Slashdot Mirror
Feds Can't Force You To Unlock Your iPhone With Finger Or Face, Judge Rules (forbes.com)
A California judge has ruled that American cops can't force people to unlock a mobile phone with their face or finger. The ruling goes further to protect people's private lives from government searches than any before and is being hailed as a potentially landmark decision. From a report: Previously, U.S. judges had ruled that police were allowed to force unlock devices like Apple's iPhone with biometrics, such as fingerprints, faces or irises. That was despite the fact feds weren't permitted to force a suspect to divulge a passcode. But according to a ruling uncovered by Forbes, all logins are equal. The order came from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in the denial of a search warrant for an unspecified property in Oakland. The warrant was filed as part of an investigation into a Facebook extortion crime, in which a victim was asked to pay up or have an "embarassing" video of them publicly released. The cops had some suspects in mind and wanted to raid their property. In doing so, the feds also wanted to open up any phone on the premises via facial recognition, a fingerprint or an iris.
I know, most people don't seem to value privacy, but if you have any at all, doing biometric should be a no go from the start.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
obligatory: https://www.xkcd.com/538/
It's going to be really hard not to look at your iPhone if they hold it up quickly.
If I'm not misunderstanding, the police can still search the phone, if they can find a way in. This seems to say they can't force you to put your finger on your phone, but it doesn't sound like they can't try to figure out the code on phones they are able to bring into evidence. Unless I'm mistaken, that still seems like they can take your phone, run your prints... and I'm sure in a few years they could easily have a device to quickly 3d print the fingerprints onto some form of glove or something.
what if you had an I want my lawyer = auto wipe setup on your phone?
Ignoring that fact that you should NEVER save sensitive or incriminating information on your personal mobiles devices, without employing some form of encrypted volume, this is a home run!
I like to play survival video games. And I like to put traps in and around my bases.
9 times out of 10, the person who ends up getting killed by my traps is me.
This would not be a good solution for me.
If the police put you under surveillance, it's likely they will see you unlock your phone at least a few times.
If they can catch you doing it from different angles, they can probably figure out what the passcode is.
Once they do that, execute the warrant, seize the phone, unlock the phone, then declare victory.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Now let's find a sane judge who will stand with the constitution and declare Civil Asset Forfeiture to be unconstitutional as it most certainly is.
Coward spotted.
You are just asking for extraordinary rendition, aren't you?
Have gnu, will travel.
I am very much in favor of privacy and protecting your data, but I cannot see how a finger print, iris, facial, or other bio-metric unlocking method can be considered protected by the 4th Amendment. How is this different than a physical key you've been ordered to surrender? Only passwords / keys in your mind should be protected. I really don't expect this decision to withstand appeal. Never thought I'd be arguing *for* the cops, but really, this should be obvious.
This sig intentionally left blank.
"Is it really true that cops could force you to do this before? "
Force? No. They just asked: "Is this your phone?" And it unlocked as if by magic.
I seriously doubt this is going to survive appeal. Providing your fingers and face, for fingerprints and lineups respectively, is already considered non-testimonial and well accepted. That providing these to unlock a phone is objectively the same as a passcode is irrelevant, a physical key such as a dongle would have the same purpose and it seems to be established that you could be compelled to hand it over to the police. In fact it seems in this case that the law is specifically unconcerned with the objective, and only concerned about the means.
This does invalidate an earlier comment I made concerning using 3D sculpting to fool face recognition, I guess the government might need to look into it now. If this leads to a ridiculous chain where you cannot be compelled to look at your phone to unlock it, but you can be compelled to have your face 3D scanned so that a copy can be made and used to unlock your phone, then I will be disappointed but not surprised.
AC most of the more advance police forces use words to attempt to fool the criminal.
That the police can still somehow alter the legal options.
Keep the smartphone secure and that's more years the state/federal system can add to crimes.
Become an informant and everything is ok again.
The person now nit a criminal is back out in their community having to support police work and bring in a lot of criminals.
Putting in work for the police everyday for many, many years.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
they can pry it from my cold dead hands.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Shouldn't hold my breath, probably won't last long, Will get overturned soon.
This was my first thought. The judge in question has limited authority and until this decision survives appeal it's only impacting a limited area.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
At least let me arm myself then... :)
IF you expect me to defend myself, don't take away the best tools I have to do the job. Thank you!
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
destruction of evidence for asking for an lawyer?? will be hard to prove in court with out the Constitution issues killing the case and it can set a bad precedent.
Like the cops can say talk now or we burn the evidence and you get hard time for destruction of evidence.
Instead of the either / or aspect, why not the option to require both a biometric AND a passcode / pin ?
If the biometric AND the pin / passcode match you get access. If either fail, you don't.
What problems would arise from such a setup ?
no body is denying you an education.
That created a paradox: How could a passcode be treated differently to a finger or face, when any of the three could be used to unlock a device and expose a user’s private life?
Paradox? That's an asinine statement. They are treated differently BECAUSE they are in fact different.
A word/phrase passcode is something that you have to say. Between that and the possibility that you don't know or don't remember the password, it made perfect sense to deny jailing people for not giving out their password.
You fingerprint and face are just... there. Cops take mug shots. Cops take fingerprints. Hell, cops can take DNA samples. Because they are just there and don't require you to incriminate yourself. I usually praise our court system for protecting our rights and privacy from overreach, but this one seems to make no logical sense to me.
Yea... Think 2nd amendment... Let me carry concealed in public w/o a license, after all, you admit to tying the hands of law enforcement, untie mine to compensate.
And I'm well educated already, but I'm working on my Master's degree now. None of that will reduce the risk from terrorists though. Nobody survived on 9/11 based on having a better education. In fact, some really well educated folks died that day.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
and having a handgun would have protected you how?
On 9/11? Oh I don't know... Stopping a high jacking, or at least ending it? Even if the crew is dead, I at least would have a chance of surviving being a private pilot. Or more to the place it would matter, when someone starts shooting up some place I happen to be, say a public school or a movie theater?
But I'm just asking for some consideration if you are going to take power from the police. You understand the trade right? Not that I should have to ask...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The feds/police will still do it but if you complain they will say you were asked and complied. No force needed. Your word against theirs. Judge probably knows the cops on a first name basis. Who do you think he believes?
it has never been about a question of police power, if you stand behind the 2nd amendment, then you should also realize why it was there in the first place, as in to curb the power of the government by a militia.
having the weapons available to you (assuming you are mentally stable) means they are also available to a wider audience which inevitably leads to more gun violence. Case in point, USA.
that really even is not the point. the real point is that you are equating civil liberties that a government may violate to be answered by the threat of violence against a party not involved in the argument.This by using the somewhat ludicrous argument against the powers of the said government ( 2nd amendment). I say ludicrous as there really is no equivalent to military power in civilian accessible hardware. In the end it would always come down to the concious choices each one, military or civilian, must make about use of such power.
as I said, education...
but perhaps even i digress to much and thus have lost all interest in this conversation.
>"is refusing the passphrase a form of destruction of evidence?"
I can't imagine how. It might be contempt of court, or even obstruction of justice, but unless you've got a script set up to securely wipe all data if you haven't logged in within a certain amount of time, nothing is destroyed. Except possibly by incompetent forensic hacking attempts hitting a built-in self-destruct limit, but I would think that that's on them, you had nothing to do with it.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
So, you need a gun to take out a few assholes with box-cutters?
The only reason the early hijackers were able to get away with anything was that it was official policy to let hijackers have the plane, so that everybody could walk away safely when it eventually landed. Once the result of the early hijackings hit the news, the later attempts were foiled by the passengers. And shortly thereafter the only necessary increase in security was made - locks on the cockpit door. Everything else has been security theater, either to make people feel safer, or, if you're cynical, for the purpose of getting people used to living in a police state.
Besides which, it's not like it's particularly difficult to get a gun license in the U.S. - like a drivers license the purpose is primarily to make sure you know how to handle it safely, and (increasingly) aren't a violent criminal or otherwise mentally unstable. If you can't get a license, then the odds are that you'll do a lot more harm than good with a gun.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
If they have a warrant to get search the content of your phone they will get in or else you will face further charges. It is genneraly a good idea just to comply and unlock a device if a proper warrant is issued for the contents of your phone.
...because typing my 14 character pin every time I want to unlock is pretty excessive, since I lock my phone every time I turn it away from me.
If I ever need to turn my phone over to the police, I'll simply reboot it. Biometrics are disabled until you log in normally, so they can force mo to stick my finger on it all they like, it won't help.
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
They don't really need your biometric passport to unlock your phone, they have other ways to get to the data.
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
So, you need a gun to take out a few assholes with box-cutters?
Yes. I'm not looking for a fair fight in this case, just a quick one.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
No, I haven't destroyed anything - I've just denied you access to it. The moment I change my mind, you can have access - the data will still be there. No different than locking it in an uncrackable/self-desctucting safe.
If you have enough other evidence to convince a judge to order me to do so, then he can hit me with contempt of court penalties until I comply.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.