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

121–130 of 215 posts

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

#121

Post by ubernostrum »

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?

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 sudo can remember you've recently proved yourself to it. After 48 hours, after a certain number of failed Touch ID attempts, or after any restart of the phone, though, Touch ID stops being available and the phone goes back to only being unlockable via the passcode (Touch ID will only become available after the next time the passcode is entered).

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

#122

Post by jdmichal »

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #113
jdmichal wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your comment is purposefully obtuse and meaningless. Obstruction via exercising your 4th amendment right in the US is legal, because that's what being a right means. Refusing to comply with a court order to unlock your phone is still illegal.

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

#124

Post by chris_wot »

khedoros wrote: post #119
basch wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. 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 should use if they don't want to get caught. Apparently a passcode is protected under the Fifth Amendment but not a fingerprint. [1]

But it's ridiculous really. All that a criminal needs to do is restart their phone to prevent their fingerprint from being used. And there are good reasons for doing so other than to escape incrimination! And that can be done from the lock screen... Imagine the criminal held down the power off button for three seconds then swiped, is that a crime? Perhaps that falls under spoliation of evidence, but then again how is not giving a passcode not considered spoliation?

Apple should require a user configurable timeout for requiring of a passcode. I'm sure it normally takes more than two hours to interview and charge someone.

1. http://www.macrumors.com/2014/10/31/fingerprints-not-protect...

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

#125

Post by drags »

spdustin wrote: post #114
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…

My understanding is that the "testimony" would be in the text of the password: compelling someone to reveal the password could be self-incriminating if _the password itself_ led them to additional evidence (e.g. a password of "I hid the revolver in the Conservatory"). [1]

I can't think of a case involving a fingerprint where there's a similar risk since the fingerprint is arbitrary data.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Hubbell#Summa...

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

#126

Post by djrogers »

r00fus wrote: post #71
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #9

Touch ID is disabled when an iPhone initially powers on. So, if you want to prevent law enforcement compelling you to decrypt using your fingerprint , hold down the power button and then slide right to power off the phone. Now they need your password.

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.

This was a search warrant issued at the time of her arrest (within less than an hour according to the article). The woman subsequently pled 'no contest' to the charges and unlocked her phone.

In short, this doesn't mean this is a settled issue - none of this has been tested in court.

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

#127

Post by djrogers »

r00fus wrote: post #111
coldcode wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

This wasn't a decision - it was simply a search warrant that included the demand. It's not a legal precedent or case law...

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

#128

Post by jedmeyers »

jdmichal wrote: post #93
jedmeyers wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the very least, use the wrong finger 5 times on the sensor and it will disable the Touch ID.

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.

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

#129

Post by khedoros »

spdustin wrote: post #112
bitJericho wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-207_d18e.pdf

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

#130

Post by djrogers »

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.

The warrant was issued when she was arrested - it would not be at all unusual for police to get warrants for things discovered during an arrest, nor would it be unusual for them to be prepared to request one.
Post reply on HN