FBI Forced Suspect to Unlock iPhone Using FaceID

[TheBuzzer]

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.

No. Most of my court case with stuff I told the fbi that was used against me. Anything you say can be used against you.

 

[DNMock]

Anyone else notice that child pornography is the FBI/CIA/NSA's favorite go to for whenever they want to violate constitutional rights or set precedence?

Remember the CIA guy who was leaking classified information supposedly and when nothing would stick he magically turned up with a ton of child porn in his house? Last I heard he had been sitting in jail without bond, awaiting an undisclosed court date...

Now they set precedent for using facial recognition to unlock a device and look at where they decided to set it. Not murder, not grand theft, it's their old friend, pedophilia to the rescue.

 

[mygreeneggsandham]

As long as the Police has a warrant to search his property then there is nothing wrong. Obviously they had some indication of wrongdoing or they wouldn’t have been at his home. If he is indeed a pedophile or trafficking in child pornography then they need to throw the book at him and loose the key.

 

[mygreeneggsandham]

Anyone else notice that child pornography is the FBI/CIA/NSA's favorite go to for whenever they want to violate constitutional rights or set precedence?

Remember the CIA guy who was leaking classified information supposedly and when nothing would stick he magically turned up with a ton of child porn in his house? Last I heard he had been sitting in jail without bond, awaiting an undisclosed court date...

Now they set precedent for using facial recognition to unlock a device and look at where they decided to set it. Not murder, not grand theft, it's their old friend, pedophilia to the rescue.

If this dude were some whistleblower or a real journalist or some other individual that is inconvenient to the powerful, then I would be inclined to believe the conspiracy. But pretty much all kiddie porn rings are monitored by law enforcement. And when they can positively ID a user that person gets a knock on the door. That is why so many get busted all the time.

 

[harbingerofdoom]

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?

please clarify your statement. are you saying that you are in favor of removing the rights of individuals based solely on the crimes they are being ACCUSED of without any trial?

 

[kinjo]

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?

Whatever disagreements I may have with people in regards to how to interpret the constitution. I do wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment/statement. People are far to willing to throw away our constitutional rights in order to "Catch the bad guy" or "save the children" And it certainly is convenient that our justice system always uses CP cases as the litmus test when they want to do something that seems constitutionally questionable. the way things are today if you are ever accused of any offense involving a child or a woman it's almost as if you might as well just throw yourself in jail without a trial because the presumption of innocence go's straight out the window.

It's also amazingly convenient how many people the government does not like (Eg. Cody Wilson, Edward Snowden Julian Assange) end up being accused of those sorts of things after they do something the government does not like.

 

[Crackinjahcs]

And if you genuinely forget it, fuck you for life, right?

No. In general, criminal contempt (punitive) is limited to less than 6 months before due process/jury trial and civil contempt (contempt normally used for coercive purposes) is normally limited to 18 months.

Then there are Rule 42 and Rule 37 items and interaction with 18 U.S.C § 401 where general rules, burden of proof, and direct and indirect contempt begin to create their own interactions and problems.

If you "forgot" the password then determining your "ability to comply with the order" and whether you "diligently attempted to comply" are, unfortunately, left to the court to determine.

From https://www.bafirm.com/publication/federal-contempt-of-court/

Before imposing civil contempt sanctions based upon the violation of a court order, a court only must conclude:
(1) the underlying order violated was valid and lawful;
(2) the underlying order was clear, definite, and unambiguous; and
(3) the contemnor had the ability to comply with the underlying order.

Another court has provided similar guidance by requiring that the moving party establish that:
(1) the order the contemnor failed to comply with is clear and unambiguous,
(2) the proof of the noncompliance is clear and convincing, and
(3) the contemnor has not diligently attempted to comply in a reasonable manner

Edit: punctuation

 

[g00z13]

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.

we can't pick and choose what rules to enforce. Goes back to freedom of speech along the lines of, "i may not like what you say but i will defend your right to say it."

Now i'm all for defending cops putting away a pedo but whats to stop them from using the same tactics against an average citizen. what then? it's a crazy world we live in.

 

[DocNo]

You can also hold the power and a volume button for two seconds and it will disable the biometrics, in addition to pressing the power button five times.

But if your doing creepy shit, skipping the biometrics is probably a better idea altogether.

 

[umeng2002]

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.

That's why the Feds set these precedents with cases no-one wants to be seen defending.

 

[umeng2002]

This also says more on the idea that Silicon Valley thinks biometric based access is secure.

Everyone who follows privacy laws and court cases, knows that your biometric data is pretty much public information.

 

[g00z13]

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.

Exactly, we have so few rights now that we should be fighting tooth and nail for what we have left. the government is corrupt in so many aspects, companies dictate instead of politicians. It's just crazy. Even if the guy is a shitstain he will mess up and they can get him then. forcing him to unlock it is crossing a line for everyone involved. remember the case with the fbi and apple a few years ago? about the bombers and his wife i think

 

[sfsuphysics]

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.

Because a pin code is something that is in your head, your finger prints or your face isn't. Your finger prints are taken when you are booked in jail, some might argue that itself my cause "self incrimination" as they can use that to find out who you are, or find you were at the scene of a crime. It would be the same as if you wrote your pin on your arm so you wouldn't forget, it's not self incrimination in the least.

That said, not sure how they "forced" him to use his face. "LOOK AT THIS PHONE!" is umm... yeah, I really don't have any problem with this and it has nothing to do with the case, if you want to secure your stuff with very weak protection (aren't their videos showing a picture/mask can fool it?), then you kind of deserve to have your shit unlocked.

 

[BloodyIron]

Except, due to the fifth amendment, the onus is on the FBI to provide evidence, not compel him to self-incriminate by unlocking his own phone.

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.

 

[nilepez]

Glad they caught him, but this is also why you don't use a finger or face to unlock a device. It's all good here, but my phone has way too much info to turn over to the police.

 

[M76]

With the way they throw around child pornography charges in the US, I'd refuse to open my phone even if it only had pictures of my own children. What the heck even if only of myself as a child.

 

[Meeho]

No. In general, criminal contempt (punitive) is limited to less than 6 months before due process/jury trial and civil contempt (contempt normally used for coercive purposes) is normally limited to 18 months.

Then there are Rule 42 and Rule 37 items and interaction with 18 U.S.C § 401 where general rules, burden of proof, and direct and indirect contempt begin to create their own interactions and problems.

If you "forgot" the password then determining your "ability to comply with the order" and whether you "diligently attempted to comply" are, unfortunately, left to the court to determine.

From https://www.bafirm.com/publication/federal-contempt-of-court/

Before imposing civil contempt sanctions based upon the violation of a court order, a court only must conclude:
(1) the underlying order violated was valid and lawful;
(2) the underlying order was clear, definite, and unambiguous; and
(3) the contemnor had the ability to comply with the underlying order.

Another court has provided similar guidance by requiring that the moving party establish that:
(1) the order the contemnor failed to comply with is clear and unambiguous,
(2) the proof of the noncompliance is clear and convincing, and
(3) the contemnor has not diligently attempted to comply in a reasonable manner

Edit: punctuation

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...ailed-2-years-for-refusing-to-decrypt-drives/

 

[DNMock]

If this dude were some whistleblower or a real journalist or some other individual that is inconvenient to the powerful, then I would be inclined to believe the conspiracy. But pretty much all kiddie porn rings are monitored by law enforcement. And when they can positively ID a user that person gets a knock on the door. That is why so many get busted all the time.

I'm not calling into question that the dude may well be a pedo, I'm wondering if the FBI intentionally waited to set this precedent specifically on a pedo bust since, generally speaking, if anyone group of lawbreakers are considered sub-human, it's pedophiles. Hell, people sympathize with the shooters from Columbine and Sandy Hook more than they can sympathize with a pedo.

I mean, think about it. Bill Cosby drugged and raped how many women and he is less reviled than someone with kiddie porn on their computer who didn't physically harm anyone. Nothing is more hated in our society than pedo's and for good reason. Exploiting that fact for legal precedent just seems horribly wrong though.