Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by EditorDavid on from the jailbreaking-and-entering dept.

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.

11 of 432 comments (clear)

  1. Hold down power button and ... by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Informative

    ... 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?

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    1. Re:Hold down power button and ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Hold down power button and ... by amRadioHed · · Score: 3, Informative

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

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    3. Re:Hold down power button and ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      And then possibly be charged with treason.

  2. Immediately turn phone off by dattaway · · Score: 4, Informative

    Pattern required to start device before fingerprint reader will work.

  3. sorry my phone is off by beckett · · Score: 5, Informative

    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?

    1. Re:sorry my phone is off by stephanruby · · Score: 4, Informative

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

  4. Re: Something you have, something you know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

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

  5. It was a premises warrant. by tlambert · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  6. 5th amendment and it would seem so yes by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  7. Re: Seems like violating the 4th amendment, not th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.