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.

Comments

Re:"Baked into"

[Presence Eternal]

"Baked into" implies it's non-removable and non-optional. "Included with" implies it's optional. The terms are discrete and worth using.

Re:"Baked into"

[Anonymous Coward]

I wasn't aware that the standard well-understood phrase "baked in", that has been around far longer than I have been alive and doesn't come from cooking, is now "cool" and "hipster".

Maybe it's time to stop worrying about hipsters hiding under your bed.

what i find surprising

[sad_]

is that unlocking your phone with a password is considered different from using a fingerprint according to the law/police.

Re: what i find surprising

[bsDaemon]

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.

Re:what i find surprising

[msauve]

"unlocking your phone with a password is considered different from using a fingerprint according to the law/police."

A fingerprint is physical, like a key. The taking of fingerprints does not fall within the category of either communication or testimony so as to be protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege. United States v. Wade, supra.

A PIN is knowledge, and protected.

Re:what i find surprising

[Anubis IV]

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.

Re:Not in the UK

[black3d]

You'll be held in contempt until you provide it.

oblig. xkcd

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.xkcd.com/538/

Re:"Baked into"

[aaarrrgggh]

"Integrated" would be a less colloquial term and clearer and more transparent to a diverse audience.

Re: Not in the UK

[infolation]

Actually the UK police grab the unlocked phone out of the criminal's hand, like a mugger.

I know this probably sounds difficult to believe, but it's actually true.

Officers have become increasingly frustrated with criminals who refuse to hand over the passwords for their encrypted mobiles, denying them access to vital information.

But the Metropolitan police have come up with a novel solution, by snatching an iPhone from a suspect on the street before he had a chance to lock it.

Officers investigating a credit card racket realised that crucial evidence was stored on the phone of suspect Gabriel Yew, 45, that would be inaccessible without his password.

To get round the problem covert officers from Operation Falcon, the Met police team that investigates major fraud, seized the mobile from Yew's hand as he took a call in the street. They then tapped the screen to prevent it from locking while the evidence was being downloaded.

Re:"Baked into"

[JohnFen]

Yep, I'm even older and can attest that the phrase was very common from before I was born. It used to be electronics jargon, and software adopted it later.