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. Yes
2. No
What you know is generally safer than what you have.
Yet another FUD headline.
The FBI did not force the suspect to do anything. The search warrant signed by a judge forced the suspect to unlock the phone.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
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.
This is why you set a password/pin - you can be 'legally' compelled by law enforcement with nearly unlimited force to use biometric authentication, but they aren't yet allowed to force you to type in a password outside of some narrow circumstances (which are being rapidly expanded), at penalty of sitting in jail forever under contempt of court. TrueCrypt had nice partial solutions to this using hidden volumes.
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.
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.
A criminal still has rights. Rube.
I don't see the difference myself. Either they should be allowed to force you to unlock the phone or they should not be allowed to force you to unlock the phone. The method of lock shouldn't matter.
The difference is one requires you to divulge knowledge, the others don't. Your face and fingerprints are not protected, as shown by the fact that police can use photos and fingerprints without your consent as evidence in court. The reasoning around passwords is that it would require the person to testify against themselves. It's a tenuous argument and hasn't been fully tested legally.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
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.
I'm sure that piece of paper held the phone to his face and made him not move too.
A warrant says they have the right to search your house, or in this case device. it doesn't compel you to unlock it for them
A warrant can compel you to provide "things you are". Such as fingerprints, DNA or opening your eyes for FaceID to work.
A warrant can not compel you to provide "things you know", such as an unlock code.....as long as you didn't write it down anywhere, 'cause they can get that paper.
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.........
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.
By that same standard they cannot force you to divulge which finger will unlock your device. If they want someone to use a particular finger, they can ask and I suppose a person would be forced to comply, but if it happens to be wrong and locks law enforcement out or wipes the device, that's hardly the person's fault.
Hopefully Apple builds in some kind of ability for the facial recognition system to be told to require an additional password (or other credentials) if a user looks at it in a certain way or that it requires a certain facial expression in order to unlock.
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.
So the trick, if arrested, is to get the cops to beat up your face to the point of requiring reconstructive surgery, then FaceID would fail through no "bad faith" on your part...
> 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.
Can you cite case law? This is still-actively-debated matter in U.S.
P.S. I know it's already decided in U.K., but you Brits never had as much rights as we do anyway.
Kavanaugh is a Bush-appointed judge. He doesn't give two shits about the constitution.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
No, I read that there is a circuit split (U.S. v. Doe is ruling in 11th circuit, not SCOTUS) and until SCOTUS weighs on it, there is no definitive answer.
This is good enough for labeling "still actively debated matter", so I filed it away—I'll check back later when there is a relevant SCOTUS case. This isn't my day job.