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

http://www.macrumors.com/2016/05/02/judge-unlock-iphone-touch-id

by outworlder • 10 years ago

218 204 10 years ago

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 see fit, based on what you're protecting and what you're being threatened with.

I find the ongoing case of someone being jailed indefinitely for refusing to supply a passphrase far more concerning than someone being compelled to supply a fingerprint.

JadeNB4• 10 years ago

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 for a technical person to wonder whether it should be so.

EDIT: I know that complaints about downvotes are not welcome, and it's quite possible that I'm wrong in what I say, but I'd like to be told how rather than just downvoted! My comment was meant to be a constructive contribution.

EDIT 2: Wow, these many replies help a lot! Thanks!

JoshTriplett5• 10 years ago

I agree with the comments below: a fingerprint is a username, not a password. I don't have a problem with compelling the provision of identification given an appropriate warrant; I do have a problem with compelling the provision of information held only in someone's head, with or without a warrant.

dragonwriter• 10 years ago

"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" security measures.)

pc862• 10 years ago

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.

gruyere• 10 years ago

per your edit, you seem to forget you're at HN.

eganist3• 10 years ago

but I'd like to be told how rather than just downvoted!

It's probably in the tone of your comment, which (though it isn't the case) implies that there's something wrong with the laws.

I'd edit and rephrase in your position, especially since your criticism isn't of the law but is rather of the education of users. To your point: if users of devices could be educated in-device about the security of different identification and authentication schemes, the user could take better ownership of the security of said user's device.

DannyBee5• 10 years ago

"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."

Fingerprints and other things like them are 100% non-testimonial. The fifth amendment does not cover non-testimonial evidence (because it only covers being a witness against yourself).

This has been law since the amendment was enacted, was the purpose of it, etc.

So I suspect if you want the law to be something else, your problem isn't even with the courts or judges, it's with the founders :)

maxerickson• 10 years ago

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.

djsumdog2• 10 years ago

The person who is being held indefinitely for not giving up his password is really frightening. They should either let him go or charge him with contempt of course/obstruction and issue time served!

Even if you /know/ you don't have anything illegal on any of my encrypted devices, it's better to take a contempt of court charge than give up a password...because of what they might /find/ or possible things unrelated to an investigation that they can link to a crime (or what they can then plant).

JoshTriplett5• 10 years ago

Contempt is a terrifying charge, because under current law, you can be jailed indefinitely for the same contempt charge for as long as you refuse to cooperate with whatever the court thinks you should cooperate with. There's no upper bound there. So that wouldn't solve the problem.

kayamon• 10 years ago

I realize this isn't exactly the point, but couldn't he just tell them he 'forgot' his password? It's not like they'd be able to prove otherwise.

maaku2• 10 years ago

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.

5th amendment.

eganist3• 10 years ago

Doesn't apply, and this isn't the first opinion to come to that conclusion either.

http://pilotonline.com/news/local/crime/police-can-require-c...

5th amendment appears to be restricted to what you know based on all available rulings thus far. A password would fall under "what you know."

curt15• 10 years ago

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

msbarnett• 10 years ago

Nothing. The 3d printer is overkill. A fingerprint and a pack of gelatin is more than sufficient.

mikestew• 10 years ago

You might have noticed that ABS plastic doesn't have a lot of similarities with human flesh. That's not to say that it can't be faked, just maybe not with a 3D printer: http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/09/fake-fingerprint-foo...

ianopolous• 10 years ago

This is why we need plausibly deniable dual login on all accounts, ala truecrypt.

MichaelGG• 10 years ago

The issue there is that if you aren't really being plausibly deniable (using the fake login), then the court will realise this. For instance, if they know you were using that laptop 1 day ago, but the timestamps on the instance you unlock are all from 2 months ago, they may deduce you are pulling this stunt.

stcredzero4• 10 years ago

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.

I thought that fingerprints were to be provided to:

  1) establish biometric proof of identity
  2) establish the presence of a person in a particular place
  3) establish a person handled a particular object

Or does the law establish that the authorities can use fingerprints for evidence in any fashion? Could they use a scan of a fingerprint to etch a fake-fingerprint latex sheet to open your locked device?

swyman2• 10 years ago

Where does that list come from?

niij• 10 years ago

I'm not sure where you're getting this list from. But, I think that #3 would be relevant in this case, as the person would have needed to handle the device to register their fingerprint.

spdustin8• 10 years ago

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 a sensor used to unlock your phone as anything other than an equivalent form of "testimony", and it should enjoy fifth amendment protection. I don't think it will be long before this exact definition finds its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

drags• 10 years ago

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...

rayiner6• 10 years ago

Passwords have been interpreted to be testimonial because they require someone to tell authorities information in their mind. That is already a huge stretch of the 5th amendment. The purpose of the 5th amendment is not to prevent the collection of evidence. It is to mitigate the dangers of coerced confessions, which allow people to be easily convicted without evidence. It was never intended to be a general-purpose limitation on being compelled to cooperate in you own prosecution.

AdmiralAsshat• 10 years ago

Always remember: your fingerprint is identification. You can be forced to identify yourself to law enforcement. Do not make it your password. Your password is something you know, not something you are.

djsumdog2• 10 years ago

Something you know, and ... something you can forget.

cloudjacker• 10 years ago

Or just restart your iPhone.

astrodust3• 10 years ago

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.

emdd• 10 years ago

Correct that you cannot be compelled to unlock your phone (with a code, not Touch ID) or reveal the passcode?

artursapek• 10 years ago

"Your fingerprint is your username, not your password."

draw_down• 10 years ago

You can be forced to do lots of things by law enforcement, like give up your password which is something other than your fingerprint.

tombert• 10 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueCrypt#United_States_v._Joh...

The court's ruling noted that FBI forensic examiners were unable to get past TrueCrypt's encryption (and therefore were unable to access the data) unless Doe either decrypted the drives or gave the FBI the password, and the court then ruled that Doe's Fifth Amendment right to remain silent legally prevented the Government from making him or her do so.

So it seems like the law is a bit ambiguous on this front.

devy• 10 years ago

I wholeheartedly agree. This is the same to all biometric data(fingerprints, retina scans). They should only be used to identification NOT AUTHENTICATION!

Aelinsaar• 10 years ago

This... makes sense. You can be compelled to produce your fingerprints, or a physical key, or really anything physical with a warrant. It's the issue of producing KNOWLEDGE from your mind alone that is really the issue most of us care about, or at least, it's a newer issue.

TazeTSchnitzel3• 10 years ago

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.

M4v3R• 10 years ago

PIN Code is also required when you fail to authenticate with Touch ID five times. So one could use the wrong finger a few times and that would solve the problem ;).

TazeTSchnitzel3• 10 years ago

I've noticed that Touch ID is super brittle (at least on my own iPhone 5S), too. If your finger's slightly wet, that may be enough.

Indeed, trying it now, if I lick my finger and then use it to try and unlock my iPhone a few times, it disables Touch ID and requires a passcode!

Lxr• 10 years ago

Unless you are prepared in advance, after they take your phone you likely won't have the chance to turn it off.

r00fus5• 10 years ago

I shut off my device before every security checkpoint (i.e., airports) or whenever I get pulled over. Only takes a 5 seconds - inconvenience is worth it.

gherkin0• 10 years ago

There should also be a timer that puts the phones into require-password mode. So after a few hours they'll need more than a fingerprint.

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.

Arubis• 10 years ago

This, and other comments to the effect of purposely messing up your fingerprint to force PIN/password entry, are all technically effective. However, if you perform any of these actions after an encounter with law enforcement or the legal system has already started, it strikes me that your actions could be interpreted as destruction of evidence. IANAL, though.

Even using a PIN over a fingerprint is enough to piss off the FBI by making it more difficult to get in. If you're unlocking your iDevice with Touch ID only, you should consider your device insecure against even undetermined law enforcement.

jdmichal5• 10 years ago

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.

r00fus5• 10 years ago

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.

coldcode• 10 years ago

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.

djrogers3• 10 years ago

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.

vox_mollis• 10 years ago

In most cases, you won't have the time. SOP in law enforcement raids is to secure their victim prior to securing anything else.

FussyZeus• 10 years ago

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.

talmand• 10 years ago

I've always understood that getting a local judge to expedite a warrant for timely reasons is not unheard of.

bobwaycott• 10 years ago

I believe TouchID is disabled after 48 hours.

djrogers3• 10 years ago

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.

rdudek• 10 years ago

Would they cut her finger off if she denied that request?

eganist3• 10 years ago

No, they'd just hold her in contempt.

randyrand3• 10 years ago

But after 48 hours she no longer has the means to unlock it with her fingerprint.

goda902• 10 years ago

More likely she'd be held in contempt of court, or charged with withholding evidence.

imtringued• 10 years ago

Which finger? You only have 5 tries until the device asks for a password.

dogecoinbase2• 10 years ago

Needs to support a duress finger.

goda902• 10 years ago

Wouldn't using the duress finger result in some sort of destruction of evidence charge?

dogecoinbase2• 10 years ago

As with most duress mechanisms, one would have to judge whether using it was better or worse than not -- I suppose ideally one would have two, one of which simply reenabled the passcode and would have some deniability (this is effectively already possible by using a nonstandard finger, unless LE has witnessed previous successful unlocks and can identify the finger which should be used), and one which initiated a wipe of the phone.

DannyBee5• 10 years ago

I'm not sure why this is surprising, under current precedent,you can be forced to type in your password (https://articles.forensicfocus.com/2012/02/09/another-judge-... covers some cases, but there are a lot of cases).

Touch ID is not really different.

In general, one of the only reasons you won't be forced to type in your password is if the act of proving you have the password is somehow incriminating (IE there is a dispute over ownership, etc).

saboot• 10 years ago

Curious, what would happen if you purposefully damage your fingerprint? Say by forcing a burn on your finger using a stove top or car cigarette lighter.

cheepin• 10 years ago

That's a pretty painful option compared to just handling rough objects. I've rendered touchID almost entirely ineffective just by grip taping a skateboard.

The answer to your question though is that, at least on the phone's side, it would require your passcode to login

bdcravens4• 10 years ago

Mine stops working all the time, especially my right thumb.

Phlarp• 10 years ago

Well, that would hurt, and you would have to permanently damage the entire fingerprint-- as only a small section of the scanned print is really needed to make a match.

IANAL: but I would imagine a sour faced judge could call it contempt or maybe destruction of evidence depending on the circumstances?

xoa• 10 years ago

While it would not be cost-free against law enforcement (as they could charge with contempt/destruction of evidence and so on) I hope as this sort of thing happens more often it pushes Apple to respond with a native coercion code system rather then requiring a jailbreak. Security has been improving at a nice clip in the last 5 years after significant stagnation, and bringing coercion codes to the general public seems like the next straight forward, logical improvement. Apple seems to already have the basic system level infrastructure in place since they store and register each of the five fingerprints separately and fire off appropriate different system events, which is why a jailbroken device can have an imperfect but reasonably effective one. Apple though could make it more user friendly, and have it be not just for Touch ID but also using a PIN.

While law enforcement gets the most press, this is and growing threat from non-state actors as well as mobile devices become ever larger gateways to the public's private lives and finances. Apple would do everyone a service by blazing the trail here and sooner (iOS 10) rather then later.

maaku2• 10 years ago

5th amendment: "No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."

How does this not apply here?

icebraining• 10 years ago

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

talles• 10 years ago

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.

Lawtonfogle2• 10 years ago

Once they can read minds, what then? And this isn't just science fiction; I've read reports that a persons inner monologue is soon to be accessible because when you talk in your head, it causes ever so slight commands to be sent to the voice box, which in turn reacts slightly. Not enough to produce sound or even be noticeable to a person, but which technology is being developed to pick up on.

superuser2• 10 years ago

The same way a search warrant can force you to hand over your diary.

united893• 10 years ago

If you have five minutes, please see this short video from CGPGrey, which summarizes succinctly why access to your phone is akin to access to brain:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPBH1eW28mo

harryh2• 10 years ago

I don't think it makes that point well at all. It says that (kinda) but doesn't support the idea with any form of reasoning. In fact, it's a relatively minor point and not really the main point of the video at all.

If you had access to my phone you could learn a great many things about me (most of them banal) but there are many many many thoughts in my head that don't exist on my phone in any form.

Continued nerd insistence of your point is little more than fetishization of technology. There's a reason Obama used that word at sxsw. It connotes a level of obsession and overfocus that is, quite frankly, pretty creepy.

rdez6173• 10 years ago

Could it be argued that the knowledge of which finger (or part of your finger) you use for authentication is equivalent to a passcode?

drostie• 10 years ago

Maybe, but you get five tries before you get locked out, so even if your lawyer pleaded successfully with that, the judge could reasonably order that you try with, say, all the fingers of your right hand, or maybe both thumbs and index fingers, without forcing you to disclose that knowledge.

ihsw• 10 years ago

Conversely, is there anything preventing them from having you try all ten fingers?

mynameisvlad• 10 years ago

Yes, you are locked out after 5 incorrect prints. At that point, you need to use your passcode to unlock your phone.

That said, even if they guess that you're most likely to use your thumb, there is still a chance you can't unlock the device, especially on pre-6S devices, since the sensor is a lot more finnicky.

simcop2387• 10 years ago

Chance. It'll stop accepting them after 5 attempts according to other posters in this thread. Combine that with the fact you don't know if it read properly or not you really don't have good odds that you'll succeed.

tn132• 10 years ago

Isn't this same as forcing a person to give testimony against herself ?

JoeAltmaier• 10 years ago

Its more like "what have you got in your pocket?"

bdcravens4• 10 years ago

No more than if you were ordered to open the door or a safe for a search warrant.

tn132• 10 years ago

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.

paulddraper3• 10 years ago

Self mutilation might not be the best option. I think you'd be a sub par legal advisor.

diegorbaquero• 10 years ago

Power cycle it. Win.

bdcravens4• 10 years ago

Then you get charged with tampering, even if found not guilty on other charges. Probably lesser charge, but not a "win".

kefka• 10 years ago

"Judge, Which finger am I required to try?"

Edit: the question is a legal trap to kept from being held in contempt. After 2 or 3 scans, the device demands a password. By asking which finger, they have a 20% chance of getting right finger.

Matt3o12_2• 10 years ago

No, they have 5 tries, and most people use at least 2 fingers (I use 3) so you can unlock it with both hands.

Furthermore, most people use at least their thumb. So if the judge said use your left and right thumb, the chance of succeeding would be a lot higher (statistically speaking). If you use, let's say, your pinky finger, the chance of a judge guessing the right fingerprint is even lower because he will try out the most obvious choices before that.

anigbrowl• 10 years ago

This doesn't seem that remarkable. It's one thing if you have the combination to a safe and won't give it up; the police will have to get into the safe some other way. On the other hand, if it locks with a physical key which you happen to keep on your belt, I doubt any court would think twice before ordering you to hand it over.

nkrisc• 10 years ago

I think what's interesting is they're forcing her to verify that it is in fact her phone or that she had access to it. Now, in the case of a phone it likely wouldn't be hard to prove that other ways, but what if it was an otherwise unidentifiable device? It would force her to effectively testify she owned it when the police might otherwise not be able to prove that.

drcube• 10 years ago

Don't the cops already have her fingerprints? This is partly why biometric authentication is useless. You're supposed to change passwords frequently. How do you change your fingerprints? Who chooses a password the cops already know, and anyone else who knows you has access to?

csense• 10 years ago

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 of a compromise (changing someone's fingerprints or facial characteristics would require performing plastic surgery on the user!)

But because of movies and TV, everyone "knows" that in the future we're supposed to have our technology unlocked by our fingerprints, so that's what drives people to buy and vendors to implement, regardless of how absurdly impractical it is if you actually stop to think about it for five seconds.

CardenB• 10 years ago

I think it's more about convenience than sci fi.

awqrre• 10 years ago

In cases where your username is not public, biometrics should not even be used as a "login name"... let alone password.

shawnz• 10 years ago

But because of movies and TV, everyone "knows" that in the future we're supposed to have our technology unlocked by our fingerprints, so that's what drives people to buy and vendors to implement

I, for one, would love fingerprint unlock on my phone. And it's not for any crazy sci-fi expectation -- I just don't see any other method of unlocking my phone which could be as quick and convenient as that. Facial unlock is another possibility, but what concerns me about that is how easily someone could produce a picture of my face.

bdcravens4• 10 years ago

Mine won't accept my right thumb after a day or so. (other fingers seem to be ok though) Probably due to diabetes and the way my medical condition causes clubbing of the fingers (I just re-add that thumb over and over)

If she ate a bunch of salt and swelled up a bit, it might have the same affect. Providing the finger scan isn't the same as promising it unlocks.

pessimizer• 10 years ago

A judge can have you force fed, put into a straitjacket and spitguard, or have people put their fingers up your asshole and vagina. The idea that they can't get you to touch a piece of plastic is absurd. I'd be surprised if they wouldn't sedate you in order to do it. As someone who has been anally probed by the state, I find it pleasantly surprising that they even think they need a warrant to force you to put your finger wherever they want.

Do passwords really need to be simplified? Do we invariably have to envision the future as a place where we wave our arms around beams of light and gently touch secret symbols to make things work? Isn't that just a juvenile fantasy of being a magician? Was Excalibur the first touch ID?

spdustin8• 10 years ago

For me, the ongoing question that needs to be addressed by the court is this: Is the content of your smartphone considered to be documentary evidence (something you have) or testimony (something you know). I know I'm mixing definitions of the something you have/know combination, but it's a difference without a distinction, IMHO.

I tell my phone, either directly or indirectly, all sorts of things that I would not otherwise document. Locations I've visited, for example. That's something that, unless I've been surveilled, only I know. By unlocking the phone, have I allowed access to documentary evidence, or have I allowed access to an extension of my mind?

Is a smartphone a privileged companion? Like an attorney, or a doctor, or a partner? The spousal communications privilege in the US protects the personal conversations I have with my wife from being disclosed via compelled testimony. If she tells me that she committed a crime, or vice-versa, the recipient of that communication cannot be compelled to testify against the utterer.

Further, spousal testimonial privilege means that she could not be compelled to describe her observations if they may incriminate me.

We have similar affordances in the US for communications with legal counsel, or with medical personnel.

I'm going to go one step further and say that 95% of you, dear readers, tell or otherwise provide secrets to your phone that, if you somehow had to communicate to an actual person, you'd only be willing to tell your spouse, your doctor or your lawyer. To me, that makes my smartphone a privileged confidant. And because it routinely collects information that I do not directly provide it, even though I'm capable of observing and remembering it myself, it acts like (and I treat it like) an extension of my mind. An augmentation that increases the capacity of my own brain's memory.

I'm not in the habit of committing crimes, though I (like most of you) have committed some infractions in the past (speeding, "TP-ing" a house, a bounced check - ahh, the indiscretions of youth). But the knowledge in my head and the communications I have with privileged recipients may, if taken out of context, be used as documentary evidence supporting any number of charges against me.

For example, the fact that I went to Home Depot four times in one week over a year ago could support the charge that I had assembled some device that was later used in a violent crime. That's a scary place to be, isn't it? To know that you did nothing wrong, and yet the vague memories you have of visiting Home Depot last year have potentially been documented more thoroughly by your phone. Is the common man supposed to assume that a smartphone they bought just so their kids can FaceTime with their grandmother 1,500 miles away is silently surveilling them, and can be forced to disclose all manner of information about them?

It's a new world, and the laws of the land are old. Legislation moves at a snails pace already, but compared to the rapidity of technological advancement, the law moves like the pitch drop experiment.

erichocean• 10 years ago

Is a smartphone a privileged companion?

From a legislative perspective, that's the outcome I'd most want: people's private smartphones are privileged, full stop. Otherwise, it becomes yet another thing we have to worry about.

harryh2• 10 years ago

I don't think you understand the legal justification behind the 5th amendment. It has nothing to do with the contents of your mind being private. It is a protection against forced confessions via torture.

A long time ago it used to be common to torture people until the admitted to committing a crime that they did not commit just to stop getting tortured. By making this sort of testimony inadmissible it removes the incentive to torture.

The various restrictions against law enforcement whether it be the 5th amendment or anything else all exist for specific reasons. They aren't just there to make law enforcement's job harder and as a general privacy protections. Extending these rules beyond the justification for their existence (as you attempt to do in your comment) isn't supported by legal precedent.

banach• 10 years ago

I guess this will just make (savvy) criminals turn Touch ID off on their iDevices.

ultim8k• 10 years ago

Judges just go fuck yourself.

DarkContinent• 10 years ago

The Constitutional right to not incriminate oneself was originally intended to prevent the government from engaging in Star Chamber-style interrogations, i. e. using physical force to extract information from a person. This case frankly doesn't seem any different from such forcible extraction.

randyrand3• 10 years ago

Workaround for the common person:

When compelled, try your other fingers first than the one you registered. Do not register your thumb. After 5 tries, your password is required.

cmurf• 10 years ago

Rubberhose fs, with a modification: two passcodes, one unlocks primary fs A. The other unlocks secondary fs B and causes the DEK for fs A to be wiped.

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

Related Stories