Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge Grants Search Warrant Forcing Woman to Unlock iPhone with Touch ID

macrumors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 215 posts

Re: Judge Grants Search Warrant Forcing Woman to Unlock iPhone with Touch ID

#41

Post by thesimon »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #33
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is there a way to know Touch ID is available, but can't be used because the device was just rebooted? Or does it act like there's just a password?

>Is there a way to know Touch ID is available, but can't be used because the device was just rebooted?

I don't know the verbatim message, but it says something along the lines of "Passcode is required to enable Touch ID"

Re: Judge Grants Search Warrant Forcing Woman to Unlock iPhone with Touch ID

#42

Post by themartorana »

bitJericho wrote: post #35
JoshTriplett wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 don't think its a problem for someone actively breaking the law to be held indefinitely for contempt until they stop breaking the law. I thought being compelled to reveal a passphrase was no longer required.

That's a problem for me. Charge and prosecute them or let them go. Indefinite detention without a fair and speedy trial is unquestionably unconstitutional.

Re: Judge Grants Search Warrant Forcing Woman to Unlock iPhone with Touch ID

#43

Post by artursapek »

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #5

Always remember: your fingerprint is identification. You can be forced to identify yourself to law enforcement. Do not make it your password. Your password is something you know, not something you are.

"Your fingerprint is your username, not your password."

Re: Judge Grants Search Warrant Forcing Woman to Unlock iPhone with Touch ID

#44

Post by curt15 »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #2

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…

In the era of fast 3d printers, what stands in the way of just fashioning a suitable fake finger from the fingerprint?

Re: Judge Grants Search Warrant Forcing Woman to Unlock iPhone with Touch ID

#46

Post by JadeNB »

maxerickson wrote: post #39
JadeNB wrote: post #4

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…

The OP states their opinion a couple of times, so surely that doesn't address the issue of the law as it should be. isn't a very good reply to what they said. That was my reasoning.

Thank you for the explanation. Aside from saying once that he was not bothered by this state of things, I took the poster to be mainly explaining the consequences of the law (don't act as if your fingerprint is as secure as your password) rather than specifically endorsing it.

Re: Judge Grants Search Warrant Forcing Woman to Unlock iPhone with Touch ID

#47

Post by Arubis »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #9

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.

This, and other comments to the effect of purposely messing up your fingerprint to force PIN/password entry, are all technically effective. However, if you perform any of these actions after an encounter with law enforcement or the legal system has already started, it strikes me that your actions could be interpreted as destruction of evidence. IANAL, though.

Even using a PIN over a fingerprint is enough to piss off the FBI by making it more difficult to get in. If you're unlocking your iDevice with Touch ID only, you should consider your device insecure against even undetermined law enforcement.

Re: Judge Grants Search Warrant Forcing Woman to Unlock iPhone with Touch ID

#48

Post by bitJericho »

themartorana wrote: post #42
bitJericho wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think its a problem for someone actively breaking the law to be held indefinitely for contempt until they stop breaking the law. I thought being compelled to reveal a passphrase was no longer required.

That's a problem for me. Charge and prosecute them or let them go. Indefinite detention without a fair and speedy trial is unquestionably unconstitutional.

Well imagine a criminal is holding a piece of your property or even a person and not revealing where that is. Do you think it's reasonable to hold them for 30 days and then let them go and say "ah well I guess you can return that/them if you want cuz you did your time."

A charge of contempt is still a charge.

Re: Judge Grants Search Warrant Forcing Woman to Unlock iPhone with Touch ID

#49

Post by JadeNB »

pc86 wrote: post #22
JadeNB wrote: post #4

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…

Courts are not (and should not be) interested in "the law as it should be." They are to interpret the law as it is written.

> Courts are not (and should not be) interested in "the law as it should be." They are to interpret the law as it is written.

I agree, but then neither are we the courts; and it is precisely the role of the commons to discuss the law as it should be, so that the legislative branch can, hopefully, enshrine that communal wisdom in the law as it is.

Post reply on HN