Court Says Fingerprint-Locked Smartphones Are Fair Game

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I guess the lesson here is that you should use a plain old password for your phone instead of fingerprint scanning.

Here's some trivia for your next trip to the pub. Did you know that, in Virginia, you don't have to tell the cops your phone's unlock code, but you're obliged to open it if you use a fingerprint based passcode? It's a quirky piece of legal precedent that's just been established in the state after a key piece of legal evidence was believed to be trapped on the defendant's smartphone.
Click to expand...
 
Silly, but yeah it's one of those things that they don't need to get out of your mind (aka password) biometric locking probably is going to be the next landscape of battles though for what is a 5th amendment violation.
 
Our courts are a fucking joke and have been for a very long time. We have secret courts, civil asset forfeiture courts without judges (proceeded over by prosecutors), we have judges selling children to detention centers, we have the majority of criminal trials ending in plea bargains, and god knows what else.
 
Just screw up the fingerprint read and after 3 tires it locks it.
Tell the cops you registered your index finger.. and let it screw up 3 times..

Then you still get the benefit of the ease of finger print access and the security of a passcode.
 
Fingerprintsare not a password. That'd be like using your phone number or mailing address as a password (But worse as they can't be changed). The only reason any company would want you to start using your personal identifiers as a password is because they really want your personal identifiers in their database.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Silly, but yeah it's one of those things that they don't need to get out of your mind (aka password) biometric locking probably is going to be the next landscape of battles though for what is a 5th amendment violation.
Click to expand...
It's not really, it's going to lose hard. Fingerprints have years and years of precedence that they aren't protected by the 5th.
tikiman2012 said:
This is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
It's not fingerprints are very much have legal precedence in court cases they can be suspended. Furthermore keys can be subpoenaed to safes. Passcodes, Combinations and Passwords cannot because they are protected by the 5th. Physical property is not considered safe.
 
This will be overturned. The point isn't that they don't have your password, it's that they can't make you give it to them. If your fingerprint is used instead there's no difference, it's still forced self incrimination.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Silly, but yeah it's one of those things that they don't need to get out of your mind (aka password) biometric locking probably is going to be the next landscape of battles though for what is a 5th amendment violation.
Click to expand...

I don't know about iPhones, but I distinctly recall Mythbusters defeating a fingerprint scanner with a photocopy that was licked (or maybe they just used a damp towel).
 
nilepez said:
I don't know about iPhones, but I distinctly recall Mythbusters defeating a fingerprint scanner with a photocopy that was licked (or maybe they just used a damp towel).
Click to expand...
Well if movies have taught me anything it's really easy to fool a finger print scan.

forcefed said:
"Sorry judge, i accidentally lit my finger on fire."
Click to expand...
Or could go straight crazy and chew your finger print off while in custody.
 
Semantics said:
It's not really, it's going to lose hard. Fingerprints have years and years of precedence that they aren't protected by the 5th.
Click to expand...
True, this may be as similar as having a lock and oh the key is your pocket, but you better not use that key to open my lock.
 
If you are that afraid of whatever you have on your phone...you can probably quickly go in the phone and turn off the fingerprint to unlock feature or just keep it off if you are that paranoid.
 
xIronCrossx said:
If you are that afraid of whatever you have on your phone...you can probably quickly go in the phone and turn off the fingerprint to unlock feature or just keep it off if you are that paranoid.
Click to expand...

Not sure about other models, but iPhones require a password if the phone has been turned off, so powering it off is the quickest way to block a search.
 
xIronCrossx said:
If you are that afraid of whatever you have on your phone...you can probably quickly go in the phone and turn off the fingerprint to unlock feature or just keep it off if you are that paranoid.
Click to expand...
If you're afraid of the law you should also never use a safe that uses a key or any physical item that unlocks it, courts can and have subpoenaed keys to unlock safes. Always use a combination lock and never write it down anywhere, combinations are protected by the 5th.
 
maverikv said:
This will be overturned. The point isn't that they don't have your password, it's that they can't make you give it to them. If your fingerprint is used instead there's no difference, it's still forced self incrimination.
Click to expand...

Um its not forced, the 5th protects what is in your head, your finger is the key. This will stand as police have taken finger prints of people they arrested for many many decades. Its pretty much a physical key.

This will stand til end of time.
 
Taking fingerprints for identification purposes is hardly the same as taking them to unlock a device, but right and wrong is never a consideration for our government when they have an agenda to advance.
 
Can't you set the iPhone to erase all contents after a couple of failed attempts to unlock it? Then proceed to use the wrong finger. :confused:
 
Frozen8950 said:
Just screw up the fingerprint read and after 3 tires it locks it.
Tell the cops you registered your index finger.. and let it screw up 3 times..

Then you still get the benefit of the ease of finger print access and the security of a passcode.
Click to expand...

Good point.
 
Truthfully, we no longer care about protecting the "lesser" members of our society from the abuses of government. We are like the Nazi party, with a better PR firm. The only difference is that we don't pack freight trains, commit mass murders, and incinerate the remains.

The rest, we are keeping pace, step by step.
 
Semantics said:
If you're afraid of the law you should also never use a safe that uses a key or any physical item that unlocks it, courts can and have subpoenaed keys to unlock safes. Always use a combination lock and never write it down anywhere, combinations are protected by the 5th.
Click to expand...

you having to give up a combination is protected, doesn't mean the law can't open the safe at all. So unless you have one of those "nigh uncrackable" safes best to keep any sort of evidence against you in a crime :)
 
Lith1um said:
We are like the Nazi party, with a better PR firm. The only difference is that we don't pack freight trains, commit mass murders, and incinerate the remains.
Click to expand...
To be fair those are some pretty big differences.
 
Frozen8950 said:
Just screw up the fingerprint read and after 3 tires it locks it.
Tell the cops you registered your index finger.. and let it screw up 3 times..

Then you still get the benefit of the ease of finger print access and the security of a passcode.
Click to expand...

Register your pinkies, tell cops you registered your middle finger and hold up your phone to them while swiping it up and down.

But seriously, they may as well just come out and say everything about everyone is fair game with how screwed up the "justice" system is.
 
maverikv said:
This will be overturned. The point isn't that they don't have your password, it's that they can't make you give it to them. If your fingerprint is used instead there's no difference, it's still forced self incrimination.
Click to expand...

It isn't openning the phone that is protected, its the password in your head that is protected, if you wrote your password on a slip of paper, they'd probably be allowed to use it. Your fingerprint is a physical item that they can use like the slip of paper.

That being said, a locked smartphone should to be treated the same as a locked file cabinet on your property.
 
What are the cops going to do if you don't give them the code? Get all pouty? Give you a ticket?
 
sfsuphysics said:
you having to give up a combination is protected, doesn't mean the law can't open the safe at all. So unless you have one of those "nigh uncrackable" safes best to keep any sort of evidence against you in a crime :)
Click to expand...
They just can't force you to give up the combo they ofc can hire a locksmith to break the safe or just break the safe often by force. If you use a physical key of some sort you're just making their job much easier.
steakman1971 said:
A search warrant/court order should be required. Period.
Click to expand...
They are required even the story linked it was a court order.
The question of whether a phone's pass code is constitutionally protected surfaced in the case of David Baust, an Emergency Medical Services captain charged in February with trying to strangle his girlfriend.

Prosecutors had said video equipment in Baust's bedroom may have recorded the couple's fight and, if so, the video could be on his cellphone. They wanted a judge to force Baust to unlock his phone, but Baust's attorney, James Broccoletti, argued pass codes are protected by the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits forced self-incrimination.

Judge Steven C. Frucci ruled this week that giving police a fingerprint is akin to providing a DNA or handwriting sample or an actual key, which the law permits. A pass code, though, requires the defendant to divulge knowledge, which the law protects against, according to Frucci's written opinion.

Broccoletti called Frucci's ruling on target. The law is clear about fingerprints, he said, and the judge saw his point about pass codes.

Macie Pridgen, a spokeswoman for the Commonwealth's Attorney's Office, said prosecutors still are considering whether to appeal.

Neither said they knew whether Baust's phone can be opened with just a fingerprint. Pridgen said prosecutors are having a detective look into it, and Broccoletti said Baust's phone could be encrypted twice - with both a fingerprint and a pass code. If so, it would remain locked under Frucci's ruling.
Click to expand...
 
Lith1um said:
Truthfully, we no longer care about protecting the "lesser" members of our society from the abuses of government. We are like the Nazi party, with a better PR firm. The only difference is that we don't pack freight trains, commit mass murders, and incinerate the remains.

The rest, we are keeping pace, step by step.
Click to expand...

Tk3NByC.jpg
 
Travolta said:
Can't you set the iPhone to erase all contents after a couple of failed attempts to unlock it? Then proceed to use the wrong finger. :confused:
Click to expand...

On the iPhone, you can set it to erase it, but AFAIK, it has to be wrong 10 times. To get the phone to stop accepting biometric input, it must be wrong 6 times, so if the ruling stands, they've got a better than 50% chance of unlocking your phone without a pass code.
 
Lith1um said:
You are wearing rose colored glasses, or just don't care to examine the reality.
Click to expand...

I've examined the reality and I think it's totally awesome EXCEPT we're waaay too nice to people who complain all the time about things and do the whole protesting thing. I really think there should be laws that make protesting illegal because of how disruptive it is to innocent people that are trying to get to work or go somewhere. Like those Occupy people who were out there basically to grope everyone. Or at least, we should set up some kind of area that's away from major population centers where it's legal to gather in protest. That way the rest of us who don't care don't have to put up with the fact that they're interrupting our routine.
 
You have to enter your password again after restarting the device, so if you are about to be arrested, quickly restart your phone.
 
GotNoRice said:
What are the cops going to do if you don't give them the code? Get all pouty? Give you a ticket?
Click to expand...

Failure to comply with an order from a court is generally considered "contempt of court" which is something that can usually earn you some time in jail too.
 
Touch ID idea has always been stupid for the reason that it can be defeated when you're unconcious since your fingerprints are exposed unlike a password that stays in your head. You can attempt to obscure which finger you use but that can be defeated with simple surveillance.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
I've examined the reality and I think it's totally awesome EXCEPT we're waaay too nice to people who complain all the time about things and do the whole protesting thing. I really think there should be laws that make protesting illegal because of how disruptive it is to innocent people that are trying to get to work or go somewhere. Like those Occupy people who were out there basically to grope everyone. Or at least, we should set up some kind of area that's away from major population centers where it's legal to gather in protest. That way the rest of us who don't care don't have to put up with the fact that they're interrupting our routine.
Click to expand...

If you're protesting where people don't see you protesting, then your protest is irrelevant. You shouldn't be able to block people from going to work/into a business and you shouldn't harass those people, but protesting should be allowed. I have no problem with people protesting outside family planning centers, so long as they don't harass those going in (possibly for an abortion possibly for other reasons).
 
nilepez said:
If you're protesting where people don't see you protesting, then your protest is irrelevant. You shouldn't be able to block people from going to work/into a business and you shouldn't harass those people, but protesting should be allowed. I have no problem with people protesting outside family planning centers, so long as they don't harass those going in (possibly for an abortion possibly for other reasons).
Click to expand...

That's silly though. Protesting really belongs in areas set aside for that purpose, like field or something the government owns outside the city limits. No one besides the people protesting wants to see it or be around it AND there are, without fail, oversexualized dirty people in the crowd who wanna play grabby-grabby with the people of the opposite gender they tricked into going out there to begin with. Besides that, protesters are usually the extremists people who are a fringe element that don't represent society as a whole. Like take the family planning protesters you're talking about. Those people are very extremist and probably don't have jobs or real life concerns so they put their noses in other peoples' business for the sole purpose of pushing their morality or beliefs on others to make them feel uncomfortable about seeking medical professionals so they don't have to make babies they know they don't want. They wanna deny birth control to people so they can retain societal power and force some absurdly outdated ideology on everyone else by robbing someone of the ability to manage their own bodily functions. Whatever, nutters...go protest where people can't see you.

Anyhow, that's sorta besides the point. I think that fingerprints should be allowed and this whole law against self-incrimination ought to be struck down so we don't let criminals go free when we can't force enough evidence out of them.
 
RazorWind said:
Failure to comply with an order from a court is generally considered "contempt of court" which is something that can usually earn you some time in jail too.
Click to expand...
"Some time" is a very nice way to put it. You can put in jail indefinitely for contempt of court.
 
TeeJayHoward said:
Looks like I was wrong. You can be put in jail for "up to" the maximum sentence for the crime committed.
Click to expand...

Okay, never mind, I was right the first time. It looks like it's dependent on state. Chadwick, for example, has been imprisoned for over a decade without a trial over "hiding" money in a divorce proceeding - Money that may not even exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top