I guess this will just make (savvy) criminals turn Touch ID off on their iDevices.
Judge Grants Search Warrant Forcing Woman to Unlock iPhone with Touch ID
151–160 of 215 posts
Re: Judge Grants Search Warrant Forcing Woman to Unlock iPhone with Touch ID
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Passwords have been interpreted to be testimonial because they require someone to tell authorities information in their mind. That is already a huge stretch of the 5th amendment. The purpose of the 5th amendment is not to prevent the collection of evidence . It is to mitigate the dangers of coerced confessions, which allow people to be easily convicted without evidence . It was never intended to be a general-purpose…
> Passwords have been interpreted to be testimonial because they require someone to tell authorities information in their mind.
That's not true. They've been interpreted to be testimonial because they are a part of a chain of events that results in the production of incriminating evidence that the prosecution isn't otherwise independently aware of. If the prosecution can't say "he has plans for the bomb on his laptop, I saw a photo of a detonator before he closed the lid", they can't force you to disclose the password to go looking for it.
Re: Judge Grants Search Warrant Forcing Woman to Unlock iPhone with Touch ID
#153Judges just go fuck yourself.
Re: Judge Grants Search Warrant Forcing Woman to Unlock iPhone with Touch ID
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. I thought that fingerprints were to be provided to: 1) establish biometric proof of identity 2) establish the presence of a person in a particular place 3) establish a person handled a particular object Or does the law establish that the authorities…
Where does that list come from?
I am not a police investigator or lawyer, but those are what I understand as a layman to be the uses of fingerprints in practice.
Re: Judge Grants Search Warrant Forcing Woman to Unlock iPhone with Touch ID
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
Passwords have been interpreted to be testimonial because they require someone to tell authorities information in their mind. That is already a huge stretch of the 5th amendment. The purpose of the 5th amendment is not to prevent the collection of evidence . It is to mitigate the dangers of coerced confessions, which allow people to be easily convicted without evidence . It was never intended to be a general-purpose…
> Passwords have been interpreted to be testimonial because they require someone to tell authorities information in their mind. That's not true. They've been interpreted to be testimonial because they are a part of a chain of events that results in the production of incriminating evidence that the prosecution isn't otherwise independently aware of . If the prosecution can't say "he has plans for the bomb on his lapto…
...
Re: Judge Grants Search Warrant Forcing Woman to Unlock iPhone with Touch ID
#156Earlier 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." 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" doe…
Your adage is based on random supreme court dicta in Hubbell and Doe, and you know courts have gone either way. ;)
So let's just both agree we are suggesting the world is a little more black and white than it is.
I would not try to predict what would happen square-on today, given the splits involved.
Re: Judge Grants Search Warrant Forcing Woman to Unlock iPhone with Touch ID
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. Co…
Probably a ridiculous thought experiment, but I know folks have done similar things before, what if she cut off her thumb and disposed of it in such a way that it was irretrievable? Or something less permanent like dipping her thumb in acid to destroy the fingerprint surface - which would take weeks to heal. Would would the court do then? It sounds to me like fingerprint authentication is not something a criminal sho…
Sounds like obstruction of justice.
Re: Judge Grants Search Warrant Forcing Woman to Unlock iPhone with Touch ID
#158The Constitutional right to not incriminate oneself was originally intended to prevent the government from engaging in Star Chamber-style interrogations, i. e. using physical force to extract information from a person. This case frankly doesn't seem any different from such forcible extraction.
Re: Judge Grants Search Warrant Forcing Woman to Unlock iPhone with Touch ID
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
And risk being charged with obstruction. Like perjury, it's naturally difficult to prove, but one should be aware of the risks before moving down that course.
No, I mean, disable Touch ID before any potential situation where the phone might be seized for any reason, not after a judge had ordered you to unlock the phone with a thumbprint.
The moment you believe the phone is going to be seized by law enforcement and you act accordingly to make it more difficult or impossible to retrieve data from it, you are guilty of spoliation / tampering of evidence. This is the same set of laws that makes it illegal to shred papers before law enforcement can get to them. Locking or erasing your phone is simply the digital equivalent.
Re: Judge Grants Search Warrant Forcing Woman to Unlock iPhone with Touch ID
#160You 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…
This is why we need plausibly deniable dual login on all accounts, ala truecrypt.
The issue there is that if you aren't really being plausibly deniable (using the fake login), then the court will realise this. For instance, if they know you were using that laptop 1 day ago, but the timestamps on the instance you unlock are all from 2 months ago, they may deduce you are pulling this stunt.