for drugs/guns/cash, please open your fingerprint-protected safe"

Which part of that violates the Constitution?

Re: how about 4A

[Anonymous Coward]

The scribe got it wrong, they wanted to prohibit unseasonable sea urchin seizures.

Re:how about 4A

[Anonymous Coward]

If Trump has his way, then we'll lose the 1st (freedom of religion), 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 19th, 22nd, 24th, and 26th if he's elected.

Re:how about 4A

[chromaexcursion]

4th and 5th . just say no

Re:how about 4A

[mysidia]

That's not what they did.

It's more like you had a party at your house with 50 people, and the police got a warrant to search your house,
that included a clause "allowing" them to search the fingerprint-protected safe of any person who was at your party

scope that allowed them to force anyone inside the premises at the time ....

Contrast that against the Fourth amendment's requirements:

supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Note that the constitution requires that warrants describe particular people or things.

It's Unconstitutional and Illegal/violation of the supreme law of the land to have a "generic search" or a "generic warrant document"
allowing police to search and seize or disseminate the personal property of ANY random person they happen to find at place X.

The constitution requires they have made a specific list of people to search people, or a specific list of things to search objects not in peoples' personal affects.

Re:how about 4A

[Loki_1929]

Exactly. Unless you have my name on your warrant and have a reasonable suspicion backing that warrant, you can do a cursory safety check and then go fuck yourself. I'm not doing anything wrong and I live in a country where I don't have to prove that. And for what it's worth, every police officer I've counted as a friend hates this kind of fascist crap.

Re:how about 4A

[Anonymous Coward]

But considering that lawyers and the courts are involved in interpreting the meaning of that clause, 'particularly' could mean almost anything.

Re:how about 4A

[Z00L00K]

A: "Sorry, it's not my safe - I only house it for a friend."
Cop: "Who's your friend"
A: "I'd take the 5th on that".

Re:how about 4A

[Z00L00K]

Maybe it's time to do a clean-up there then.

Re:how about 4A

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a dick, and you know it.

Re:how about 4A

[Anonymous Coward]

Source?

Re:how about 4A

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Just say no to drugs...enforcement administration?

Re:how about 4A

[Calydor]

I'm a little curious, how does the fourth amendment work together with Stop And Frisk practices?

Is it feasible that the police could get a warrant to search a building, and then claim that anyone found in the building is 'suspicious' and they checked them out 'just in case'?

Re:how about 4A

[Kjella]

supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You are reading way too much into this. If the police get a warrant to search a particular house for drugs that is a specific warrant. If it were all houses or to search for any contraband that would be a general warrant and unconstitutional. When they exercise that warrant they're going to search the whole house with everyone's belongings, they don't have to go through the coat rack and assign ownership first then come back with one warrant for Alice's jacket, one for Bob's jacket and not search Eve's jacket because she was just visiting. If they tried to search a whole apartment building because of one occupant that would probably be overreaching, but they don't have to be extremely particular either. And they may search anywhere drugs may be hidden, the only limitation is things obviously out of scope like opening letters, playing movies and other actions that can't possibly lead to the discovery of drugs. But if the evidence could be on the phone, the phone is free game.

I think the same goes with crowds, if it's two room mates they'll search it all even though eventually it might turn out only one sold drugs and the other was innocent. But searching a thousand people at a concert even though you have compelling evidence someone is selling drugs is probably not reasonable, though I can't find any precedent on how strong individual suspicion is necessary. If you're say raiding an illegal gambling club it might be reasonable to suspect all of illegal gambling no matter the size. Now this search may led to finding evidence of other crimes like illegal guns and anything they find specified in the warrant or not may give probable cause for arrest, but that is fine because they're not part of the premise for the warrant. The only time you need to name a person is when issuing an arrest warrant because you intend to seize that person, since you can't have a general warrant to arrest people. That said, we have some gray areas surrounding terror organizations where mere membership is criminalized that is bordering on general arrest.

Re:how about 4A

[rahvin112]

They couldn't force you with out the lead pipes and rubber hoses, fortunately those aren't allowed in the US yet. What you do in a situation like this is refuse to comply, force them to arrest you and spend the night in jail so you can call the ACLU and get the warrant tossed.

See they get away with it because no one refused to comply. Once everyone in the building complies there is no effective way to sue them and set a precedent that will stop this happening again. When they arrest you they move the warrant to the next stage and you now have grounds to sue them over the warrant that you don't have if you comply.

Sometimes standing up to illegal orders is hard, including being arrested hard. Know your rights and refuse illegal orders like this (yes I recognize the warrant was technically legal because it hadn't been challenged). Then use the arrest to go after them and make sure it never happens again.

Re:how about 4A

[Anonymous Coward]

Read again. They need your name on a warrant to seize you, but they only need a description of the place to search it.

Re:how about 4A

[mrchaotica]

force them to arrest you

So, effectively ruin your life? By doing that, you not only get into databases that you might have had some chance avoiding otherwise, you also fuck over your chances of ever having a decent job again (unless you happen to be in a career such as activist or journalist where getting arrested is respected instead of condemned). HR departments are too stupid and lazy to know or care about the difference between getting arrested because you're a criminal and getting arrested because the police are criminals.

In the totalitarian police state of America, it's injustices all the way down.

Re:how about 4A

[Anonymous Coward]

Just say no to drugs...enforcement administration?

The Bush family likes their monopoly on that.

Re:how about 4A

[Kjella]

They couldn't force you with out the lead pipes and rubber hoses, fortunately those aren't allowed in the US yet. What you do in a situation like this is refuse to comply, force them to arrest you and spend the night in jail so you can call the ACLU and get the warrant tossed. See they get away with it because no one refused to comply. Once everyone in the building complies there is no effective way to sue them and set a precedent that will stop this happening again.

Why not? If you think they have an illegal warrant, you sue them as if they had no warrant. Same way you don't sue GPL violators for copyright infringement and not breach of contract, because you have no proof they agreed to the license. They will bring out the warrant and say it's okay, we had a warrant. Then you can challenge it and appeal any dismissals. I wouldn't do it without the ACLU, EFF or someone like that bankrolling it, but it seems to carry less risk since if your challenge fails you were never "rightfully" arrested and perhaps even charged with obstruction of justice. I strongly doubt "Scary guys with guns and fancy papers said I had to or be arrested so I did" counts as consent, immediate compliance does not mean you lose your right to challenge it after reviewing with legal counsel. Same way I'm not about to argue with a SWAT team breaking down the wrong door, I'd comply perfectly. Then sue the shit out of them.

Re:how about 4A

[Anonymous Coward]

Except a phone is not a generic safe. There will be no dope or other contraband in it. The call log may reveal a call to some known dealer, but that proves nothing. Not illegal to have friends among the criminals.

Re:how about 4A

[currently_awake]

Waterboarding uses rubber hoses, and that's allowed in the US. If that's not a sufficient level of cruelty they send you to Saudi Arabia to be tortured.

Re:how about 4A

[ooloorie]

I have no idea which part of your fabricated example violates the constitution, since you just fabricated that example.

In the real case we are discussing here, "everybody on premises needs to unlock their phones and have them searched" does not seem reasonable. It sounds like a fishing expedition, rather than a targeted criminal investigation.

Re:how about 4A

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a little curious, how does the fourth amendment work together with Stop And Frisk practices?

It doesn't, that's why "Stop and Frisk" has repeatedly been ruled illegal.

Re:how about 4A

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop and frisk laws are blatantly unconstitutional. The problem we have is fundamentally corrupt judges. Because sadly those stop and frisk laws have gone to federal judges and despite the fact that the forth isn't even remotely vaguely worded, they still found them not violating the forth. And I can't see how they could find that short of straight up corruption.

Re:how about 4A

[fahrbot-bot]

A: "Sorry, it's not my safe - I only house it for a friend."
Cop: "Who's your friend"
A: "I'd take the 5th on that".

Off topic, but your comment reminded me of this exchange from the movie, The Pink Panther Strikes Again (1976) with Peter Sellers as Inspector Clouseau:

• Clouseau: Does your dog bite?
• Hotel Clerk: No.
• Clouseau: [bowing down to pet the dog] Nice doggie.
• [Dog barks and bites Clouseau in the hand]
• Clouseau: I thought you said your dog did not bite!
• Hotel Clerk: That is not my dog.

Re:how about 4A

[david_thornley]

The Fourth prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. Clearly, the "seizure" part is violated with civil forfeiture, and I'd love to see the Supreme Court acknowledge that sometime. Stop and Frisk itself is constitutional, as long as the police have enough reason to suspect, but the application in New York was held unconstitutional.

The police probably can find a judge that would issue such a building warrant. Whether it would stand on appeal is another matter. If the police hold everyone at the scene, they can frisk everyone for weapons.

Re:how about 4A

[strikethree]

In the totalitarian police state of America, it's injustices all the way down.

I can't wait for someone to toss out the "you should have voted. it is all your fault for either not voting or voting for the wrong person" or even worse, "it is you and your fellow citizens that allowed this to happen. voting could have changed it. I know you voted but the rest have dragged you down."

Nothing but death will solve this. Lots and lots of deaths. The experiment is over. The evil people have won. Burn the whole fucking thing down.

Re:The consumer market needs military-grade securi

[hattable]

That is literally the solution to almost all tech problems. (No sarcasm). Bad access control and [insert random] encryption problems keep people like me employed.

Your honor, I object!

[fustakrakich]

Too bad nobody else does...

That judge failed history

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the very definition of a "general search warrant".

General search warrants are the very reason the Fourth Amendment was written. They are categorically banned in the Constitution.

The judge must be a Redcoat.

Re:That judge failed history

[micahraleigh]

Should have been in the summary.

"Open"

[ourlovecanlastforeve]

You don't "open' a phone with your fingerprint.

You unlock it.

"Opening" a phone would be separating the display from the chassis, ie for maintenance.

There is no "opening" operation being performed.

This is mostly a Red Herring

[RubberDogBone]

Fingerprints are an inherently insecure way to 'secure' a device of any kind because there are techniques to obtain latent fingerprints, which we all leave everywhere anyway, and use them to make a replica fingerprint which will open devices, security doors, phones, whatever, which is supposedly secured by said prints.

If you secure anything with fingerprints as your sole method of security, you have accepted having no security. It's a really bad way to secure anything unless you just don't care.

A normal search warrant already gives the police the right to obtain those latent prints and, hell, make you submit to fingerprinting on the old ink pad or the new electronic scanners. The same warrant also gives them the right to seize the devices that they wish to open.

Apparently the cops think they don't have the right to go through the steps to make a replica print and get the device to open. They are manufacturing something rather than just looking at the evidence. Personally I don't see a hill of difference here between that need and a police raid that seizes a padlocked box for which the police are unable to find a key. They would get a locksmith to open it, or more likely, cut the lock. So you have a locked phone. Make a replica print. Done.

This fingerprint warrant just sounds like they didn't want to spend time on doing it the hard way. Or they were after something else.

Re:This is mostly a Red Herring

[Anonymous Coward]

Best post of all.

Re:This is mostly a Red Herring

[chromaexcursion]

you're right, but in this case, it's my opinion the local cops are a bunch of stooges. they have no clue. the local prosecutor, same.
It doesn't help when the reason local law enforcement can't deal with it because they're stupid.

caveat. I know a lot of talented people in the law enforcement side, whom I respect immensely. this is a bad apple problem.

Re:This is mostly a Red Herring

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone else worry about how easily evidence can appear when those "looking" for it have full hardware and software access to the device and can take a few days away from prying eyes with it at their leisure?

Re:This is mostly a Red Herring

[Z00L00K]

There's even a Mythbusters episode on that.

Re:This is mostly a Red Herring

[BlueStrat]

Or they were after something else.

Bingo!

This totally illegal general warrant/search is just too far beyond the pale and smells like a panic move by someone in local LE and/or a local politician/bureaucrat who thinks they may have been caught doing something or being somewhere they shouldn't, but the only clue they had to the identity of the person with the possible evidence was seeing the person walk into this building they searched. Now, if this anonymous 'building' was a news/media outlet, it gets even juicier.

Strat

Re:This is mostly a Red Herring

[Anonymous Coward]

you sound like a pedo

Re: This is mostly a Red Herring

[Anonymous Coward]

Zome police agencies have a limit on IQ... that is OVER a certain IQ youvare no longer qualified for the job... do you think this is accidental?

Re:This is mostly a Red Herring

[King_TJ]

Except the public is led to believe that securing a device with a fingerprint is, in fact, practical and reasonably ok security. I remember when it was quite common for a phone answering machine to be secured with only a 2 or 3 digit code. (The devices often wouldn't even support using a longer one if you wanted to.)

That led to some problems with people getting access to ex-girlfriends/boyfriends/husbands/wives machines and listening in on messages or maliciously erasing them, etc. But still, it provided enough security to stop the casual would-be tamperer from messing with your machine. (Even with only a 2 digit code, you would quite likely have to call back dozens of times to guess it -- and that might lead to the owner becoming aware you were trying to guess it, if he/she came home and heard the phone ringing over and over like that.)

The fingerprint requirement is certainly more secure than some 2 digit code.... and it's so convenient, I can see why phone owners would like to use it. Entering a long PIN or password every time you need to unlock your smartphone gets really tedious, especially if you just need to access a single app quickly.

I think the real lesson here is that the law needs to be reviewed, to ask why it's ok for police to make a blanket demand for people to unlock their phones for them? We all know smartphones are repositories for such a wide variety of information (even with full search functionality), that asking someone to unlock one with even a fingerprint amounts to asking to view a LOT of personal, private data that a warrant should explain WHY they're trying to get their eyes on it.

Re:This is mostly a Red Herring

[Anonymous Coward]

Fingerprints are an inherently insecure way to 'secure' a device of any kind because there are techniques to obtain latent fingerprints...

If you secure anything with fingerprints as your sole method of security, you have accepted having no security.

Depends on what you are securing against. Fingerprints-only works well against the three-year-old looking for another Temple Run fix. They are also very good at keeping a "common" criminal against getting access to your phone before you enable lost mode and nuke it from orbit.

It goes without saying that the state has greater abilities to bypass security with or without a warrant, so if you want to keep the cops out of your papers, then passcodes are the best method.

Re:This is mostly a Red Herring

[stoatwblr]

" this is a bad apple problem."

In the case of _real_ bad apples, farmers take steps to detect and remove them as quickly as you can, because the rot in a bad apple is contagious to the rest of the crop. They usually disinfect the surrounding apples as a precautionary measure (if not remove them entirely).

This is analagous to what happens in policing too, however the problem is not so much "a" bad apple, as the covering for that bad apple and the subsequent rapid spread of the rot to the entire group. It doesn't take long before the entire group is bad apples, with any remaining good ones at high risk of becoming bad ones with every hour of continued exposure.

"Good cops" do not cover for bad cops. Doing so demonstrates that they're no longer "good cops" - and it's worth nothing that "bad guys" never believe that they're "bad guys" in the same way that good people can be manipulated into doing evil things without even realising what's happened if the right buttons are pushed in the right sequence over a long period.

Policing in the USA has become so corrupt that it attracts precisely the kinds of people who are fundamentally unsuited to the position and they're not being weeded from the selection process because those in a position of power to do so are of the same ilk. Other countries have been through this and are cleaning up, but at the moment there's massive resistance within the USA to even admitting there's a problem, let alone addressing it.

It's a 4th amendment issue

[mysidia]

Unreasonable search and seizure

A search warrant for building contents is fine.

Searching the personal affects of every person just because they happened to be present is not reasonable.

The constitution requires a specific warrant. Searching someone's person constitutionally requires that person be named in the Warrant.

Merely being present at a place of work or being at a restaurant or other public place is not probable cause for a search of someone's person.

Re: It's a 4th amendment issue

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a quote from Benjamin Franklin applies: "Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."

Re:It's a 4th amendment issue

[Anonymous Coward]

The constitution only says "described." That can be interpreted broadly and unfortunately requires the court to preserve the spirit of the constitution. Unfortunately the court has repeatedly failed to recognize the spirit of rights in the constitution. But I can see where a person can be adequately described without a name used. An example would be ship's captain. There is only one and the description is specific enough. I can see ship's crew also being a description adequate to satisfy the requirement of a description of particular people. Of course this is within the contest of a ship having a natural barrier of water usually surrounding it and the understanding that crew and captain are usually bound in mutual endeavor. I believe that issuing warrants requires some judgment rather than the simplicity of a simple "name required" rule. So a ship coming to port could have a warrant issued where the unnamed captain and crew can be searched and that may be within the spirit of the right. Now consider The USS Constitution anchored at port and serving as a floating museum. This ship could have hundreds of people boarding and departing throughout the day. A warrant allowing all on this floating museum to be searched would not in any way preserve the spirit of the right where particular persons must be described. No names but people on a named boat. One warrant constitutional and the other clearly not.

Re:It's a 4th amendment issue

[mysidia]

The constitution only says "described."

It doesn't say just described; it says particularly described

particularly (Adv) - in a particular manner; specifically; individually.

That means you can't write a search warrant that jut says "Search and seize cell phones from the person of anybody on premise."

The level of detail required is: "Search and seize iPhones belonging to Bob"

Easy to get around

[Locke2005]

When first turned on, my Samsung phone won't unlock by fingerprint, it requires a passcode. Just turn your phone off upon seeing the warrant! Seems strange that they can compel a fingerprint but not a password.

Re:Easy to get around

[wvmarle]

It's probably the difference between something you have, and something you know. The first is covered by the search warrant (the right to search and look at everything - including the fingerprint), the second not (you're not required to give information, e.g. on where to find things - and the password).

Re:Easy to get around

[ArtemaOne]

It's only covered by the warrant if specified. If generalized, then no, that is an unconstitutional warrant. Per the 4th amendment. But turning the phone off to trigger the password/passcode transfers it to the 5th amendment territory.

Oh, a *prison* cell phone

[Anonymous Coward]

How about unlocking the phone normally with your middle finger but if you use your index that wipes the phone?

Re:Oh, a *prison* cell phone

[Anonymous Coward]

Destruction of evidence?

Another obvious defense against this

[Locke2005]

You have 10 different fingers you can use to fingerprint-lock your phone. Most phones lock up after 5 tries. Can they compel you to use the correct finger? How many times can they force you to try and fail before it is effectively unlawful detention?

Re:Another obvious defense against this

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably just one before it's okay for them to arrest you. One of those situations where "wrong finger" more than once will be taken as resisting arrest.

Why resisting arrest?

Because it's what they're about to scream you're doing once you're unconscious

Re:Another obvious defense against this

[Just Some Guy]

I want a "panic" finger such that it displays a "could not read fingerprint - try again" message and then immediate sets "allow_unlocking_with_fingerprint=False" internally so that a password is required. Make it indistinguishable from the usual unlock failure message so that it's impossible to tell that it was triggered (even by examining the on-device logs, if that's possible).

Re:Another obvious defense against this

[Anonymous Coward]

The moment that exists these errors will just be blamed on the owner and will reflect negatively on you. Note these are not some nice guys you can rules lawyer without a significant budget. These are people who are trained to take anyone who comes at them funny down with the maximum amount of physical force and bullshit accusations, at best all your special phone will get you is a few days in a cell.

Re:Another obvious defense against this

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a RFID Tag in my wallet, and I never put the two together, you could have it where if it scanned the tag, it would lockdown your device just by putting it in your pocket.

Re:Another obvious defense against this

[david_thornley]

Revealing which finger to use would seem to me like revealing a PIN, since it involves personal knowledge as well as having the right finger. The police may not appreciate the distinction, though.

Seems like violating the 4th amendment, not the 5t

[raymorris]

We have very little information to go on. I'd like to read the actual warant and know the cirumstances, but based on the article it seems like a violation of the FOURTH amendment. The cops are supposed to have a warrant, based on probable cause, describing what particular things they are searching for and where, and why they think those things are in that place.

I can't imagine a probable cause to believe that everyone in the building has some specific evidence on their phone. Thus the search itself is unconstitutional under the fourth, with or without a fingerprint.

The fifth says you don't have to testify against yourself. It doesn't say you can't be fingerprinted. Thus I see no *fifth* amendment violation, though it seems like a rather onerous *fourth* amendment violation.

Shocked I tell ya! Shocked!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps he should have consulted Marcia.

If you are being forced to divulge something that you know, that [is] not okay, said Marcia Hofmann, an attorney and special counsel to digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation. If the government is able through other means to collect evidence that just exists, then they certainly can do that without stepping on the toes of the constitutional protection.

Must be drunken with arrogance

[no-body]

and full of themselves to pull this off...

Re: Seems like violating the 4th amendment, not th

[chaboud]

However, they don't take your fingerprint and use that information to unlock your phone. They instead compel you to interact with a device. The question for the appellate court (and then supremes) will be whether this is compulsion of a testimonial act.

Chat and trace

[AHuxley]

"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."
The color of law seems to device power on requested at a boarder crossing or internal boarder checkpoint to affirm citizenship.
The really bad news is in the network information collected on power on if a IMSI-catcher is the most powerful and first network found.
A warrant should be for one person or that parsons residence or their devices moving around the USA.
If this can be done to a building what not a part of a city? A town? A village? A parish or part of a state?
Every later chat down in the USA could now be a request to turn on a device and offers network traffic capture.
This also points to very interesting network, telco, device hardware and software questions. What is it about device power on in the USA that gives the government so much confidence?

Time to just carry around a low cost flip phone with no internal data, records or logs. It turns on and is telco connected when confronted. Keep the actual nice, new fashion phone totally unseen in a vehicle or residence to offer another layer of constitutional protection.
Consider walking as if going passing an external boarder within the USA at all times and expect a total lack of protections when the low cost phone is requested or visible.
Get a work only phone so that any requests then have the legal burden of been connected to a larger legal entity.
Only use the good phone in private away from windows (physical and OS ;) ).

Re:Chat and trace

[Anonymous Coward]

"The color of law seems to device power on requested at a boarder crossing or internal boarder checkpoint to affirm citizenship."

Huh? What language was that in? Boarder? What do boarders have to do with anything? Why are you renting to them? What???

Re:Chat and trace

[AHuxley]

AC you may recall
'Homeland Security Border Agents Can Seize Your Phone" https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
Securing Your Notebook Against US Customs https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
The Legal Purgatory at the US Border: Detained, Searched, and Interrogated
https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
The ability to demand a device powers on, once a boarder issue is now becoming a domestic issue.

Re:Chat and trace

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, a BORDER. You can't fucking spell, and your sentences read like a crazy person wrote them.

Re:Chat and trace

[Z00L00K]

Man you Never Saw .

Re:Chat and trace

[John.Banister]

As an alternative to the flip phone, you could get a $30 BLU Dash Jr, then install a copy of EDS Lite and a securely encrypted copy of the goatse.cx page. When they ask about the encrypted file, you could tell them it's information of a personal nature that you obtained via the internet, and you'll very likely be happy to assist with decrypting it, after you consult with an attorney, of course.

Another reason I use KitKat 4.4

[Anonymous Coward]

No fingerprint reader here.
Stick it to them IOS fanboys.

Toe print?

[Anonymous Coward]

The description of the warrant is for fingerprints and thumbprints....

Re:Seems like violating the 4th amendment, not the

[rastos1]

The fifth says you don't have to testify against yourself. It doesn't say you can't be fingerprinted

Let's say I agree to be fingerprinted. That means I'll let them put the ink on my fingers and I'll press my fingers against the paper sheet. Good. Now they are free to try using that paper (or a digital scan of that, or whatever) to unlock my phone.

It was a premises warrant.

[tlambert]

In a premises search, they can compel an unlock of phones by fingerprint, assuming you lock your phone that way.

The specific legal decision was the 1988 John DOE, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES. 487 U.S. 201 (108 S.Ct. 2341, 101 L.Ed.2d 184) decision.

It came down to whether on not an affirmative action was required on the part of someone, or if it was a non-affirmative action. Use of a key on a safe or lockbox is not affirmative. Being forced to enter the combination is not affirmative; it's tantamount to compelled testimony.

Here's the part of the decision of interest:

A defendant can be compelled to produce material evidence that is incriminating. Fingerprints, blood samples, voice exemplars, handwriting specimens, or other items of physical evidence may be extracted from a defendant against his will. But can he be compelled to use his mind to assist the prosecution in convicting him of a crime? I think not. He may in some cases be forced to surrender a key to a strongbox containing incriminating documents, but I do not believe he can be compelled to reveal the combination to his wall safe —- by word or deed.

Moral of this story: use a pin code, rather than using the fingerprint unlock. It may be a cool feature, but it offers you no legal protection.

Re:It was a premises warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that unconstitutional?

Re:It was a premises warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

Which was meant to be for fingerprint matching to prove they were at a scene of a crime. It wasn't with the intention of using that fingerprint as a password in 1988, but does appear to give them this loophole to use now.

Re:It was a premises warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

He may in some cases be forced to surrender a key to a strongbox containing incriminating documents, but I do not believe he can be compelled to reveal the combination to his wall safe —- by word or deed

Meaning the fingerprint gathering for the use of opening the phone is tantamount to compelled testimony in the general case, while the fingerprint gathering for the use of identification and matching is not.

Re:It was a premises warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

nope

Re:It was a premises warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that unconstitutional?

It's only unconstitutional if a judge (and perhaps ultimately the Supreme Court) says it's unconstitutional.

Until then, legally, it's not.

But what do I know.

Re:It was a premises warrant.

[tlambert]

He may in some cases be forced to surrender a key to a strongbox containing incriminating documents, but I do not believe he can be compelled to reveal the combination to his wall safe —- by word or deed

Meaning the fingerprint gathering for the use of opening the phone is tantamount to compelled testimony in the general case, while the fingerprint gathering for the use of identification and matching is not.

Keys don't change. Fingerprints don't change. A biometric identifier is therefore not affirmative.

Combinations can change. Pin codes can change. Utilizing either requires active participation in a process. And is therefore affirmative.

Fingerprint usage is therefore tantamount to using a key, and if you are stupid enough to use a biometric identifier as an access method, you've picked a non-affirmative access method.

Re:It was a premises warrant.

[JesseMcDonald]

Keys don't change. Fingerprints don't change. A biometric identifier is therefore not affirmative.

Which finger you use to unlock the device, however, can change and should be considered affirmative, just as if it were a (single-digit) PIN code. If they have the authority to collect fingerprint samples and to seize your device then I see no reason why they wouldn't have the authority to use your own device to collect the samples—but they have to decide which finger(s) to press against the sensor, not you, and the device will only allow so many errors before it disables fingerprint unlocking altogether.

Re:It was a premises warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

Keys don't change

Door keys do, with a change of locks. Biometrics locks can be reconfigured too. Is this really about the active effort of the person holding the key or combination during the search? A horrible pit of technicalities opens, and the resident agents are swept from their feet to the oblivion of legal uncertainty..

really?

[nnet]

people are STILL fucking stupid enough to rely on fingerprint auth to unlock phones?!!?! fucking. stupid. millenial. sheep.

Re:really?

[gnasher719]

people are STILL fucking stupid enough to rely on fingerprint auth to unlock phones?!!?! fucking. stupid. millenial. sheep.

Well, it is unlikely that I would be in a situation where it would make a difference. Not impossible, as we have seen, but unlikely. And you gain security elsewhere. An 8 digit passcode is not too inconvenient anymore when supported by fingerprints, so overall it still makes you more secure.

This may be too obvious a question...

[Damouze]

But what if you do not use the fingerprint locking features?

no problem, mr orrificer ...

[Anonymous Coward]

you can take all the fingerprints you want :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUeYLoW87pM

Read the warrant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the warrant? Can you delay them whilst you READ the actual warrant? After all, isn't it a right to UNDERSTAND why they are doing this?

from a legal view

[Casandro]

Fingerprints are something you own not something you know. It's much easier for the police to take things from you than to extract knowledge from you.

It's a bit weird to get through all that hassle as your fingerprints are probably on the phone itself. (or on a nearby object)

Re:from a legal view

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it isn't something you own. You own your fingers, but you leave your prints behind everywhere you go, on everything you touch and you cannot change it, and it is even unique either.

Bending the rules by government issue

[lapm]

Since government likes to bend rules, maybe its time to seriously consider removing fingerprint locking from phones entirely... Slef incriminating protection is about handing over damaging evidence, it should not matter how that evidence is accessed... If i lock my phone with fingerprint/password/etc... i have expectations of privacy...

Re:Bending the rules by government issue

[hyades1]

Don't make the mistake of equating "the government" with "law enforcement". Even during times when elected officials have been scrupulous about civil rights, the police and various spy agencies have pushed the limits vigorously and continuously. When they eventually get slapped down by the courts, their loss is accompanied by well-publicized claims that we've all exposed our children to slaughter by (fill in the fear of the moment...terrorists, violent house-breakers...whatever). And, of course, the contention that limp-wristed judges are letting killers walk free.

The US made a huge mistake when it passed the "Patriot Act" (the best example of Orwell's "Newspeak" in recent history). Sooner or later, Americans will have to stand up and choose between freedom and total security...or lie down just like they've been doing and have the choice made for them.

5th amendment and it would seem so yes

[Sycraft-fu]

It isn't 100% clear, there is no cut and dried supreme court ruling and there have been some conflicting lower court rulings but in general the opinion of the courts seems to be that you can't be forced to hand over a password/code/etc because that is something in your head, which falls under 5th amendment protections against self incrimination.

The 4th amendment is what would be used to challenge a broad search warrant like was issued in this case. Without knowing the specifics I can't say for sure but this sounds like it would be an illegal search since it was a general warrant and that isn't allowed. The police aren't (supposed to be) able to get a warrant to just search anyone or anything in a given place, they have to be specific. This doesn't sound like it was, and so would probably be a 4th amendment violation.

Re:5th amendment and it would seem so yes

[Anonymous Coward]

The 4th amendment thing is correct. If you want to search a persons belongings, it's required to at the very minimum specify their name in the warrant. The forth doesn't say "you have to have a warrant", it says "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". Of course the problem is that most federal judges are just friends of the governor and don't actually have any legal background and do whatever the hell they feel like.

This is why I feel judges should be have some sort of oversight applied to them. Something like a tribunal made up of the general public. Not for criminal cases mind you, but things effecting the constitutional matters. And if the tribunal disagrees with the judge they should be barred from ever being allowed to act as judge again, and in particularly gross misconduct like this where it's blatantly obvious the warrant should have never been issued, the judge should have their sorry asses thrown in prison, as they're clearly violating the highest law of the land, which makes them criminals.

Re:5th amendment and it would seem so yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that the 5th amendment only protects against self-incrimination. If you are not the subject of the lawsuit, and they are requesting information that does not incriminate you, the 5th amendment might not apply.

Re:5th amendment and it would seem so yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Is knowledge of which finger is enrolled to unlock your phone counted as "something in your head" ?

Sure they could require you to provide fingerprints but if they don't guess the correct one after a few tries it locks and requires pin which they can't force you to provide.

Re:5th amendment and it would seem so yes

[Anonymous Coward]

The 4th amendment is what would be used to challenge a broad search warrant like was issued in this case.

The 9th amendment is also applicable, and better for this use.

It is clearly reasonable to assert, as a right retained by the people, that no person can be required to give the government any form of assistance in any investigation potentially involving them. Any reasonable right is necessarily protected as a matter of ethical practice of law (itself a 9th Amendment right) - since if the government could infringe reasonable rights, that would create an artificial demand for the services of lawyers.

As this is a right retained by people, and as all legal professionals are in a position of ethical conflict of interest with regards to recognizing the authority of the 9th Amendment, and as all government officials are ALSO in a position of ethical conflict of interest with regards to recognizing the authority of the 9th Amendment, the government has no option but to submit the matter to the public, before any warrant of this type can issued or executed. Note that general approval is needed, not approval for specific cases should that general approval be given.

Failure to comply is a violation of the oaths sworn by all legal professionals, and all enforcement agents. It's also a violation of the Constitutional requirement of good behavior.

As with other matters involving the 9th Amendment, it violates the right to ethical practice of law for the government to be able to grant immunity or pardon to it's officials or agents.

It follows that the judge is now an ex-judge, and all the federal agents involved are now ex-government employees. All of these people had an individual responsibility (a la Nuremberg) to recognize this warrant was illegal.

Unfortunately, government violations of the highest law in the land have become commonplace, and it's unlikely anything will be done to correct this matter (which makes the President - and everybody else with a responsibility to act - an accessory to the original lawbreaking - not a great thing to go down in history for, but perhaps those people are so corrupt that they no longer care).

Re:5th amendment and it would seem so yes

[Anonymous Coward]

It is clearly reasonable to assert, as a right retained by the people, that no person can be required to give the government any form of assistance in any investigation potentially involving them.

We'll let a judge issue a warrant for a specific individual's prints to be obtained, when there are prints on existing evidence and any reasonable person would suppose the prints will allow the legal system to determine a guilty party - keeping in mind always that prints can be lifted and transferred. The prints still can not be used to gain access to any device.

We'll also let prints be taken of any individual convicted by a jury.

That's really all we need - it's the bare minimum, which is how one limits criminal activity by government.

Re:5th amendment and it would seem so yes

[strikethree]

The police aren't (supposed to be) able to get a warrant to just search anyone or anything in a given place, they have to be specific. This doesn't sound like it was, and so would probably be a 4th amendment violation.

It is only going to get worse. Nothing will be done about this. The media will not touch it. Each overreach that happens is merely followed by another.

Are you old enough to remember congress saying no to gathering up all of the separate databases and connecting them for government abuse, erm, I mean use? Yeah. So, that didn't work out so well. Slam a few planes into a few buildings and you get what you want.

This world, and the United States in particular, is devolving into an Orwellian nightmare with Mengelian qualities. Yes, I just Hitlerized this.

That's not what they did though.

[Sycraft-fu]

They went in and searched everyone's phones. Unless there's an important detail we aren't being told here, that's unconstitutional. The 4th amendment says "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."

The important part there is "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." That is in there specifically to ban general search warrants. The idea is the police can't go to a judge and say "We think there is something illegal in a house somewhere in this 500 home neighbourhood, we'd like a warrant to search the houses," and the judge issues them a blanket warrant allowing them to search any home there, and look through anything in said home. That isn't allowed. They have to say specifically where it is they want to search, and what it is they are looking for, and also why they have probable cause to believe that what they are looking for is there.

If you read the article they say right at the bottom "I think it's very questionable whether the 4th Amendment" -- which protects citizens against unreasonable search and seizure -- "allows such an open-ended extension of the search warrant."

Re: Seems like violating the 4th amendment, not th

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely a fingerprint taken for identification purposes is personal information, solely taken for that purpose. There are (at least in principle) increasing controls for the use of personal information and I can't see why a fingerprint taken for this purpose could be legitimately used elsewhere.

With respect to fingerprint access to a phone, surely this is being used as a substitute for a password and therefore should be treated appropriately? I don't see this as being niave as I thought the US constitution was to protect citizens. I appreciate that the parent said that this is a 4th amenedment violation. Not being a US citizen I'm more familiar with my own countries constitution. Could this have been some slight of hand by the people doing the search suggesting this was not a violation of the 5th to confuse people?

Will the Phone-Makers Sue the Federal Government?

[ytene]

There are clauses written into the recent, secretly-drafted international trade agreements (like TTIP and CETA) which allow a commercial company to sue the government of any signed-up nation, if that government acts in a way that harms the profits of the company. Yes, this is totally retarded, but then that's what you get when you allow companies to write laws.

Just wondering, however, if any legislation like this already exists in the United States? Companies like Apple might be able to use it against any government that makes such a sweeping action as the one described in the linked article. The reason is simple: if Apple promote the use of the fingerprint technology as enhanced security for their device - and if people purchase that device because in part of it's enhanced security - then the actions taken by the FBI in this case [effectively circumventing that technology] devalues the technical solution. So Apple and other companies may have poured thousands or millions of dollars into developing technology for their phones which has just been rendered obsolete by a government over-reach...

Although, having said that, an entire *building*? I can't imagine that any court would sign a warrant unless the building was, say, a House-In-Multiple-Occupation. This could not stand against an office block, or an apartment building.

One more thing. You have to ask: what led the investigators to the location of the building? I'm guessing Stingray, or equivalent? Any admission of use? Or does this just go to prove that Stingray is part of "dragnet surveillance" in which everyone is guilty until proven innocent...

there is no justice to obstruct, you live in NK

[cheekyboy]

You americans, living in a fascist state.

Thats what you get for taking in those nazi war criminals from 1945. Who ended up fucking up all of north and south americas.

Like a bacteria, all those nazis should be sent to Siberia.

Re:there is no justice to obstruct, you live in NK

[dbreeze]

I'm with you, comrade. Hail to the Motherland!

Welcome to the police state

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the police stay. Enjoy your stay, or else.

Re:Seems like violating the 4th amendment, not the

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod up. This is exactly as I read it: A warrent was executed to search people in a building. The phones were not tied to the building, they were possessions of people, so this was indeed illegal search of people not named in a warrent. Breach of the forth it is.

The End of Biometrics

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the end of biometrics for authentication. Nobody in their right mind will use it anymore. Well, nobody in his right mind should have used it before too, for different reasons, but this is the last nail in the coffin.

Re:The End of Biometrics

[anarcobra]

About time.
Using biometrics as a replacement for passwords was always a stupid idea.
At best they can be used to replace a username.

Re: The End of Biometrics

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah right. That soinds remotely likely.

Use your index finger for auth.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh man, my thumbprint didn't work? Dang, it must have been off a bit, let me try again. Oh damn, it didn't work again? Let me try a couple more times from other angles. Oh damn, the phone is locked totally now? Darn, sorry officer.

Guess the only shot now is my PIN, sorry I'm pleading the 5th on that one.

Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to wonder if manufactures were in on this little clause in warrants and proceeded to implement fingerprint readers ad facial recognition as a means of making access easier for authorities. After all, even if your dead a facial imprint or fingerprint could still be used.

Re:The consumer market needs military-grade securi

[CrimsonAvenger]

(1): Some form of secure (preferably cloud-stored) backup/restore mechanism with appropriate encryption and access protection mechanisms, and

Note that a cloud-stored copy of your data can be gotten at with a Search Warrant issued to the cloud service provider. If the backup is on your own hardware, at least you know when the Feds are looking at it....

Re: Seems like violating the 4th amendment, not th

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually both 4th and 5th. You can refuse to give up a password under the 5th amendment, since it can be self-incrimination. 4th amendment, because it is illegal search and seizure. The warrant issued here flies in the face of the 4th amendment, and could potentially violate someone's 5th amendment rights.

This isn't a loophole, this is a violation of the constitution. The judge who OK'd this, and the feds that performed the search should all be sent packing, and possibly serve jail time.

Two-factor authentication

[mwvdlee]

1. Something they can just take from you.
2. Something they have to torture you for.

This borders on being a general warrant

[reboot246]

The one thing the Founders wanted to guard against was general warrants. This warrant gets pretty close to being one. It was limited to a specific building, but next time it could be limited to a specific block, or even a specific city or county. I think they're building precedent for doing such things. If they get away with this one, then what's to stop them from going further?

Re:This borders on being a general warrant

[King_TJ]

I agree. The main reason for demanding such a thing is to test the legal waters and see if it flies. If so, they'll duly note that and use the tactic much more often.
They'll ALSO likely try to take it a step further and see where the line is drawn.

That's why it bothers me a bit when people smugly say "Just lock your phone with a PIN code instead of a fingerprint!" The fingerprint technology is popular precisely because people hate tapping in PIN codes every single time they need to do something useful with their phone! I grant that if you're targeted specifically by a warrant or even under arrest and dealing with the police one-on-one, they might have more legal ability to demand you unlock a device by fingerprint than by some other password you have in your head. But this is more about police having the ability to broadly poke around on everyone's phone or tablet, reading all sorts of irrelevant personal info in the process of trying to find content of interest to their case.

Smartphone with VMs?

[swb]

It'd be nice if we could run a phone VM on our phones.

The security uncaring could run everything in the "native" phone session, just like any smartphone now.

The security conscious could run a phone VM which would would contain all their sensitive data. Access to the phone VM could have more complex authentication methods.

Re:Smartphone with VMs?

[Ash-Fox]

It'd be nice if we could run a phone VM on our phones.

We can run VMs of phone OSes just fine on phones.

Law Enforcement In the USA for most people

[Anonymous Coward]

Law Enforcement In the USA for most people is seeing a cop car drive in the opposite direction once a week, if that often. Where you live and work determines how often we have to deal with police. If you live or work in a high-crime area, you'll see them more often. If you don't, you'll only see them very infrequently.

There aren't issues that need police in most of America. I've lived in 11 cities, 9 different states. Most people get along fine. I like my neighbors. They are good people and we have a quiet neighborhood, except the occasional party or teens having a celebration. I've seen fire department here 3 times in 15 yrs. Cops - once - for a medical emergency up the street.

In my life, I've been stopped by police 4 times that I can recall - I'm 50 now. Driving stops. I've never been stopped on the street or inside a place of work.

My phone is setup for 2FA. Same for my laptop.

People suggesting that you turn off you phone seems foolish to me. After all, someone needs to record video and audio of the interaction, right?

Military-grade security: Samsung exploding phone

[flyingfsck]

Just get a Samsung 7 phone. When you drop it, it explodes and erases all data on it. So just say that the Police startled you and you accidentally dropped the phone.

Vote the judge out of office...

[MoarSauce123]

....who issued that warrant. Unless of course, this came from one of these special courts who just rubberstamp any insane request from the feds.

That is How the Law is Supposed to Work

[wisnoskij]

I am fairly certain that you are supposed to comply with a search warrant. When you have a search warrant, they can unlock or get you to unlock a safe, as long as unlocking that safe does not require you to communicate anything, since they cannot force your compliance in anything related to speech/communication.

A fingerprint/finger is a physical object, a key, and not communication.

Re:That is How the Law is Supposed to Work

[david_thornley]

Can they get you to unlock a safe? Given a warrant, the police do have authority to open it however they want, but that's not the same thing.

Re:That is How the Law is Supposed to Work

[wisnoskij]

I believe so, you in general must comply with all directives (in and out of warrant situations). Like how resisting arrest is illegal and can and will be added on to any other charge if you do not comply. The one thing that they cannot force you to do is communicate anything to them.

Re:That is How the Law is Supposed to Work

[david_thornley]

In general, the police have no right to tell me what to do unless they have a warrant. There are exceptions, such as at the scene of an incident when necessary to maintain control.

Re: Seems like violating the 4th amendment, not t

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, but I read a LOT of search cases while I was in prison (bank robbery). Most circuits that have had cases have already ruled that compelling fingerprint authentication is just compelling identification, which is allowed.
Forcing disclosure of a password or pin is forcing disclosure of some information known to the suspect, which is testimonial and thus a fifth amendment violation.
We need more decisions that phones are different from other types of property and are deserving of higher levels of protection, similar to the curtilage of a home.

They have my prints so big woop

[Anonymous Coward]

Cops came to visit your K-12 school on "career" day to take your prints at an age you wouldn't have proper knowledge of your rights or care about them. I'd tell the FBI to pound sand and go PAY my local district the time and money required for the clerical work to dig those old prints up.

Re: Seems like violating the 4th amendment, not t

[Anonymous Coward]

Passwords are only protected under the fifth amend. because they constitute information KNOWN by the suspect, and are therefore testimonial in nature. Fingerprinting (and use of fingerprints) are not disclosure of information known to the suspect, therefore not testimonial, therefore not protected under the fifth.
Seems like a huge violation of the specificity requirement of the fourth amendment, though.

Show me the warrant

[Anonymous Coward]

Before we get all ballistic, it seems prudent to look at the warrant and see what it said.

Perhaps they had sworn statement that the house was being used exclusively for something bad enough to justify the measures like maybe.
a crack house or some sort of slavery

It is said that everybody breaks a law or two every day, so it seems likely that any search of a good number of folks should net something.
The question is, did the warrant net something that was expected and way above and beyond this normal human noise floor?
If not, then there should be some consequences to the source.
At the very least, the judge should be more picky next time.

Keep voting for the less of two evils people

[Anonymous Coward]

Grab your ankles. Out of the likely candidates we have to authoritarian assholes who'll think nothing of rubbing your asses into the dirt like a cigarette butt.

Re:Keep voting for the less of two evils people

[Anonymous Coward]

Still, you'll be voting for evil this way.

How about voting for someone you actually like.

Re:The consumer market needs military-grade securi

[Bing Tsher E]

(2): A convenient, easy to trigger yet unlikely to be accidentally triggered mechanism to locally wipe the hardware. Factory reset plus cache clear should do the trick.

So if the police see you filming them at the scene, they can simply take your phone and trigger the wipe?

Umm...

[LVSlushdat]

WTF? Not every smartphone has fingerprint authentication... Those of us who don't play the "phone contract" game, using of the many MVNO carriers, and buy our own older phones, sure don't have fingerprint authentication. I currently have a Nexus 4 on Ting, and If some bozo flashing a fed badge told me to open my phone by fingerprint, I'd simply tell him "This phone does not have that, and you better get a warrant....." Of course, then he'd shoot me... America is now officially a police state.....

it's an asshole-move,

[Anonymous Coward]

but on the other hand: if you care about security, you wouldn't use a fingerprint sensor anyway.

It's high time

[Anonymous Coward]

For parity between our 'electronic' rights and our physical rights. This is ludicrous.

Fuck 'em

[Anonymous Coward]

Though I have nothing to hide, I'd be inclined to just shut off my phone so that it requires a pass code to unlock the phone. Which would probably mean they steal my phone from me, but fuck 'em.

Passwords less secure

[Roger W Moore]

Fingerprints are an inherently insecure way to 'secure' a device of any kind because there are techniques to obtain latent fingerprints, which we all leave everywhere anyway,

If someone wants to get into my device so much that they are willing to find, scan and make replica fingerprints then at this point passwords are even less secure.

Samsung

[Roger W Moore]

Phones need a panic button. Say tap the power button three times quickly and it goes into a locked down mode...

Samsung have a tablet that can go one better than that: it destroys all the data and the device itself if you do that.

Re:Samsung

[Anonymous Coward]

Good morning, Mr. Hunt. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, ..This tablet with the message will self-destruct in five seconds.

Just a suggestion:

[Anonymous Coward]

To preserve your own rights, after the authorities leave, change your fingerprint ASAP. ...

Although I already knew about that (and that fingerprints actually amount to a small amount of information, when compared to e.g. passwords), I was forced to register mine at the bank (the equipment had the routine programmed and I needed my money back).

Very well, the finger scanner get usually dirty or greased from use and thus don't work so well.

Also, you have to match the force you used when registering the fingerprint -- not remembering generates a lot of mismatches.

I was advised to cancel the requirement for fingerprint authentication (only done in person with a bank employee)... next time you think about professional security, think how dumb it can be.

As a matter of fact, the term "professional" has come to mean "low quality" in my experience with several businesses. It means "you get what you pay for"... if you want a better deal, go opensource or Free software. Otherwise "get what you paid for"... and shut up!

Re: Seems like violating the 4th amendment, not th

[swalve]

Just to muddy the issue more, what about someone who uses sign language? Action or communication?

Re: Seems like violating the 4th amendment, not t

[swalve]

I doubt that will happen despite wishing that it would. Grabbing a suspect's finger and touching it to their phone violates no rights and requires no speech on behalf of the accused. It's no different from removing a key from a pocket or forcing a breath test. The idea that encrypted data is private is only a vestige of the right against self-incrimination. If someone wants to use a fingerprint encryption key, they have ceeded that right uncompelled.

Like a key, used only with a (proper) warrant

[raymorris]

> Surely a fingerprint taken for identification purposes is personal information, solely taken for that purpose. There are (at least in principle) increasing controls for the use of personal information and I can't see why a fingerprint taken for this purpose could be legitimately used elsewhere.

I think the "could be legitimately used" part depends very much on a proper warrant showing probable cause.

Suppose you leave your set of keys with a locksmith, for the purpose of getting copies made. The police, based on actual probable cause, get a warrant to search your safe deposit box for specific Top Secret documents which are probably in your box, and an accompanying order to the locksmith to hand over the key. I see no Constitutional problem there - they open the box because they have a proper, specific warrant showing probable cause. Using the key is not disallowed, there's no Constitutional protection of the key per se.

Where there would be a problem would be if they open the box without a warrant, or as in this case an overly broad warrant. If they warrant had been proper, they could execute it using a key, a pick, a fingerprint, or whatever other tool was appropriate.

Re:The consumer market needs military-grade securi

[Anonymous Coward]

No, given the problems the NSA has, I think consumers should aim a little higher.

Is it time for a Military Coup yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it time for a Military Coup yet? Well, we'll clean house of all politicians and corrupt "supreme" court and go back to the Constitution.

Re:Seems like violating the 4th amendment, not the

[will_die]

Not many people go around making sure their fingerprints are private.
I could see a judge approving the taking of them on the basis that fingerprints could be found without the help of the person with just a little time and are public info. Going this just makes sure the correct one is available.
I am sure this will go to the Supreme Court and now with Scalia not being around it may be allowed.

The end of fingerprint access

[Anonymous Coward]

They're going to have to stop using fingerprints to access phones.

That's unfortunate, but it's obvious that fingerprint access is too easy of an attack vector, given the current legal climate.

Really Wrong

[JimSadler]

The normal process of law is that a judge can command you not to do something but usually lacks any power to command you to do something. There have been exceptions. But this type of thing easily can lead to massive injustices. It must not be allowed to stand. Yes the government can seize your phone under certain conditions. But demanding that you provide information on how to use or unlock the phone should not be legal. It can set up a fishing expedition that allows anyone to have their privacy invaded, including business secrets, or other sensitive materials. It can quickly turn into a situation in which a person who is not popular with a cop or official can be targeted without cause. For example your brother in law is thought to be cheating on his wife. He asks a buddy at the PD to force the brother-in-laws phone to be grabbed and forced open under some pretense. If there are girls numbers or conversations on that phone the man can now be blackmailed by his relative. Some people might pay quite a bit of money to see all that was on another person's cell phones. And if the cops have the power, just how long before employers are able to insist upon opening employees phones under threat of job loss?

Re: Seems like violating the 4th amendment, not t

[qeveren]

"Compelling identification" seems like a bit of a red herring; since when are you legally required to identify yourself to your own phone?

Easy Solution

[Toad-san]

"Am I under arrest?"

"Uhh .. no."

"Well then, screw you very much." And sit down, right in the middle of wherever.

Re: Seems like violating the 4th amendment, not t

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget the phone. Forget suspects.
Let's use convicted criminals of any offense.

Why not use bone marrow sampling as identification? It is super painful and extra punishment in the guise of compelling ID. If that's not allowed, why is jabbing fingers onto stuff ok?

Besides, they can replicate the finger prints with latex. Veinal patterns are needed.

PSA: on "fingerprint scanners"

[Yosho]

I see a lot of people here who are repeating the "why would you use fingerprints for authentication when your fingerprints can just be lifted off of any nearby surface?!" line, which is ignorant of how fingerprint scanners in modern cell phones actually work. Read up on it a bit: http://www.androidauthority.com/how-fingerprint-scanners-work-670934/

The short version is that no, the police will not be able to fool your phone's fingerprint scanner by using a print collected off of something else you've touched. Modern scanners do not record visual images of your fingerprint and match against that; they measure either changes in capacitance associated with the ridges of your finger touching the phone or your finger's response to an ultrasonic pulse. Both forms are incredible hard to fool with a prosthetic (and probably won't even work if your finger has been severed, although I don't know if anybody's tested that).

Re:PSA: on "fingerprint scanners"

[Reziac]

Question: how is this different from a rubber-surfaced stylus? since a stylus does work on touchscreen phones.

Re:PSA: on "fingerprint scanners"

[Anonymous Coward]

If fingerprint scanners are so hard to fool, I would think the false negative rate would be pretty high. Do people have trouble fingerprint-unlocking their phones?

Re:PSA: on "fingerprint scanners"

[Yosho]

Do people have trouble fingerprint-unlocking their phones?

The false negative rate is actually quite high. When calibrating a phone's fingerprint scanner, it'll typically have you place your finger on the scanner several times at several different angles so that it can see what your finger's response is like in a variety of positions; even with all of those measurements, it's not uncommon for it to take two or three attempts for your finger to be accepted if you don't put your finger down in just the right place at the right angle.

Re:PSA: on "fingerprint scanners"

[Yosho]

Your typical phone stylus causes a change in capacitance when touched to a phone's screen, which is good enough for it to register that there's something touching it and trigger an event.

The sensors in the fingerprint scanner on a phone are much more accurate than the rest of the screen, to the degree that it's easy to tell the difference between the changes in capacitance caused by rubber vs. human skin, and also it can detect the gaps between ridges on your fingers, which a stylus doesn't have.

Re:PSA: on "fingerprint scanners"

[Reziac]

Thanks; very informative. I did notice the rubber-tipped stylus wasn't terribly accurate.

Re:PSA: on "fingerprint scanners"

[herbierobinson]

They don't work if you use a sanding block for a few hours without gloves on. And then don't work a few weeks after the prints are relearned and the skin grows back...

But that said, I have seen postings that somebody with an ordinary person's resources has figured out how photograph your fingerprints and make it work; so, it isn't that hard.

So the next time the Feds show up...

[KenHansen]

...give them the finger!

Easy Fix

[nehumanuscrede]

Samsung simply needs to disclose what is causing their phones to catch fire so we can write an app to trigger it on demand.

Barring that, a thermite filled case will do the trick nicely.

Tie it to a specific fingerprint that you never use and voila, problem solved.

To be even more fun, put it on a delay so it catches fire only after they are in posession of the phone. ~30 minutes should do it.

Whole new meaning for the term " burner phone ".

Progression

[easyTree]

I want a pony or I'll scream and stamp my feet.

Give me your pony or I'll kick your ass.

Give me your pony or my Dad will kick your Dad's ass.

My lawyer is going to sue your ass for your pony.

Give my your pony or we'll suspect you of pony-related terrorism activities granting us unlimited powers to seize any ponies you may own anywhere in the country (/ world when the NWO arrives.)

Feds walk into a building...

[Anonymous Coward]

The start of a great joke. Punchline needs a little work.

Start of a bad joke?

[Anonymous Coward]

The title of this post reads like the start of a bad joke.... then it turns into a horror story.
My deepest apologies to today's youth. My generation had the chance to fix this and we F* up.

It's over

[Anonymous Coward]

The election is over. Hillary has won.

Who's responsible?

[blibbo]

FFS, they shouldn't be requesting this kind of warrant, and it shouldn't be issued. It's so obviously too broad and against human rights. Both the person who requested this warrant and the person that issued it should face repercussions, as should the feds overall for obstructing justice of the freedom of the people.

Re:Who's responsible?

[blibbo]

...I hope someone facing this warrant would have the balls to say your warrant is unconstitutional. I don't think anything's going to change until they do.

Re:Who's responsible?

[Anonymous Coward]

...I hope someone facing this warrant would have the balls to say your warrant is unconstitutional. I don't think anything's going to change until they do.

And what good would that do? Out would come the batons and pepper spray and once unconscious they would use your finger to open the phone. All civil disobedience gets you anymore is sent to the hospital, and if you survive you will face plenty of trumped up charges.

Re: Seems like violating the 4th amendment, not

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a lumbar tab for spinal fluid would be more accurate.

but I don't have a cell/smart phone officer

[Anonymous Coward]

I briefly owned a pre-paid cell phone, one my friends bought an extra one at 7/11 for $25 or something. He pawned it off on me. The brand was notorious for a lack of customer support I never got it to work.
Other than that I've never owned a cell or smart phone. I have minor hearing loss in speech recognition, and I can barely understand someone talking to me on a cell phone (Thanks Erikson and whoever threw out Bell Labs research into speech recognition in the 1930's). I need large type. Sorry, taking selfies and talking to people on the phone does not interest me much. Maybe I'm missing Angry Birds, ya think.
One of these days I may run up against a Stormtrooper who demands to see my smart phone, and I'll be in deep doo-doo when I try to explain I don't own one.
Maybe I should get a Consumer Cellular cheapie plan and never use it....?

Re:Seems like violating the 4th amendment, not the

[houghi]

I keep hearing about these amendements. Can anybody explain what they are? Are they some part of Klingon culture, because it sure isn' something that is valid in the real world.

At this moment I see them as nice discussion points, but nothing more. As long as you can not uphold a law, it isn't worth the paper it was written on.

The situation now is that if people with enough power are cought, they say "So what?" as nothing will be done.

Re:Seems like violating the 4th amendment, not the

[Reziac]

Former Lancaster CA resident here.

I don't know anything more about this story either. But it sounds highly atypical. Lancaster doesn't have its own police force, and contracts with the Los Angeles Sheriff's Dept. for coverage. As a general rule they're lighter-handed than the average metro cop shop, possibly because they're spread thinner and don't have time to pursue bullshit.

But a few years ago, when the Feds told L.A. County that they'd have to reduce their jail population -- they picked out the problem prisoners and dumped 'em wholesale in the Antelope Valley. What had been isolated perps sneaking around in the dark suddenly became swarms of perps boldly going in broad daylight. Theft abruptly grew from the usual petty urban stuff to a cottage industry (particularly for metal), and same for gangs and drugs.

So I'm thinking this might have been a sting against a large drug or metal-fencing operation, using the cellphone thing as cover for what they were really after, not to mention as a quick way to ID both those present and those who needed pursuing.

Not justifying their action (which was, IMO, blatantly unconstitutional), just thinking of rationale based on the local situation.

Fuck em.

[PontifexMaximus]

And that's why I haven't enabled fingerprint unlocking. If I can only use my passcode, they can go fuck themselves.

The natural consequence of giving the government

[Anonymous Coward]

basically unlimited authority to do as it wishes, without any safeguards and feedback systems to assures accountability and legitimacy.

Since those things are now nonexistent, it is way past time to END THE USA.

Don't use your fingers.

[Anonymous Coward]

He also described requiring phones to be unlocked via fingerprint, which does not technically count as handing over a self-incriminating password, as a "clever end-run" around constitutional rights.

I use the end of my nose and a portion of my palms ... fingerprint is such a lovely restricted concept.

Re:Seems like violating the 4th amendment, not the

[SeattleLawGuy]

We have very little information to go on. I'd like to read the actual warant and know the cirumstances, but based on the article it seems like a violation of the FOURTH amendment. The cops are supposed to have a warrant, based on probable cause, describing what particular things they are searching for and where, and why they think those things are in that place.

I can't imagine a probable cause to believe that everyone in the building has some specific evidence on their phone. Thus the search itself is unconstitutional under the fourth, with or without a fingerprint.

The fifth says you don't have to testify against yourself. It doesn't say you can't be fingerprinted. Thus I see no *fifth* amendment violation, though it seems like a rather onerous *fourth* amendment violation.

The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is implicated primarily by (1) the question of whether a password or fingerprint is "testimonial" and therefore cannot be coerced without violating the prohibition on self-incrimination and secondarily by (2) the question of whether the Fifth Amendment can be used to prevent the search of your phones because they are an extension of your mind (a very weak argument under well-established law--the second point is worth a footnote in a law review article but probably not in a brief to the court.). The Fourth Amendment is implicated by search and seizure of the phones.

100 years of coerced fingerprints

[raymorris]

> the question of whether a password or fingerprint is "testimonial" and therefore cannot be coerced

In this case it's a fingerprint, not a password, so:

> the question of whether fingerprint is "testimonial" and therefore cannot be coerced
Ftfy

100 years of fingerprints being taken routinely has established some precendent.

Re:100 years of coerced fingerprints

[SeattleLawGuy]

1. I said password or fingerprint because they are deeply related in this instance, and will need to be considered in the context of cases on the testimonial status of a password.

2. Taking a fingerprint for purposes of identity verification is different than using a fingerprint as a password. In what ways is it different? In what ways is it the same? Does it make sense to treat it differently under the law? Of course there is precedent for using fingerprints when someone is arrested and considering them non-testimonial, but someone can argue they are being used in a testimonial way here.

Ps your sig is intriguing

[raymorris]

Ps, I noticed your sig. For ten years or so I was planning to be an attorney and I studied law, especially Constitutional law. Then I fell into a career programming and doing network security for 20 years. I bet we could have some interesting discussions. Right now I'm looking at where I want my career to be in ten years. It would be cool if I could somehow indulge my interest in law while taking advantage of my 20 years of programming and information security experience.

Re:Ps your sig is intriguing

[SeattleLawGuy]

Electronic Discovery is quite possibly the way to go. A mid-sized company has to sort through documents the size of the empire state building (or they would be if they were printed) in litigation, and electronic discovery experts are paid well. The other things that immediately come to mind are law firm IT, law school IT, and programming work in highly regulated fields with substantial legal components, like health care startups (or another area looking for people with your skill set where their work overlaps with your legal interests, at least a little).

Locking your phone with a fingerprint?

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha you fucking loser, what the fuck did you think was going to happen?

Seriously, if the only think between your locked phone and an unlocking is your fingerprint, you're honestly begging to get royally fucked over.

Harém21

[trambulho]

Actually, I'm pretty sure Donald Trump has "ideas" about "what to do." He's pretty famous for them. They may be wacky or unrealistic or even impossible, but he has ideas. Some of which could have major political ramifications if he even attempts to follow through. Anyhow, I think you may not realize that "tyrants" in world history take many forms. Relatively few of them throughout history started out as clear "twirling the mustache" evil dudes who had a Machiavellian plan to become a "tyrant." Much more common are situations where you take a somewhat average guy, put him in a leadership position, create some tough choices, and watch him choose the bad ones. A lot of "tyrants" throughout history very gradually slipped into tyranny, often with the support of the public along the way, cheered along by their fears and promises of "security" from a well-meaning leader. You know what prevents that sort of thing? Knowledge. Knowledge of history. Knowledge of politics. Realizations that paths others have taken before have led to badness. History has shown again and again that the most ignorant "nice" folks who end up leadership positions can turn out to be the worst... they don't know any better, so they can be swayed into all sorts of bad acts. And Donald Trump doesn't even have that "niceness" to go along with his ignorance. In some ways having a child who doesn't understand politics at the top of what is shown to be an institutionalised assault on the rights of all may actually be a good thing. Maybe. Or it could be even a faster track to a dictatorship. The problem is that it's completely unpredictable, Harém21 and primevips. None of this should be viewed as an argument in favor of Clinton, who is also a terrible candidate. But acting like things are likely to be better because Trump is an "outsider" and less corrupt (at least by the political establishment) is just not a safe bet.

Thanks (late reply)

[raymorris]

Thanks for those ideas. Discovery and legal proceedings generally may well be an area I should look at. It fits in with some of my other experience as a private investigator and my interest in forensics as well. For example, recently a Democrat party official claimed that her leaked emails may have been altered. I would have noticed the DKIM signature proving they were unaltered.