Apple ordered to bypass auto-erase on San Bernadino shooter's iPhone

Post by ethbro » Wed, Feb 17, 2016, 1:41 PM UTC

rhizome wrote: post #169

schrodinger wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Courts care about precise distinctions of law (that's their purpose!). Seems clear that fingerprints aren't protected, basically the same thing as your face in terms of privacy given a good enough camera. But they would effectively be asking you the question "which finger did you use to lock this phone" to which you may plead the 5th.

It'll be contempt and possibly more if you don't unlock the device with your fingerprint. It's not hard, the "precise distinction of law," is "unlock this with your finger, whichever one does it." I don't know what complicated back and forth you're imagining, but it's never occurred in any case that I've heard of. they would effectively be asking you the question "which finger did you use to lock this phone" to which…

Post by tremon » Wed, Feb 17, 2016, 1:42 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #263

tremon wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

two dead attackers, stack confiscated. case closed.

Exactly how do you know that the case is now "closed"? It sounds like you're just making an assumption. The state is too, but the cost of their assumption --- that there is valuable data to gather from the phone --- is very low, and the cost of your assumption, if you're wrong, is immense.

Post by zajd » Wed, Feb 17, 2016, 1:51 PM UTC

phyalow wrote: post #277

ars wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1: Yes. 2: Yes. 3: No, but they will probably be the ones asked anyway, and then yes, they would be legally required. 4: Apple. 5: What's the question? Is the question will they be compensated? Then yes. 6: They can't. They don't own their stock. Bad PR is not a good enough reason. You are treating the court like a mathematical proof and finding edge cases. I used to as well. But courts don't work that way at all - t…

6. Wrong, Yes they can, a company can suspend public trading of its stock any time it wishes. https://www.sec.gov/litigation/suspensions.shtml

Post by tremon » Wed, Feb 17, 2016, 2:05 PM UTC

BWStearns wrote: post #257

tremon wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, so you do agree with the premise that there must be compelling evidence to warrant a search? In that case, all you(pl.)'re haggling over is the "price point" of how much evidence is required to support how invasive a search. I'm unsure how that results in the kind of heated debate that seems to happen here. Oh well...

I got trolled :(

Post by 33W » Wed, Feb 17, 2016, 2:12 PM UTC

stevejones wrote: post #239

rhizome wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'll be contempt and possibly more if you don't unlock the device with your fingerprint. It's not hard, the "precise distinction of law," is "unlock this with your finger, whichever one does it." I don't know what complicated back and forth you're imagining, but it's never occurred in any case that I've heard of. they would effectively be asking you the question "which finger did you use to lock this phone" to which…

Imagine you were to take the example further, unlocking the device required a sequence of fingerprint reads, with a precise ordering. i.e. left-ring finger, right index finger, right little finger, etc... That sequence would be a passcode, just as a precise sequence of keypresses would be. The government can insist on all your fingerprints, but not (in this argument) the correct sequence of uses of those fingerprints…