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

Feds Can't Force You to Unlock Your iPhone with Finger or Face, Judge Rules

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 294 posts

Re: Feds Can't Force You to Unlock Your iPhone with Finger or Face, Judge Rules

#251

Post by 6nf »

rjf72 wrote: post #242
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and even then you still have to depend on a crime lab (run by the people doing the prosecuting) to not be sloppy. Which CSI has done a wonderful job of turning into super-cops in the eyes of jurys.

This has had the opposite effect of what you seem to be implying. It's something that's come up quite frequently in discussions of jury nullification [1]. Jury nullification being when a jury ends up voting not guilty, even when they believe the defendant guilty, generally because they do not find the law (or possibly the punishment) just. For decades a rate of about 5% for hung juries was typical. In more recent yea…

That sounds like a good thing to me to be honest

Re: Feds Can't Force You to Unlock Your iPhone with Finger or Face, Judge Rules

#252

Post by zaphirplane »

5ML wrote: post #205
ransom1538 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I won't believe this ruling is safe until it goes thru higher levels." Yes - right now, there are people being held indefinitely for not decrypting hard drives the US [1]. The law used is: "All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. § 1651)". As one judge said, "We don't want your password - we just want the hard drives in unencrypted state." https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/legal/man-who-refused-...

I fear I'll be barbecued for asking, but I must: What's the alternative? I am a privacy advocate and understand that the law can (and likely will) abuse a forced decryption law. However, the story you linked is about a _police officer_ who was suspected of child pornography. His sister reported him to the police and 'content stored on the encrypted hard drive matched file hashes for known child pornography content'.…

The same way when a person denies they committed an offense, build a case

Re: Feds Can't Force You to Unlock Your iPhone with Finger or Face, Judge Rules

#253

Post by IkmoIkmo »

arcturus17 wrote: post #221
supernova87a wrote: post #108

I doubt this will hold up. You can be compelled by a court to have your blood withdrawn if a warrant is issued while you're under suspicion of DUI. Why would it not be similarly allowable to have your finger placed on the unlock button? Testimonial privilege (against being forced to testify) is about not being made to say / speak statements against your own prosecution. Speech. Testimony. Having evidence taken is not…

In the eyes of the law, how is this different to being compelled to give your passcode though? Of course it’s easier and they could maybe even unlock a phone with your corpse but in jurisdictions where the law protects the individual’s privacy above all else this shouldn’t make a difference.

As I understand it, we are not required to incriminate ourselves. e.g. we can not be told or forced to confess, similarly we cannot be told to open a lock. In fact, there is no way to determine wether you indeed do know (or remember), or do not know/remember the passcode prior to forcing you to hand it over. Any punishment for not cooperating may be a punishment for not remembering, or worse, not even ever knowing the passcode.

But we can be be 'used' to build evidence. For example, being detained and forced to stand in a line-up so that a witness may recognise you. Or having your speech recorded, so it may be compared to a criminal telephone recording. Or having your fingerprint taken to be compare to fingerprints found at a crimescene. Having your key be taken to unlock a vault which is suspected to contain stolen items. Or indeed, having your finger or face scanned to unlock the same thing.

These seem like fundamentally different things, one which may lead to improper judgements, another which leads to generally reasonable judgements.

Re: Feds Can't Force You to Unlock Your iPhone with Finger or Face, Judge Rules

#254

Post by pc86 »

chooseaname wrote: post #23
derekp7 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought that polygraphs were not accepted as evidence in court, but are still used by some government and private agencies. Also, just curious, have they been discredited as in that double-blind trials show no more than a 50/50 chance of being correct (i.e., flipping a coin)? Or is it that a high enough percentage of people will fail them even if innocent, or pass them even if guilty? The thing I don't like about t…

> I thought that polygraphs were not accepted as evidence in court... Only if you "pass". Fail one and admissible or not, it'll be brought up.

> admissible or not, it'll be brought up

That's not how it works, and even a public defender working 20 hour days who doesn't know their defendant's name would be able to get a mistrial.

Re: Feds Can't Force You to Unlock Your iPhone with Finger or Face, Judge Rules

#255

Post by pc86 »

supernova87a wrote: post #108

I doubt this will hold up. You can be compelled by a court to have your blood withdrawn if a warrant is issued while you're under suspicion of DUI. Why would it not be similarly allowable to have your finger placed on the unlock button? Testimonial privilege (against being forced to testify) is about not being made to say / speak statements against your own prosecution. Speech. Testimony. Having evidence taken is not…

> Testimonial privilege (against being forced to testify) is about not being made to say / speak statements against your own prosecution. Speech. Testimony.

As the article states, polygraph results are (were) legally considered testimony. That's the results, not what you actually said. So "testimony === speech" is incorrect at both the practical and the legal level. This court is simply saying that your fingerprint is much closer to testimony than it is to objective chemical proof of a crime, as in your blood draw DUI/DWI example.

Re: Feds Can't Force You to Unlock Your iPhone with Finger or Face, Judge Rules

#256

Post by pc86 »

supernova87a wrote: post #244
arcturus17 wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the eyes of the law, how is this different to being compelled to give your passcode though? Of course it’s easier and they could maybe even unlock a phone with your corpse but in jurisdictions where the law protects the individual’s privacy above all else this shouldn’t make a difference.

It is fundamentally, very importantly, different. Being compelled to say / give your password is forcing you to admit or testify that you know the code and can unlock your phone. You can choose not to give testimony (statements) that could be used against you. On the other hand, if you are in possession of a physical key or code written on a piece of paper... or fingerprint... you can be compelled to turn that piece…

And this ruling is simply stating that your fingerprint is more akin to testimony than it is to an object. I personally don't think it will stand up (unfortunately) but for the moment, in this jurisdiction, it will.

Re: Feds Can't Force You to Unlock Your iPhone with Finger or Face, Judge Rules

#257

Post by pc86 »

gammateam wrote: post #114
supernova87a wrote: post #108

I doubt this will hold up. You can be compelled by a court to have your blood withdrawn if a warrant is issued while you're under suspicion of DUI. Why would it not be similarly allowable to have your finger placed on the unlock button? Testimonial privilege (against being forced to testify) is about not being made to say / speak statements against your own prosecution. Speech. Testimony. Having evidence taken is not…

“A California [federal] judge” yeah I stopped reading there Even the 9th circuit appeals court upholding this ruling wouldnt be something to trust This part of the country simply doesnt have consensus with the rest and doesnt have power over the constitution, whether I like the ruling or not.

Until a higher court overturns it this is the law of the land in that jurisdiction. Whether they agree with a court 2,000 miles away is completely irrelevant.

Also you should occasionally read things that you disagree with, if only to test your own assumptions and prejudices about yourself and the world around you. It makes you an objectively better person.

Re: Feds Can't Force You to Unlock Your iPhone with Finger or Face, Judge Rules

#258

Post by ChicagoBoy11 »

> The FAA would require that drones have “an anti-collision light illuminated and visible for at least three statute miles,” as well as testing and training.

I'm a private pilot, and I have the hardest time spotting airplane traffic from 3sm miles away. Ready to sit back and have some popcorn reading articles about how manufacturers are supposedly complying with this rule. Unless there's some novel lighting technology I don't know about, this seems like a nontrivial problem to me.

Re: Feds Can't Force You to Unlock Your iPhone with Finger or Face, Judge Rules

#259

Post by posterboy »

6nf wrote: post #250
derekp7 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought that polygraphs were not accepted as evidence in court, but are still used by some government and private agencies. Also, just curious, have they been discredited as in that double-blind trials show no more than a 50/50 chance of being correct (i.e., flipping a coin)? Or is it that a high enough percentage of people will fail them even if innocent, or pass them even if guilty? The thing I don't like about t…

Individuals can also 'train' for polygraphs, basically learning to spoof the readings. So really you just can't rely on polygraphs for anything at all.

People can also simply lie, but statements are still considered testimony.

Re: Feds Can't Force You to Unlock Your iPhone with Finger or Face, Judge Rules

#260

Post by pc86 »

5ML wrote: post #205
ransom1538 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I won't believe this ruling is safe until it goes thru higher levels." Yes - right now, there are people being held indefinitely for not decrypting hard drives the US [1]. The law used is: "All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. § 1651)". As one judge said, "We don't want your password - we just want the hard drives in unencrypted state." https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/legal/man-who-refused-...

I fear I'll be barbecued for asking, but I must: What's the alternative? I am a privacy advocate and understand that the law can (and likely will) abuse a forced decryption law. However, the story you linked is about a _police officer_ who was suspected of child pornography. His sister reported him to the police and 'content stored on the encrypted hard drive matched file hashes for known child pornography content'.…

The alternative is real privacy.

> However, the story you linked...

Freedom only works when it also protects things you don't like. Because of that, the specifics of any one case are totally, completely irrelevant.

> I am a privacy advocate and understand the the law can...abuse a forced decryption law.

There is no sentence after that that justifies having a forced decryption law unless "I am a privacy advocate" is a lie, I'm sorry. You don't have to be a privacy advocate, that's fine, but don't wear that mantle if you're not willing to actually advocate for privacy. The entire point is that it doesn't matter what is being kept private.

Upvoted because while I disagree with your thought process it seems like a good-faith question.

Post reply on HN