11–20 of 215 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or just restart your iPhone.
I've heard more than one person say if you're going to have to surrender your phone, if there's even the risk of it, turn it off.
Touch ID is disabled when an iPhone initially powers on. So, if you want to prevent law enforcement compelling you to decrypt using your fingerprint , hold down the power button and then slide right to power off the phone. Now they need your password.
Touch ID is disabled when an iPhone initially powers on. So, if you want to prevent law enforcement compelling you to decrypt using your fingerprint , hold down the power button and then slide right to power off the phone. Now they need your password.
Hold the phone (heh): Touch ID is disabled after 24 hours, how in the world did they get a warrant to do this within that time frame? It says in the article that the phone was seized on Feb. 25.
Would they cut her finger off if she denied that request?
Touch ID is disabled when an iPhone initially powers on. So, if you want to prevent law enforcement compelling you to decrypt using your fingerprint , hold down the power button and then slide right to power off the phone. Now they need your password.
PIN Code is also required when you fail to authenticate with Touch ID five times. So one could use the wrong finger a few times and that would solve the problem ;).
Indeed, trying it now, if I lick my finger and then use it to try and unlock my iPhone a few times, it disables Touch ID and requires a passcode!
You can be compelled to provide fingerprints based on a warrant; I'm unsurprised (and not particularly bothered) that you can be compelled to use them on your own device. If you care about security, don't use a fingerprint alone; at most, only use it as a second factor for two-factor authentication. More generally, don't use anything that removes your ability to make a choice under duress, in whichever direction you…
You've described the state of the law as it is, but surely that doesn't address the issue of the law as it should be. I think that it is possible to be an intelligent but non-technical person and (EDIT: forgot the word 'not') realise that, all technical issues aside, the "something you know" and "something you have" parts of a password are on completely different legal footing; and I think that it is reasonable even…