Slashdot Mirror
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.
"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.
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.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
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.
Sig for hire.
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...
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
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?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I think a quote from Benjamin Franklin applies: "Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
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.
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.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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.
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?
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.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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.