31–40 of 215 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If you turn off your iPhone, you can't use it again without entering your password, and you would have to do that consciously. On the other hand, your phone could otherwise be unlocked with just your fingerprint.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The person who is being held indefinitely for not giving up his password is really frightening. They should either let him go or charge him with contempt of course/obstruction and issue time served! Even if you /know/ you don't have anything illegal on any of my encrypted devices, it's better to take a contempt of court charge than give up a password...because of what they might /find/ or possible things unrelated to…
Contempt is a terrifying charge, because under current law, you can be jailed indefinitely for the same contempt charge for as long as you refuse to cooperate with whatever the court thinks you should cooperate with. There's no upper bound there. So that wouldn't solve the problem.
I thought being compelled to reveal a passphrase was no longer required.
While law enforcement gets the most press, this is and growing threat from non-state actors as well as mobile devices become ever larger gateways to the public's private lives and finances. Apple would do everyone a service by blazing the trail here and sooner (iOS 10) rather then later.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The person who is being held indefinitely for not giving up his password is really frightening. They should either let him go or charge him with contempt of course/obstruction and issue time served! Even if you /know/ you don't have anything illegal on any of my encrypted devices, it's better to take a contempt of court charge than give up a password...because of what they might /find/ or possible things unrelated to…
Contempt is a terrifying charge, because under current law, you can be jailed indefinitely for the same contempt charge for as long as you refuse to cooperate with whatever the court thinks you should cooperate with. There's no upper bound there. So that wouldn't solve the problem.
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…
5th amendment.
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…
That was my reasoning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> but I'd like to be told how rather than just downvoted! It's probably in the tone of your comment, which (though it isn't the case) implies that there's something wrong with the laws. I'd edit and rephrase in your position, especially since your criticism isn't of the law but is rather of the education of users. To your point: if users of devices could be educated in-device about the security of different identific…
> It's probably in the tone of your comment, which (though it isn't the case) implies that there's something wrong with the laws.
Rather than endorsing or decrying the law, I meant only to suggest that a simple, factual description of the state of the law, while non-controversial, also doesn't address the question of whether the law is appropriate. I am not at all sure that it is; but I am also a naïf in these matters, which is why I appreciate the many users who responded to my request for clarification.
> I'd edit and rephrase in your position, especially since your criticism isn't of the law but is rather of the education of users. To your point: if users of devices could be educated in-device about the security of different identification and authentication schemes, the user could take better ownership of the security of said user's device.
Indeed, I think that the point you make (and generously attribute to me) is a good one orthogonal to any questions of the law; whether the law is good or bad in any particular sense, it is as it is, and will be so enforced, and users should be educated as far as possible about this when choosing whether and how to secure their devices.