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.
1. Can they do that legally?
2. Can this be avoided by changing your facial expression while the phone is shoved in your face?
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
What you know is generally safer than what you have.
Dear sexual predators, rapists, pedos et. al. Please don't use your stupid face or your fingerprint to lock your evidence phone. Use a looooong password.
Otherwise we'll get these stupid articles every other day.
ob $5 wrench
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
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.
If you don't want "the government" to use your face (or finger) to unlock your iPhone with a warrant, don't use Face ID (or Touch ID).
Use a strong passphrase instead, which you cannot be compelled to provide under the 5th Amendment.
Or, alternatively, don't be a murderer, child sex trafficker, or child pornographer. And no, that's not a different version of "if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide"; it's a literal recommendation.
On FaceID devices, hold a volume button + lock button for a couple seconds then press cancel. FaceID will now be disabled until you enter your PIN.
For TouchID devices, hold the lock button for a couple seconds and then press cancel.
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.
So (search warrants aside) something the authorities have always done is take mug shots of arrested people. To what extent could FaceID be fooled by holding up a good resolution photograph?
A criminal still has rights. Rube.
He's ACCUSED of a crime, not yet convicted, so he has the same rights as you and I. Also, we're talking about the FBI here, but the same hole can be exploited by Chinese or Russian intelligence against Americans having sensitive business emails on their devices...
He's not a criminal yet, merely someone accused of a crime. This is true until he (via guilty plea), a judge, or jury say otherwise.
How long did it take you to write that message then? Are you dictating right now?
If you're sitting in a Russian interrogation room they can just beat your password out of you.
TIL that far to many people confuse a job interview with a trial.
And also those same people are very, very, very, very horrified by people lying under oath.....but only when it's the other "team" lying.
Making a federal law legalizing abortion would in no way remove the question from the purview of the SCOTUS. Row v Wade is a decision on the issue of constitutionality of such laws, be they state, local, or federal. A federal law would be just as subject to the constitutionality determination as any other law.
Your looks are not considered 'something you know', ie. 'testimonial', so yes LEOs can force you to stare at your phone (or more accurately, lock you up for contempt until you comply).
A 'determiner of fact' (aka a judge) will assess your claim of forgetfulness. Then he (or she) will find you guilty of contemp of court, and away you go to jail until you 'remember'.
Of course, you can appeal the decision while you are in the pokey, but, realistically, good luck with that.
This is very interesting. How long does it take? Is that something you could realistically do while an FBI agent was at your front door asking you to identify yourself? If a criminal was ready, maybe he could reach into his pocket and surreptitiously do this?
Problematically, he would probably open himself to additional charges for obstruction of justice.
Just say lawyer over and over and refuse to do anything until they let you use your right to talk to one.
Don't be a criminal.
Unless the Court Order Demands that you Open your Eyes
The US Constitution prohibits only unreasonable searches. If a police department has shown probable cause to a judge and obtained a warrant to search a particular device with a particular owner, and this device is subject to a biometric lock, one might reasonably construe the warrant as a court order for the owner to authenticate to the device in good faith.
Passwords are 'testimonial'.
Yes, he would certainly still get locked up. It would be much harder to secure a conviction against him, though. And he would be more likely to get during the pretrial period. Also, any conviction would be much more likely to be overturned at the appellate level.
It is better to serve two years and have the conviction overturned than to serve one year and have the conviction stick. Although that last part is not really super-relevant in this particular case.
Don't have or use a phone that uses 'something you are' (like your face or fingerprints) to unlock it, use one that needs 'something you know'. Or better yet stop using smartphones, or at least don't put anything important on them. Going on a trip? Either get a burn phone that is empty and that you don't care about, or have your phone shipped separately, don't carry it to the border with you.
Or, alternatively, don't be a murderer, child sex trafficker, or child pornographer.
This sort of recommendation works to a point. This point is when the legislature expands the definition of child pornography to cover possession of things that were not previously illegal, such as non-photorealistic drawn porn.
Nice.
> 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.
In a job interview? Honestly, if three different women testified under oath that a job candidate might have something to do with serial rape and was present at an attempted rape, you would just let go, not even want to investigate this further and hire the candidate right away?
Depends on whether the accuser was even remotely credible. For example, if everyone else she claimed was there disagreed, then there's not enough there. Even then, if the guy had passed 6 FBI background checks, there seems little point in another one.
But of course that's not what the current circus in DC is about at all: it's entirely a sham to delay confirmation until after the election.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
... is to make sure you don't carry incriminating material in your wallet or purse. Remember those?
They have been subjected to search since Moby Dick was a minnow.
How long did it take for people to wise up to that?
As technology gets smarter, people become dumber.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
or whatever it's actually called. Hit power button 5 times rapidly, it'll open the emergency panel (SOS, 911-onetouch, etc.) and will then only allow a passcode (no biometrics)
In Soviet Russia jokes are formulaic and decidedly non-humorous.
There is already a published Siri shortcut called "I am being pulled over by the police" which performs a number of actions to record your interaction with the police including notifying contacts and even publish the video.
I imagine that one of the options could be to disable faceID or touchID.
Someone should write one that's like: "Hey Siri, BUG OUT!!!" which would promptly erase the phone.
delay till you get your lawyer and if the cops wait to long it's there fault that they delayed in getting you to the jail phone to be able to call an lawyer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
That's not really the way that works.
Roe v Wade did not write a law, it specifically said there is an entire type of law that cannot pass constitutional muster. They recognized a principle (a woman's right to choose) that was constitutionally protected
This is in fact almost the entire function of the SCOTUS. They decide the constitutionality of laws, both as written and as enforced. They have a sideline in assessing the performance of lower courts and redirecting them when they go astray, but that is really an extension of their primary gig.
A federal law legalizing abortion would be at the mercy of the next conservative congress to get voted in (consider the ACA, aka Obamacare as an example). This provides considerably LESS protection than a SCOTUS ruling.
Considering the political capital that passing such a law would spend, and the temporary protection it would offer, it is foolish to accuse Democrats of cowardice for not passing such a law in 2013.
Look at my username.
For the record, I was being facetious, sorry if that came out wrong. I am actually a privacy advocate, and I have made your very argument repeatedly. I also point out how every time they try some new justification for search or forced testimony they use it on a pedophile or a terrorist. People will not show outrage in defense of these 'unsympathetic defendants' and then the precedent is set.
I was locked up with a lot of guys that may have been guilty, but their rights were trampled to get the conviction.
While I am by no means a LEO booster, I don't remember ever reading a case where the 'forgetting' seemed believable. Usually in these kinds of cases it seems extremely implausible.
In cases where it was plausible, I think the outcome might well be acquittal, depending on the other evidence available.
What if your passphrase is the confession to a completely different crime and you plead the 5th?
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.