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

Post by tn13 » Mon, May 02, 2016, 5:36 PM UTC

Post by mikestew » Mon, May 02, 2016, 5:38 PM UTC

curt15 wrote: post #44

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…

In the era of fast 3d printers, what stands in the way of just fashioning a suitable fake finger from the fingerprint?

Post by talles » Mon, May 02, 2016, 5:39 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #56

maaku wrote: post #45

5th amendment: "No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." How does this not apply here?

Providing your fingerprint (or blood, or DNA) is not considered testimony.

Post by jayrhynas » Mon, May 02, 2016, 5:40 PM UTC

thesimon wrote: post #41

colejohnson66 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a way to know Touch ID is available, but can't be used because the device was just rebooted? Or does it act like there's just a password?

>Is there a way to know Touch ID is available, but can't be used because the device was just rebooted? I don't know the verbatim message, but it says something along the lines of "Passcode is required to enable Touch ID"

Post by bendykstra » Mon, May 02, 2016, 5:44 PM UTC

talles wrote: post #65

icebraining wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Providing your fingerprint (or blood, or DNA) is not considered testimony.

But is kinda silly how "numeric passcodes are protected individual privacies, but fingerprints are not" in this case. The use of your blood or DNA in the case should dictate if it's applicable or not, not the nature of the evidence itself.