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

191–200 of 215 posts

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

#191

Post by EdHominem »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #82
bitJericho wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you think it's reasonable to imprison someone for life if they don't tell you where they hid your car? And holding a person is already a separate charge - kidnapping and unlawful imprisonment.

Or worse, they really didn't steal it and the court doesn't believe them.

An actual sentence eventually has an end.

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

#192

Post by JoshTriplett »

kingkawn wrote: post #88
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contempt is a weird power in general, especially when it's used for reasons like "disrespecting the judge." If I am disrespectful to the governor of my state, or if I'm disrespectful to a police officer, or if I'm disrespectful to a fireman or a bailiff or a legislator or a district attorney or a teacher or the President, that is a thing that I can legally do. But for some reason it's not outrageous for a judge to se…

How else can the court enforce that it is the final decision on disputes other than this? It is unfair, but seems like the logical place for unfairness to reside in such a system.

> How else can the court enforce that it is the final decision on disputes other than this? It is unfair, but seems like the logical place for unfairness to reside in such a system.

Why would there need to be any place for unfairness to reside in a system?

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

#193

Post by EdHominem »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #20
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…

I agree with the comments below: a fingerprint is a username, not a password. I don't have a problem with compelling the provision of identification given an appropriate warrant ; I do have a problem with compelling the provision of information held only in someone's head , with or without a warrant.

But it's not being used as a username, it's being used as a password. (Or rather, a username and a password.)

It's hacking to bypass even a trivial password, so similarly it should be unreasonable to compel disclosure of even a trivial password...

They don't need your usename - your phone assumes it's you and only asks for the password... The fingerprint that they're seeking is not a username, it's a crappy password.

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

#194

Post by swyman »

stcredzero wrote: post #154
swyman wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sorry, I guess I just read your phrasing to have more authoritative intent than you were going for. As I (also not a lawyer) understand it, there's nothing in particular that limits how intermediate/circumstantial pieces of evidence can be used/combined to find more evidence as long as each piece of evidence in the chain was acquired legally.

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

#195

Post by kayamon »

djsumdog wrote: post #28
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…

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…

I realize this isn't exactly the point, but couldn't he just tell them he 'forgot' his password? It's not like they'd be able to prove otherwise.

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

#196

Post by cmdrfred »

rayiner wrote: post #172
bsder wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, we probably would need a trial in that instance. The courts really don't get to hold someone indefinitely without charging them with something. Contempt is generally used as a quick and dirty hack for someone disobeying the procedures of the court. Not providing a fingerprint to unlock evidence is WAY beyond that scope and probably should require a hearing and trial. Now, she could be detained while that hearing…

A trial for what ?

If you can't charge her with a crime then why are you holding her?

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

#197

Post by taneq »

khedoros wrote: post #129
spdustin wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 passphra…

Providing a fingerprint isn't considered testimony, and the law doesn't currently make an exception for a fingerprint used as the equivalent of a passphrase. The fifth amendment protects knowledge, but not physical constructs like a fingerprint or DNA swab[1]. So, you can be compelled to provide a fingerprint, and the use that the fingerprint is put to is outside the scope of 5th amendment protections. http://www.sup…

It's gonna get really interesting if/when neuroscience advances to the point where we can just read a passcode out of someone's brainwaves. I don't see any legal difference between the fingerprint case and the brain-scan case (both are measuring a physical aspect of the person) but it's going to completely bypass the fifth amendment.

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

#198

Post by rhizome »

basch wrote: post #161
ubernostrum wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't think of Touch ID as unlocking the phone. You know how you can "sudo" and type your password (if you have an account with sudo privileges) and then for a few minutes afterward you don't have to type your password when you use sudo? Think of Touch ID like that: the passcode is still the thing that unlocks the phone, but once it's been entered you can use Touch ID for a little while, in much the same way that sud…

that is what i am asking, where is the 48 hour part. ive never left my phone untouched for 48 hours, except in a powered off state.

Just as a point of reference, Android has a feature by which you can register locations at which a PIN is not required. I've registered my home (which is not super secure, since GPS resolution means it works anywhere in my apartment building), and I have to input the PIN every morning because the interval resets every 4 hours.

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

#200

Post by paulddraper »

MichaelGG wrote: post #160
ianopolous wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And spoliation is illegal.
Post reply on HN