Slashdot Mirror
FBI Forced Suspect To Unlock His iPhone X Through Face ID (engadget.com)
In what may be a world first, the FBI has forced a suspect to unlock his iPhone X using Apple's Face ID feature. From a report: Agents in Columbus, Ohio entered the home of 28-year-old Grant Michalski, who was suspected of child abuse, according to court documents spotted by Forbes. With a search warrant in hand, they forced him to put his face on front of the device to unlock it. They were then able to freely search for his photos, chats and any other potential evidence. The FBI started investigating Michalski after discovering his ad on Craigslist titled "taboo." Later, they discovered emails in which he discussed incest and sex with minors with another defendant, William Weekly.
What you know is generally safer than what you have.
In what may be a world first, the FBI has forced a suspect to unlock his iPhone X using Apple's Face ID feature.
Could see this coming. No different logically from forcing someone to unlock with a fingerprint which they've already done and gotten judicial cover for. If you want to keep it private best to require a code (that only you know) to unlock which US courts have upheld as a valid 5th amendment defense.
My 1 year old daughter recently unlocked my wife's phone when my wife was standing behind her so that should give you a good idea how secure it is. It's the rough equivalent to a tiny luggage lock. Useful for keeping out the most causal snoopers but not really serious security.
Or, this is why you don't advertise child porn/abuse on Craigslist.
Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
So what is the problem here?
If it was a properly obtained search warrant, what the police did was equally proper. If you have a locker or a storage area with a lock on it and the police have a search warrant, you can either open the lock yourself (or 'forced to' as per the article) or they can get out a set of bolt cutters and remove the lock themselves.
If the warrant was not obtained properly, then the fruits of the search are inadmissible as well as any other evidence obtained as a result of the search.
The courts have routinely ruled that you cannot be compelled to turn over your passwords as that information is inside your head but that physical protections are not so covered.
As an aside, this is the reason biometrics is not really a good way to secure anything -- you have the person, you have the biometrics. Whether it is police or the mob, you can 'force' someone to unlock their devices with a fingerprint, retina scan, or facial recognition. This is a corollary to the hackers rules: if you have physical access, no security measure is 'secure.'
If you want your device legally secured, only the information inside your head is sacrosanct, Your device will just be confiscated until they are able to hack into it by different methods. Although I am not a lawyer, I would guess that the act of not unlocking a device for a warranted search probably stops the clock on statute of limitations as well, so if it takes five years to hack your device, you will surely still be on the hook for it.
I'm sure that piece of paper held the phone to his face and made him not move too.
In this case, he'd been much better off using a long, complex passphrase/code for phone access.
They can likely physically force you to touch it for fingerprint ID access, and they've shown they can force you to use FaceID....but so far, I don't think they can reach inside your brain to ferret out the passcode for access.
Hey, it sounds like they got a bad guy here....but just talking in principal, if you want your smart phone, in this case iPhone, to be as secure as possible, use a complex passcode and NOT the biometric stuff.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
> it is up to the FBI to find their own key,
It seems to me they did find the key. It was staring them right in the face, literally.
A lawful court order cannot compel a defendant to TESTIFY. It CAN compel someone to do things. It is common for an order to compel someone to turn over some evidence. If they have hidden it, or locked it up, "turn over" the evidence means get it from its hiding place, or unlock the safe it is in, or whatever is required in order to bring the evidence to the court.
That may not have been necessary in this case, as the FBI could hold the phone up to his face. The defendant only needed to be present, not say or do anything.