Judge Grants Search Warrant Forcing Woman to Unlock iPhone with Touch ID • Hacker News Board

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

#111

Post by r00fus » Mon, May 02, 2016, 6:53 PM UTC

coldcode wrote: post #104

r00fus wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also disabled after 48h from your last TouchID login. I'm surprised that this order can be compelled in such a short timeframe.

Legal niceties take much longer than this. Once 48hrs is passed your fingerprint is useless to unlock the phone. At that point there is nothing they can do since they cannot demand you give them the code. A finger is part of your body, the passcode is only in your head.

Which is why I'm still wondering how this decision even helps...

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

#112

Post by spdustin » Mon, May 02, 2016, 7:02 PM UTC

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.

Would you mind terribly quoting the law that requires me to submit to the physical act of unlocking my phone? Since it's not a two-factor system, it is equivalent to a passphrase, which (IIRC) has been upheld to be a form of testimony, and therefore the fifth amendment SHOULD allow the suspect to refuse to "utter their fingerprint", so to speak.

In any case, if the fingerprint isn't the same "testimony" as a passphrase, the suspect is not in violation of the law after 48 hours has elapsed, since "uttering their fingerprint" (as I'm choosing to style it) after 48 hours wouldn't unlock the phone any more anyway.

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

#113

Post by Lawtonfogle » Mon, May 02, 2016, 7:04 PM UTC

jdmichal wrote: post #98

Arubis wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It would be obstruction, not destruction. The evidence still exists, but you took steps to prevent law enforcement access to it. Destruction would be some sort of kill signal to the phone when they ask you to unlock it.

>It would be obstruction, not destruction.

It is obstruction in the same way that requesting a warrant before handing over evidence is obstruction.

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

#114

Post by spdustin » Mon, May 02, 2016, 7:05 PM UTC

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…

Providing a fingerprint (identification) is different from imprinting your finger to unlock a device. It's been upheld in the past that passwords/passphrases used to unlock encrypted content are considered to be testimony (because it leads to the acquisition and collection of possibly protected "testimony"), and thus protected by the fifth amendment.

In my opinion, there is no reason to see imprinting your finger on a sensor used to unlock your phone as anything other than an equivalent form of "testimony", and it should enjoy fifth amendment protection. I don't think it will be long before this exact definition finds its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

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

#115

Post by bobwaycott » Mon, May 02, 2016, 7:05 PM UTC

FussyZeus wrote: post #12

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.

I believe TouchID is disabled after 48 hours.

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

#116

Post by Lawtonfogle » Mon, May 02, 2016, 7:06 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #56

maaku wrote: post #45

5th amendment: "No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." How does this not apply here?

Providing your fingerprint (or blood, or DNA) is not considered testimony.

Once they can read minds, what then? And this isn't just science fiction; I've read reports that a persons inner monologue is soon to be accessible because when you talk in your head, it causes ever so slight commands to be sent to the voice box, which in turn reacts slightly. Not enough to produce sound or even be noticeable to a person, but which technology is being developed to pick up on.

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

#117

Post by spdustin » Mon, May 02, 2016, 7:07 PM UTC

koenigdavidmj wrote: post #95

tanderson92 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source? That is certainly not true in general.

https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-780-di...

As GP said, that's not true in general. Immunity is offered when the prosecution believes your testimony will result in further arrests or in prevention of future crimes. That circumstance is exceedingly rare outside of episodes of "24".

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

#118

Post by simcop2387 » Mon, May 02, 2016, 7:08 PM UTC

ihsw wrote: post #90

rdez6173 wrote: post #55

Could it be argued that the knowledge of which finger (or part of your finger) you use for authentication is equivalent to a passcode?

Conversely, is there anything preventing them from having you try all ten fingers?

Chance. It'll stop accepting them after 5 attempts according to other posters in this thread. Combine that with the fact you don't know if it read properly or not you really don't have good odds that you'll succeed.

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

#119

Post by khedoros » Mon, May 02, 2016, 7:12 PM UTC

basch wrote: post #85

koenigdavidmj wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contempt in this case would be impossible after a couple days, when the iPhone will refuse to accept the fingerprint and instead require the passphrase. She is no longer capable of fulfilling the court's demand (use your fingerprint to unlock the phone) at that point.

not if they charged it? wouldnt it last forever?

Contempt is only supposed to be for when someone's action brings the mechanism of a trial to a halt. Refusing to do an action that the court thinks it's allowed to compel you to do is an example.

Say she waits two days. The phone won't be unlocked with a fingerprint now; it requires a passcode, and the court can't compel someone to provide a passcode in the same way that it can compel them to provide fingerprints.

Contempt wouldn't be a valid charge anymore, at that point. If the judge won't recognize that, the prisoner/suspect could appeal.

The above is my understanding of the theory of how it works. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it works differently in practice.

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

#120

Post by spdustin » Mon, May 02, 2016, 7:15 PM UTC

DannyBee wrote: post #30

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…

"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." Fingerprints and other things like them are 100% non-testimonial. The fifth amendment does not cover non-testimonial evidence (because it only covers being a witness against yourself). This has been law since the amendment was enacted, was the purpose of it, etc. So I suspect if you want the law to…

Not true. There is an adage that the government can force you to produce the key to a lock, but not the combination to a safe.

It just so happens that, today, the government can compel you to perform a physical gesture that, by proxy, happens to be used as a key on a device that normally accepts a combination. If it's been 48 hours since your finger was last applied to the Touch ID sensor on an iPhone, that "key" doesn't work any more. So, until the fingerprint is accepted by the courts as a "combination" (effectively, that's how the "common man" sees it, and which the courts treat as testimony-by-proxy) rather than a physical gesture (not testimony at all, and currently easily compelled), the only defense one has (if using Touch ID) is to stall for 48 hours.