71–80 of 215 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or just restart your iPhone.
I've heard more than one person say if you're going to have to surrender your phone, if there's even the risk of it, turn it off.
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.
Unless you are prepared in advance, after they take your phone you likely won't have the chance to turn it off.
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.
Unless you are prepared in advance, after they take your phone you likely won't have the chance to turn it off.
Maybe you should also have the option of setting up a "coercion fingerprint(s)", which if used to authenticate would put the phone into require-passcode mode. Then, if the court compels you to unlock your phone with your fingerprint, you can put yourself back into 5th amendment territory.
Actually, in that last case, you might already be protected. If 9 if your fingers will force your phone to require a passcode, and only one will unlock it. Could the courts/police force you to disclose which finger is the one that unlocks? I'd imagine you could put them in a situation where they have to chose which finger you use (or manipulate your hand themselves) to perform the unlock action, and in that case they'd only have a 1/10 chance of actually getting what they want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing. The 3d printer is overkill. A fingerprint and a pack of gelatin is more than sufficient.
Have you personally done or seen this done this then? Quality of the print production seems pretty important...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The OP states their opinion a couple of times, so surely that doesn't address the issue of the law as it should be. isn't a very good reply to what they said. That was my reasoning.
Thank you for the explanation. Aside from saying once that he was not bothered by this state of things, I took the poster to be mainly explaining the consequences of the law (don't act as if your fingerprint is as secure as your password) rather than specifically endorsing it.
I'm not bothered by the compelled production of a fingerprint, given the due process of a warrant; I don't see any obvious reason why someone should expect otherwise from the law, nor any right or reasonable expectation this violates, and I don't think the law needs to change in that area.
(I do see other issues associated with fingerprints, such as the retention of fingerprints from non-criminals cleared of all charges, but I don't see an issue that applies to this case.)
I am bothered by (attempted) compelled production of a passphrase. And I see those as significantly different cases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well imagine a criminal is holding a piece of your property or even a person and not revealing where that is. Do you think it's reasonable to hold them for 30 days and then let them go and say "ah well I guess you can return that/them if you want cuz you did your time." A charge of contempt is still a charge.
So do you think it's reasonable that contempt of court can carry a life sentence without even being convicted by a jury of your peers? Is contempt of court a worse crime than assault or manslaughter? You have the right to not divulge information from your mind that would incriminate yourself. In the US this is called the 5th amendment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Courts are not (and should not be) interested in "the law as it should be." They are to interpret the law as it is written.
> Courts are not (and should not be) interested in "the law as it should be." They are to interpret the law as it is written. I agree, but then neither are we the courts; and it is precisely the role of the commons to discuss the law as it should be, so that the legislative branch can, hopefully, enshrine that communal wisdom in the law as it is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing. The 3d printer is overkill. A fingerprint and a pack of gelatin is more than sufficient.
Have you personally done or seen this done this then? Quality of the print production seems pretty important...