FBI Forced Suspect to Unlock iPhone Using FaceID

AlphaAtlas

[H]ard|Gawd
Staff member
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
1,713
According to documents found by Forbes, the FBI forced 28 year old Grant Michalski to unlock his iPhone X with his face as they searched his home in Colombus, Ohio. Forbes claims this is the first case of "any police agency" forcing a suspect to open their phone with FaceID "anywhere in the world, not just in America." Police already have tools to bypass password locks, even without Apple's help, and the FBI have forced suspects to unlock phones with fingerprints before. Michalski was eventually charged with "receiving and possessing child pornography."

"Traditionally, using a person's face as evidence or to obtain evidence would be considered lawful," said Jerome Greco, staff attorney at the Legal Aid Society. "But never before have we had so many people's own faces be the key to unlock so much of their private information."
 
I don’t see the big deal, he was home the phone was in the home, if it was a safe or a strong box located in the house he would have been forced to open it too. This just works because unlike a password you can’t “forget” your face or fingerprints. I’m just happy there’s one less child pornographer out there.
 
This is why it's my company's policy that before going through TSA or if you suspect your phone will be taken from you, you are required to turn the phone off. After a reboot a password is required. I don't have a phone with faceid so I hope it's the same way.

Don't feel like his rights were violated, and fuck that guy.
 
Isn't there siome right against self-incrimination in the U.S. to protect you? I am pretty sure unlocking your phone for them with your face qualifies as self-incrimination if there is something to be found on it.
They can't compel you to give them a password or PIN but they can use biometrics to unlock if nothing else is required. See my post just after yours.
 
Heh, should have made an ugly face that didn't trigger the unlock.
 
Isn't there siome right against self-incrimination in the U.S. to protect you? I am pretty sure unlocking your phone for them with your face qualifies as self-incrimination if there is something to be found on it.
Sort of...
 
It just takes 5 quick pushes of the wake button to disable faceid and requires a pin inout to re-enable. We do need some, can't believe I am saying this, new laws to update our rights in this digital age. That being said, given what we know of social media and the cell phone carriers in the US, do we really have an expectation of privacy when using a web/cellular device?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DocNo
like this
Isn't there siome right against self-incrimination in the U.S. to protect you? I am pretty sure unlocking your phone for them with your face qualifies as self-incrimination if there is something to be found on it.
If the device was within the scope of the warrant, which TFA states, then his rights were not violated.
 
I have mixed feelings about this whole "make sure you turn off FACEID!!" Had FaceID been turned off, they may not have been able to get into his phone, and thus a pedo may not have been sent to prison. Its a tough question to ask, but are you ok with criminals actually getting away with their acts just so you don't have the police going through your phone when you are accused of a crime? Answers from both sides will come out in regards to that question, but at this moment, I'm ok with FaceID because I'm also not a person who's going to be doing anything illegal and thus require police to search said phone. (That I know of) In a digital age, the ability to search one's PC/Phone becomes critically important in convictions and if we lock it all down so that nobody can access it, that does mean people will get away and people will suffer/be killed because of the idea of "my privacy above all".

Its like TV shows or movies where one person's moral decision results in many people killed. Like in Killjoys... the inability to kill Aneela is basically meaning that many other people have to die just so that she can live. I personally hate that concept in TV because it's such an unfair concept yet one that's touted as so noble. Its the same thing here to a degree. Your unlockable phone will mean that others will suffer due to the inability for justice to occur.
 
Last edited:
I have mixed feelings about this whole "make sure you turn off FACEID!!" Had FaceID been turned off, they may not have been able to get into his phone, and thus a pedo may not have been sent to prison. Its a tough question to ask, but are you ok with criminals actually getting away with their acts just so you don't have the police going through your phone when you are accused of a crime? Answers from both sides will come out in regards to that question, but at this moment, I'm ok with FaceID because I'm also not a person who's going to be doing anything illegal and thus require police to search said phone. (That I know of) In a digital age, the ability to search one's PC/Phone becomes critically important in convictions and if we lock it all down so that nobody can access it, that does mean people will get away and people will suffer/be killed because of the idea of "my privacy above all".

Its like TV shows or movies where one person's moral decision results in many people killed. Like in Killjoys... the inability to kill Aneela is basically meaning that many other people have to die just so that she can live. I personally hate that concept in TV because it's such an unfair concept yet one that's touted as so noble.
Pedo or not, had the device not been within the scope of the warrant then I would not be okay with forcing the suspect to unlock the phone. In that case he would be protected by the 4th Amendment, recently reaffirmed by the SCOTUS. "Think of the children" is a dangerous line of reasoning when it comes to freedom.
 
Quote "Michalski was eventually charged with "receiving and possessing child pornography."

It was a good call on the cop's part then !!
 
Pedo or not, had the device not been within the scope of the warrant then I would not be okay with forcing the suspect to unlock the phone. In that case he would be protected by the 4th Amendment, recently reaffirmed by the SCOTUS. "Think of the children" is a dangerous line of reasoning when it comes to freedom.

Agreed, but there is a fine line. Within the scope of the warrant is very important, but I see that scope being extended to MANY warrants in the future due to how important it is to know those details for a crime. In a couple years, I would honestly be surprised if warrants DON'T automatically include the mobile device.
 
Agreed, but there is a fine line. Within the scope of the warrant is very important, but I see that scope being extended to MANY warrants in the future due to how important it is to know those details for a crime. In a couple years, I would honestly be surprised if warrants DON'T automatically include the mobile device.
It comes down to the judge issuing the warrant. Some will not accept generalized language while others will find it perfectly acceptable.
 
Gotta Side with the FBI on this one. Compelling you to give a password or pin or safe combination is absolutely unconstitutional and would fall under 5th amendment protection against self incrimination. The constitution gives no such protection to biometric information. If you were to give such a protection It would basically undermine the use of physical evidence in all criminal cases making it nearly impossible to prosecute a great many crimes.
 
Not a shock a Child Porn or Terrorism case is used to set this precedent. That's a deliberate tactic the government uses to erode liberties... only terrorist and pedo's need privacy, right? Everyone who thinks it's fine just because of the crime involved doesn't understand it will soon be used by cops at random traffic stops. I don't even use Touch ID on my phone, just a long password.

Anyways, anyone who knows something about the law knows that this is the biggest loophole with biometric data.

Relieving a passcode involves compelled speech which would violate multiple US Amendments. A thumbprint can be cloned... and holding a phone to someone's face is even easier... and doesn't involve disclosing anything that isn't public.

I don't disagree with the ruling though. Just be careful of the slippery slope... remember, governments want backdoors put in to encryption systems... at first for terrorism... then it'll be used for everything.

It's already too easy for cops to get warrants.
 
Last edited:
Gotta Side with the FBI on this one. Compelling you to give a password or pin or safe combination is absolutely unconstitutional and would fall under 5th amendment protection against self incrimination. The constitution gives no such protection to biometric information. If you were to give such a protection It would basically undermine the use of physical evidence in all criminal cases making it nearly impossible to prosecute a great many crimes.
Next you're going to tell us that the 1st Amendment only applies to muskets, and the 2nd Amendment only applies to printing presses.
 
It is truly frightening how many people in this thread are willing to throw away constitutional protections just because this guy was a shitstain. It saddens me how many people have fought and died to guarantee those protections and people are so uneducated today they don't care because they can't see the dangerous precedent this sets.
 
Next you're going to tell us that the 1st Amendment only applies to muskets, and the 2nd Amendment only applies to printing presses.
Screen Shot 2018-10-01 at 1.23.02 PM.png
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2018-10-01 at 1.23.02 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2018-10-01 at 1.23.02 PM.png
    701.1 KB · Views: 0
That is why you should only use a password/pin. A fingerprint or faceID can be forced. A password/pin cannot.

iOS forces the use of the pin/passcode after 12 hours of no use, a restart, or you hit the standby button 5 times in a row.

So if the cops enter your house just quick hit the standby button 5 times and the phone now requires the pin/passcode. There is no reason not to still use touch/Face ID for the reason you mention, and I wish people would do a little research before commenting on this.
 
Next you're going to tell us that the 1st Amendment only applies to muskets, and the 2nd Amendment only applies to printing presses.

No but I am going to tell you that biometric data and physical evidence is fundamentally different than testimony. If the police can take your photo or take your fingerprints without violating your 5th amendment rights then they can also use your face and fingerprints to unlock your phone.

Look I am always on the side of preserving and protecting our constitutional rights and I am the last person in the world to trust Law enforcement (frankly they are most cases simply willing tools used by those with power to oppress those with out power); but in this case people are ascribing constitutional protection where none exists. Using biometric and physical evidence compelling finger prints etc are all settled law at this point. If this were a case of some judge holding a man in in contempt for not giving a password or the FBI forcing a tech company to break encryption I would be right there with you but it's not.
 
iOS forces the use of the pin/passcode after 12 hours of no use, a restart, or you hit the standby button 5 times in a row.

So if the cops enter your house just quick hit the standby button 5 times and the phone now requires the pin/passcode. There is no reason not to still use touch/Face ID for the reason you mention, and I wish people would do a little research before commenting on this.

Lol because they'll gladly wait for you to grab your phone and mess around instead of immediately putting you in handcuffs while they search the place.

Anyway, if using your fingerprints or DNA against you isn't self incrimination then using your face isn't either; all it's doing is establishing your relationship to a crime. The whole argument is stupid, may as well say you can't use video evidence of someone because they never gave consent to be filmed. No sympathy for child porn folks anyway, they kind of deserve to get shit on.
 
I have mixed feelings about this whole "make sure you turn off FACEID!!" Had FaceID been turned off, they may not have been able to get into his phone, and thus a pedo may not have been sent to prison. Its a tough question to ask, but are you ok with criminals actually getting away with their acts just so you don't have the police going through your phone when you are accused of a crime? Answers from both sides will come out in regards to that question, but at this moment, I'm ok with FaceID because I'm also not a person who's going to be doing anything illegal and thus require police to search said phone. (That I know of) In a digital age, the ability to search one's PC/Phone becomes critically important in convictions and if we lock it all down so that nobody can access it, that does mean people will get away and people will suffer/be killed because of the idea of "my privacy above all".

Its like TV shows or movies where one person's moral decision results in many people killed. Like in Killjoys... the inability to kill Aneela is basically meaning that many other people have to die just so that she can live. I personally hate that concept in TV because it's such an unfair concept yet one that's touted as so noble. Its the same thing here to a degree. Your unlockable phone will mean that others will suffer due to the inability for justice to occur.

Your situation is the exact reason the protection exists. Imagine they are trying to pin you for something you didn't do, but in their eyes they are certain you did it. They might try to use innocent things you have on your phone to try and prove you did the crime.

You speak as though innocent people never get convicted of anything. I'd say you are 100% correct they are free to look through our stuff if this were true, but we live in an imperfect world so unfortunately there are innocent people convicted all the time. The laws are there to protect innocent people, not the guilty people... it's just unfortunate that there is no perfect justice system. We wouldn't need laws to begin with if there was always 100% certainty as to who did what crime and there was no disagreements as to what the punishments should be.

So since we have a world full of imperfect people, laws like these exists and unfortunately guilty people are not found guilty and innocent people are found guilty all the time. You as a self proclaimed crime-free person (I'm not challenging that BTW, but I don't know you so I can't say that with certainty) should cling to every protection you are afforded.

Get the lawyer, then unlock your phone.

That said, so-long child porn scumbag! Mistakes / grey areas that happen in FAVOR of justice are not something I'll ever lose sleep over. Of course, I hope no one set him up by putting content on his phone ;)
 
The constitution gives no such protection to biometric information.

The Constitution was written before we even had electricity, let alone biometrics.

I don't understand how not giving a pin code is protected but a fingerprint isn't just because it can be easily accessed myself.
 
It's so annoying that every single time when there is a violation of privacy rights like this, it's always against some creepy child porn criminal, and thus becomes very difficult to argue against.
 
The Constitution was written before we even had electricity, let alone biometrics.

I don't understand how not giving a pin code is protected but a fingerprint isn't just because it can be easily accessed myself.


This right here is the problem with a strict originalist interpretation of the constitution.

Our founding fathers were brilliant people, but even they could not see into the future. That's why these things need to at least try to get at the original intent of of the constitution, not just the original wording, and I feel rather strongly that our founding fathers, given how concerned they were with tyranny of governments, like that of King George III they had recently lived under would have intended these freedoms to be interpreted as providing the maximum possible protection of the individual from any government.
 
If you use a personalized tracking device, expect law enforcement to want access to it. The PTD is too easy a target and almost always has incriminating evidence. The smart person might find/create an app that mimics FaceID or fingerprint unlock but when used for authentication, does an encrypted write of all user storage followed by a factory reset.

"Don't know what happened, Your Honor. The nice detective threatened me with all sorts of obstruction charges if I didn't unlock the phone with my face. I was just following his instructions. Can I go now? I have to buy a new phone since the detective broke mine."
 
I don’t see the big deal, he was home the phone was in the home, if it was a safe or a strong box located in the house he would have been forced to open it too. This just works because unlike a password you can’t “forget” your face or fingerprints. I’m just happy there’s one less child pornographer out there.
Name one right of a child pornographer you would not sacrifice to convict one?

Don't want them out and about either, but There's almost no right you can't justify taking away from all of us if you position it between justice and the c.p.

Isn't it strange all these test cases are a c.p. or a terrorist?
 
  • Like
Reactions: kinjo
like this
Isn't there siome right against self-incrimination in the U.S. to protect you? I am pretty sure unlocking your phone for them with your face qualifies as self-incrimination if there is something to be found on it.


Self incrimination is not a shield against allowing search with due process of the law.

"Jesus Judge, you can't make me open that safe, all the evidence the cops want is in their, I'll go to jail for sure"

A person's actions are what incriminates him, documents and other evidence may support as evidence of those actions, but they are not what incriminates him, his actions are.

I don't know why anyone seems to think that allowing a lawful search amounts to self-incrimination.
 
Name one right of a child pornographer you would not sacrifice to convict one?

Don't want them out and about either, but There's almost no right you can't justify taking away from all of us if you position it between justice and the c.p.

Isn't it strange all these test cases are a c.p. or a terrorist?
None of his rights were violated, they had a valid warrant. The device was found in the location the warrant was executed in and was named in the warrant. If he had not unlocked it on site he would have been court ordered to do so, then he would have conveniently forgotten the password where he would have been held in contempt until the police had gained entry into the phone through the use of a 3'rd party. All they did in this case was use a feature built into the phone that the owner had activated to save 6-8 months of bureaucratic mess.
 
Isn't there siome right against self-incrimination in the U.S. to protect you? I am pretty sure unlocking your phone for them with your face qualifies as self-incrimination if there is something to be found on it.

they've been chipping away at the 4th for years.

washington is probably spinning in his grave.
 
As far as pedo's go - may they all burn in hell forever.

As to unlocking a phone, I would treat it like a house or file cabinet. If you lock your door, and they have a lawful warrant, they can break it down to gain access. Biometrics such as face ID and fingerprint require only your presence, and are non-invasive, which the court can compel. They should not be able to force you to "be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" - which, by extension, could include knowing and being forced to provide a password to a device you own that contains illegal material.

Holding someone in contempt while the brute force attempts are made against something included in the lawful warrant (safe, storage unit, phone, HDD, etc.) are also, IMO, ok.
 
The Constitution was written before we even had electricity, let alone biometrics.

I don't understand how not giving a pin code is protected but a fingerprint isn't just because it can be easily accessed myself.

It's protected because you can reasonably say that you've forgotten the password. If you stash incriminating documents in a safe that doesn't mean that the police simply shrug and walk away, they break out the drill or look for the keys. In this case the keys are your face and fingerprints and it's your fault for storing criminal stuff on a device someone else can access just by putting your face in front of it. Judges have tried to compel people to give up their passwords and jailed them for failing to do so but ultimately no one can force information out of your mind...yet
 
Holding someone in contempt while the brute force attempts are made against something included in the lawful warrant (safe, storage unit, phone, HDD, etc.) are also, IMO, ok.
And if you genuinely forget it, fuck you for life, right?
 
It's so annoying that every single time when there is a violation of privacy rights like this, it's always against some creepy child porn criminal, and thus becomes very difficult to argue against.

I know you were probably being sarcastic but it's deliberate, pick a slam dunk case on an emotive topic like terrorism or child pornography that won't play badly in the media. Push the boundary, get that held up in court. w00t established case law.

This whole thing is a tough one, I know in a lot of cases the police can't make a case without the phones (why some syndicates are still using blackberries) but then noone should be compelled to action or testimony. Throw in the fact that backdoors are a terrible idea and it's all a paradox.

That aside, you have no idea of the dissonance in having liberal, conservative, and libertarian views depending on the topic. It's a complex world but they just want us to have a binary political view of it.
 
Back
Top