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.
and say they need to suck it for the phone to unlock
... 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.
Pattern required to start device before fingerprint reader will work.
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?
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.
Before that, you need a government that respects the citizens and the rule of law. Without that, everything else will be at risk.
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
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
"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?
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.
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.
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.
4th and 5th . just say no
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:
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.
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.
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.
and full of themselves to pull this off...
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.
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.
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.
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'?
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
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.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
> 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.
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).
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)