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

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

#271

Post by lightbyte » Tue, Jan 15, 2019, 2:07 PM UTC

darkpuma wrote: post #103

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even forensic science can be used questionably. Really, once you're in the court room it's entirely rhetoric and fudge-factor.

"Forensic science" has a long history of being flagrant psuedo-science, very often being a morally bankrupt abuse of statistics.

My favorite example:

>In one case, West claimed to have matched the bite marks in a half-eaten bologna sandwich to the defendant. The jury convicted. (The conviction was overturned on appeal when defense lawyers discovered that the autopsy report recorded a partial bologna sandwich in the stomach of the victim.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/02/17/...

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

#272

Post by Nasrudith » Tue, Jan 15, 2019, 2:08 PM UTC

dpark wrote: post #197

Dylan16807 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> unless you’re willing to die I feel like that's getting the threat model wrong. The mugger wants to spend as little time with you as possible. If a fingerprint is needed to make purchases, then it can actually be significantly better than a PIN, and even a PIN is a lot better than nothing because they have to memorize it.

Sure. Have a fingerprint or PIN or whatever. Totally reasonable. Mugger takes your phone in a rush, can’t unlock it later, sells it for $10 to someone who’ll gut it for the pieces. Sucks, but not as bad as the mugger also emptying your bank account. But my response is to the belief that a security factor that cannot be directly taken by force is somehow more secure. If you’re guarding The Football, sure. You might ac…

The way around that complicates things - validation of circumstances and parties outside the sphere of power can avoid it. Anyone trying to force a withdrawal from someone's account at gunpoint at a bank itself would just be robbing the bank itself. Which being federally insured means robbing the federal government by force of arms. Which draws a heavy response from any sort of government.

I have noted that spiteful to lethal anti coercion measures seem surprisingly rare given the premium paid for security and even when a lesser value to human life is assigned. They would use ink bombs for robbers and not time delayed or remote triggered fragmentation bombs with the loot. I assume relative rarity and baseline risks (even military bases in hostile regions tend to restrict arms to the armory except for MPs, on duty soldiers, and maybe personal side arms for ranking officers who keep it holstered most of the time as opposed to readied) and margins are why even in places where security is tenuous enough that foreign businesses travel arrangements include at least one mercenary with an AK47 or its descendant as a guide, driver and bodyguard due to their guest being a relative king's ransom.

Theoretically ATMs could be fortress panopticons watched 24-7 and with a SWAT team readied to deal with compelled withdrawals but that just plain wouldn't be a sensible use of resources - cameras, willingness to write off or insure losses and policing makes far more sense.

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

#273

Post by mcv » Tue, Jan 15, 2019, 2:20 PM UTC

bootlooped wrote: post #37

jakelazaroff wrote: post #3

Relevant excerpt: > “The undersigned finds that a biometric feature is analogous to the 20 nonverbal, physiological responses elicited during a polygraph test, which are used to determine guilt or innocence, and are considered testimonial.” So it's analogous to a passcode because you're divulging something stored by your body, as opposed to e.g. a metal key which is artificial. Tangentially related, it's astounding t…

I'm not sure how the courts will differentiate between biometric data related to authentication and biometric data from blood tests, breathalyzers or DNA tests. The latter are, in a sense, examples of forcing you to divulge something stored in your body.

The article is quite clear about that differentiation:

"the judge wrote that fingerprints and face scans were not the same as “physical evidence” when considered in a context where those body features would be used to unlock a phone."

(Emphasis mine.)

It's the context of using those body features to unlock a phone, that makes them testimonial rather than physical evidence. Outside that context, they can still be physical evidence.

But does that mean the police can't use physical evidence to unlock your phone? I don't know if it's possible to get a fingerprint from a glass and use that to unlock a phone, but if it was, would that still be legal? What about if someone wrote their password on a note?

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

#274

Post by AnaniasAnanas » Tue, Jan 15, 2019, 2:29 PM UTC

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'.…

If he is so obviously guilty, then why not judge him with the current evidence?

Also, "content stored on the encrypted hard drive matched file hashes for known child pornography content" - this sounds like BS (but do feel free to correct me please), I am not aware of any full-disk-encryption software that stores the unencrypted hash of whole unencrypted files.

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

#275

Post by mcv » Tue, Jan 15, 2019, 2:32 PM UTC

gammateam wrote: post #120

scarface74 wrote: post #20

This nice and all in theory but looking through the lens of reality where police are legally allowed to lie to get a confession - claiming they have evidence that they don’t have to coerce a confession and seeing that “rubber hose decryption” is real, it really doesn’t mean much in practice. Edit: Since people don’t seem to believe that police are actually legally allowed to lie during an interrogation: https://www.n…

When people downvote you on this website, it doesnt mean they dont believe you They just dont like what you say

It means they don't think you're adding anything of value to the discussion.

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

#276

Post by mcv » Tue, Jan 15, 2019, 2:34 PM UTC

justadudeama wrote: post #30

laurentl wrote: post #19

Any idea if and how this ruling (if upheld) can be used to refuse phone seizures / password requests by CBP when entering the country? The ruling relies on the 5th amendment so its scope is limited to American citizens I guess. And whatever the rule of law it’s probably not a good idea to piss off a CBP agent... but still, it’d be nice to be able to travel to the US without having to wipe one’s phone and social media…

I highly doubt it, even for American citizens at the border. The "Border search exception" pretty much says that anywhere within 100 miles of a boarder, the fourth amendment doesn't apply[1]. I imagine they would make a similar rule for the fifth amendment. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception

Wait, within 100 miles of a border the 4th amendment doesn't apply? There are entire cities, large ones, within 100 miles of a border. Does the 4th amendment not apply to the citizens of those cities? That would be a rather serious problem.

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

#277

Post by gammateam » Tue, Jan 15, 2019, 2:58 PM UTC

mcv wrote: post #275

gammateam wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When people downvote you on this website, it doesnt mean they dont believe you They just dont like what you say

It means they don't think you're adding anything of value to the discussion.

And people just mash the button

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

#278

Post by gammateam » Tue, Jan 15, 2019, 2:59 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #257

gammateam wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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.

There can be a lack of appeal which lets the district court ruling stand.

What does your second paragraph have to do with anything mentioned in this thread

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

#279

Post by rayiner » Tue, Jan 15, 2019, 3:09 PM UTC

mch82 wrote: post #226

rayiner wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s okay if you think we should not force people to unlock their phones pursuant to a criminal investigation. But it’s disingenuous to paint this as an attempt to “disregard” the 4th and 5th amendments. The Supreme Court in the 1950s and 1960s expanded the scope of those amendments far beyond the text. They turned the 4th amendment into a general purpose “privacy” amendment, even though the amendment doesn’t use tha…

What about Ammendments 9 and 10 that leave all rights and powers to the people unless they’re explicitly given to the government? Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States resp…

What about them? The 4th amendment explicitly gives the government power to seize and search “effects” (personal possessions) given a valid warrant.

Moreover, the 4th amendment is usually applied against state police. But the bill of rights originally didn’t apply to the states (until some clever interpretation of the 15th amendment). The state governments are not ones of explicitly enumerated powers. It makes no sense to interpret the 10th amendment to keep states from doing something because it’s not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, when the whole point is that powers not enumerated are reserved to the States by default.

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

#280

Post by rayiner » Tue, Jan 15, 2019, 3:15 PM UTC

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #6

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look up studies on the reliability of witness testimony if you want to get really scared on how courts run.

Even forensic science can be used questionably. Really, once you're in the court room it's entirely rhetoric and fudge-factor.

There is a lot of sketchy evidentiary techniques that get in, for sure. That said, the vast majority of prosecutions are based on extremely strong evidence. Reading the news gives a misimpression because you only see the edge cases. But for every “making of a murderer” there are ten guys who are convicted based in being caught on security cameras, and credit card reciepts tying them to the scene of the crime, and witness testimony.