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

Post by paulddraper » Tue, May 03, 2016, 3:11 AM UTC

astrodust wrote: post #165

jdmichal wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"I just turned it off since the battery wears down really quickly and I thought I might need it to make a call later." Difficult to prove.

Post by paulddraper » Tue, May 03, 2016, 3:16 AM UTC

tn13 wrote: post #61

At this stage the lady may consider temporarily injuring her finger to the extent the iphone does not accept it and falls back to passphrase.

Post by gleenn » Tue, May 03, 2016, 7:05 AM UTC

rhizome wrote: post #198

basch wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by m_eiman » Tue, May 03, 2016, 7:36 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #21

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…

"Something you have" isn't part of a password, its an alternative, non-password factor; passwords are always "something you know". There is a trend to use biometrics in place of passwords, which is a convenience feature which compromises security, even though it is often misrepresented as a security feature. (Using biometrics as a second factor helps security, but there is a big difference between "and" and "or" secu…

Post by shawnz » Tue, May 03, 2016, 11:57 AM UTC

csense wrote: post #100

I think the idea of using fingerprints, retina scans, face recognition, etc. as an access token is a fascinating instance of how culture influences technology. These things are very poor candidates for access control because you need fuzzy statistical/ML/AI/CV recognition techniques (which means you have to worry about false positives and false negatives), and it's basically impossible to re-issue credentials in case…