Slashdot Mirror
iOS 11 Has a Feature To Temporarily Disable Touch ID (cultofmac.com)
A new feature baked into iOS 11 lets you quickly disable Touch ID, which could come in handy if you're ever in a situation where someone (a cop) might force you to unlock your device. Cult of Mac reports: To temporarily disable Touch ID, you simply press the power button quickly five times. This presents you with the "Emergency SOS" option, which you can swipe to call the emergency services. It also prevents your iPhone from being unlocked without the passcode. Until now, there were other ways to temporarily disable Touch ID, but they weren't quick and simply. You either had to restart your iPhone, let it sit idle for a few days until Touch ID was temporarily disabled by itself, or scan the wrong finger several times. The police, or any government agency, cannot force you to hand over your iPhone's passcode. However, they can force you to unlock your device with your fingerprint. That doesn't work if your fingerprint scanner has been disabled.
He does have a point though, tech world today is full of stupid, needless phrases that are meant to sound nice to investors and shareholders rather than actually describe something accurately.
We could say the mechanism is integrated, built-in, anything really. But no, let's use some appy-app appminology to appscribe apps and appctions a device comes pre-apped with.
You'll be held in contempt until you provide it.
"The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
The difference is that the cops are already going to physically take your hand , stick it in ink, and force it onto paper if they have arrested you. They're going to go through your possessions and if they find keys, can try them on locks they also find on you.
They can't make you say anything though. In fact, they will specifically advise you of your right NOT to talk.
This is one of the reasons why biometrics make terrible single-factor authentication. If not for yubikey or smartcard as 2fa, I wouldn't use finger print on my laptop. Biometrics are better replacements for usernames than passwords, imo, especially given the limited ability to change most of them, and the fact that anyone who is in physical possession of both you and the device doesn't need your cooperation.
what is the difference if the police ask you to unlock your phone and you refuse?
It's similar to the distinction we make in cryptography between what you know and what you have.
Generally speaking, what you know is protected by the 5th Amendment. They cannot compel you to testify against yourself. What you have is not protected by the 5th Amendment. It's material evidence that can be used against you in a court of law.
Provided they have a valid warrant, the police still need a means to execute a search that doesn't rely on compelling you to share something you know. For years, that meant they had nothing they could ask us for, since all we had were passcodes, and they couldn't compel us to turn those over (which led to the false belief that they couldn't compel us to turn over anything at all that would allow access). But the police have the right to collect material evidence, such as a fingerprint, and use it in the pursuit of their investigation. And they have a right to access the contents of the phone. If it just so happens that your device is locked by something material, that's a shame for you, but it's not testimony: it's simply evidence that can be used against you. It's no different than having a key on you that can open a safe.
And really, when you think about it, this all makes sense. If the police weren't allowed to use material evidence that you were forced to provide against your will, we'd find ourselves in a bizarre world where pretty much any material evidence collected from a defendant (e.g. DNA, fingerprint, blood, etc.) would be inadmissible. After all, who would consent to "testifying against themselves" by allowing a DNA sample or fingerprint to be collected that could place them at the scene of the crime? In fact, it'd be so far reaching that we wouldn't even be able to seat the defendant in the courtroom against their will, since the jury may recognize that the person in the security footage is the same as the person sitting at the defendant's table, or an eyewitness may be able to point at them to confirm that they are the same person. They would, effectively, be "testifying against themselves" by being forced to provide something they have—their physical appearance—that can be used against them.
Thankfully, this is a case where common sense won out in the courts, since the courts have repeatedly held that material evidence is not testimonial in nature, and thus is not protected so far as the 5th is concerned. In fact, most of those examples I just gave are ones that the Supreme Court or appellate courts have mentioned in the major cases addressing the topic of what is or isn't covered by the 5th (usual disclaimer: IANAL).
All of which is to say, the courts have made a pretty clear distinction between testimonial and material evidence. Passcodes are protected under the 5th because they're testimonial in nature, whereas biometrics are protected solely under the 4th because they are material in nature. You can use either method to lock your phone, but the 4th is a significantly weaker form of legal protection than the 5th, so which you choose to use will come down to how you balance security and convenience.