Feds Walk Into A Building. Demand Everyone's Fingerprints To Open Phones

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I can't believe something like this is even legal. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has some serious questions about this as well but, until this is challenged in court, who knows how long this will go on.

FORBES found a court filing, dated May 9 2016, in which the Department of Justice sought to search a Lancaster, California, property. But there was a more remarkable aspect of the search, as pointed out in the memorandum: “authorization to depress the fingerprints and thumbprints of every person who is located at the SUBJECT PREMISES during the execution of the search and who is reasonably believed by law enforcement to be the user of a fingerprint sensor-enabled device that is located at the SUBJECT PREMISES and falls within the scope of the warrant.” The warrant was not available to the public, nor were other documents related to the case.
 
When has something being legal/illegal stopped any federal employee in a long time? It's why I'm not sure if I want to own a vehicle new enough that it can be stopped remotely through OnStar or whatever 'service' they want to call it.
 
Simple solution: Install an app that when a thumb print is used to "unlock" the phone, starts a sound file in the best Starship Troopers fashion, "I am a 30 second bomb, 30, 29, 28....", while wiping the phone. The real unlock code is a password which they can't compel.
 
no, nothing sketchy and illegal went down in this situation... just another day of business at the DOJ, who's "fuck shit up now, ask shit later" approach seem like policy. that badge makes emm feel super human, they forget the Human part.
 
Confirmation for one reason why I don't bring my personal phone to work.
 
Wow. Test instance much for being able to manufacture crimes and intimidate citizens; "I did not know about it till it was served… my family and I are trying to let this pass over because it was embarrassing to us and should’ve never happened.".
 
WTF? I've been unlocking my phone with my fingerprint mainly out of convenience for a while now. I don't have anything illegal or incriminating on my phone but this makes me want to go back to using a password again.
 
I only use a password on my phone. Screw stuff like this.

The whole DOJ needs to be wiped and rebooted from scratch.
 
I think perhaps they feel this is an extension of something they already do with cheek swabs for DNA. Difference is, with the cheek swabs, they think they will get a match to something they already have. This fingerprint/phone sweep is operating on the basis they might get something they don't know. Kind of b.s.

OK, maybe more than kind of.
 
How long until mobile phone makers have to implement plausible deniability into their devices?
Make your thumbprint unlock the Facebook cat video partition but have another method to unlock the real data.
 
I've said it for years, if you want to keep something secure:

-Never keep it on a phone/tablet etc, they can be easily broken
-Never use a "Quick access" feature such as voice or thumb prints, they can be exploited
-If you need to secure files, use 7zip with its highest compression setting with AES-256 and use a minimum of 100 characters for your password into a 7-zip file, even with a quantum computer the sun would burn out before it was broken

7-Zip is on the NSA's list of "We need a backdoor to this app" list for years now and for good reason, a 100 digit password locked file on it is unbreakable
 
Last edited:
spugm1r3 said:
I think perhaps they feel this is an extension of something they already do with cheek swabs for DNA. Difference is, with the cheek swabs, they think they will get a match to something they already have. This fingerprint/phone sweep is operating on the basis they might get something they don't know. Kind of b.s.

OK, maybe more than kind of.
Click to expand...

No the reasoning is this:

They need to convince the judge to let them go fishing on every phone at a location. You do actually have to convince a judge this is legal and legit, which would be highly variable with the situation I suspect. An example of where it owuld likley be approved and be legit. Lets say you had some brokerage firm had at least two indiviudals caught discussing insider trading, a pump and dump scam, or some other organized illegal activity via their phones. Add in some evidence that this is not limited to two people in the organization. Ask for a warrant to inspect all phones of all the employees and anyone on premises. Probably legit.

That out of the way, the phones are now essentially locked boxes of data by legal reasoning to date. So they are falling back to previous case law. That compelling the admission of knowledge (or as scotus seems to like to refer to it "the contents of his own mind") is not 100% cut and dry, but has a lot of case law showing it as a 5th amendment violation. Not to mention you can simply say I don't know or I forgot, and unless they are going to torture you or something, there's not much to do. It has been established that passcodes fall under this categorization as do combinations to locks. However, if you have a key, you can be compelled to present it. They treat biometrics as a key. The fact that the key is you is irrelevant as case law has shown with DNA and breathalyzer tests that you can be compelled to provide samples.

Honestly, reading up on precedent and if I were advising them, I'd just take the phones, bag them in RF blocking material, arrest everyone on site and process them. Take the fingerprint samples and produce gummi fingers to unlock them. But they want it to be fast and easy and fuck being mission creep.
 
What actually surprises me is that anyone is shocked by this at all. We have Secretaries of State that straight up lie and have people die under their watch. We have Attorney Generals that straight up lie, get away with it and walk away without even a slap on the wrist and we are surprised when others think they are above the law????????
 
raz-0 said:
No the reasoning is this:

They need to convince the judge to let them go fishing on every phone at a location. You do actually have to convince a judge this is legal and legit, which would be highly variable with the situation I suspect. An example of where it owuld likley be approved and be legit. Lets say you had some brokerage firm had at least two indiviudals caught discussing insider trading, a pump and dump scam, or some other organized illegal activity via their phones. Add in some evidence that this is not limited to two people in the organization. Ask for a warrant to inspect all phones of all the employees and anyone on premises. Probably legit.

That out of the way, the phones are now essentially locked boxes of data by legal reasoning to date. So they are falling back to previous case law. That compelling the admission of knowledge (or as scotus seems to like to refer to it "the contents of his own mind") is not 100% cut and dry, but has a lot of case law showing it as a 5th amendment violation. Not to mention you can simply say I don't know or I forgot, and unless they are going to torture you or something, there's not much to do. It has been established that passcodes fall under this categorization as do combinations to locks. However, if you have a key, you can be compelled to present it. They treat biometrics as a key. The fact that the key is you is irrelevant as case law has shown with DNA and breathalyzer tests that you can be compelled to provide samples.

Honestly, reading up on precedent and if I were advising them, I'd just take the phones, bag them in RF blocking material, arrest everyone on site and process them. Take the fingerprint samples and produce gummi fingers to unlock them. But they want it to be fast and easy and fuck being mission creep.
Click to expand...

Correct, the states government cannot make a person give up their password in order to decrypt a locked phone, however, the government is allowed to use means within the law to try to break the phone such as reverse engineering, code breaking etc.

What they did was illegal however is that they were taking peoples fingerprints and using them to unlock phones, which is the same as making a person give up information in order to open said phone, when fingerprints can only be taken to identify individuals.

So now we wait for the government to drag its feet forever saying "We didn't make the defendant give up anything" etc which we know to be total bullshit, but old men in their 70's their understanding of common tech is laughable at best and will take years to figure out that making a person give up their fingerprints to unlock a phone is the exact same as making a person give up their password to unlock a phone
 
ManofGod said:
What actually surprises me is that anyone is shocked by this at all. We have Secretaries of State that straight up lie and have people die under their watch. We have Attorney Generals that straight up lie, get away with it and walk away without even a slap on the wrist and we are surprised when others think they are above the law????????
Click to expand...
I'm surprised that you properly said "Secretaries of State" and then went on to improperly say "Attorney Generals."
 
ManofGod said:
What actually surprises me is that anyone is shocked by this at all. We have Secretaries of State that straight up lie and have people die under their watch. We have Attorney Generals that straight up lie, get away with it and walk away without even a slap on the wrist and we are surprised when others think they are above the law????????
Click to expand...

+1
Just like someone used the IRS to go after conservative groups.
If you think the scorched earth tactics of the election have been bad, just wait until Hillary (to big to prosecute) wins. She will make sure this country is turned into a 1 party country. Just look at what's happened in California, where Democrats have controlled every state wide office for the past several years. They changed the election laws so how we only have a choice between 2 Democrats for the open Senate seat.

Just remember: A government that is big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take it all away.
 
Armenius said:
I'm surprised that you properly said "Secretaries of State" and then went on to improperly say "Attorney Generals."
Click to expand...

I said nothing wrong, guess you need to learn the difference between singular and multiple. Yep, you are one of those.
 
ShamisOMally said:
I've said it for years, if you want to keep something secure:

-Never keep it on a phone/tablet etc, they can be easily broken
-Never use a "Quick access" feature such as voice or thumb prints, they can be exploited
-If you need to secure files, use 7zip with its highest compression setting with AES-256 and use a minimum of 100 characters for your password into a 7-zip file, even with a quantum computer the sun would burn out before it was broken

7-Zip is on the NSA's list of "We need a backdoor to this app" list for years now and for good reason, a 100 digit password locked file on it is unbreakable
Click to expand...

I like the idea of the 100+ character password. When they try to make me type it in under duress, it is guaranteed I'll muck it up.
 
Learn your rights!

Your fingerprint is NOT constitutionally protected!

A password pattern is NOT constitutionally protected!

A traditional password however IS PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION. The same amendments that prevent executives from incriminating themselves.
 
ZenDragon said:
WTF? I've been unlocking my phone with my fingerprint mainly out of convenience for a while now. I don't have anything illegal or incriminating on my phone but this makes me want to go back to using a password again.
Click to expand...
I have thought that this would happen ever since the whole thumb print reader thing started. I mean you can say "I forgot the password" but "I left my fingers at home" is a little harder to try.
 
This will just set a precedent that searches can happen before probable cause. It'll probably get to the supreme court.
 
I guess you just have to wear a false fingertip, then ditch it in an even like this, so your real ones won't unlock it. :p
 
ManofGod said:
What actually surprises me is that anyone is shocked by this at all. We have Secretaries of State that straight up lie and have people die under their watch. We have Attorney Generals that straight up lie, get away with it and walk away without even a slap on the wrist and we are surprised when others think they are above the law????????
Click to expand...


I stopped giving any fucks about any law the day I saw our justice system evaporate before my eyes. America has a multi tier justice system. People like Clinton and her co-conspirator do whatever the fuck they want, Wall Street bankers can open false accounts in their customers name without being charged, but every misstep by a common man results in the state applying it's full weight until 98 percent of criminal trials end in plea bargain. The system convicted Al Capone because it wanted to convict Al Capone, the system didn't want to convict Clinton because she is the system, and she knows where everyone's skeletons are buried.
 
My people came to this country and started the United States of America to avoid this sort of crap and get away from corrupt tyrannical overlords. This is why I conceal carry, why I work for myself and why I have a plan. If we get kilary into office this is only the beginning of the loss of your freedoms.
 
I've never setup biometrics on my phone for two main reasons

1. Fingerprint unlock can be exploited

2. If someone steals your fingerprint, you can never change it

A phone is not worthy of using biometrics...nothing on it is confidential enough to warrant it. And this article helps justify my decision! I'll stick with my 8 character password.
 
AK0tA said:
My people came to this country and started the United States of America to avoid this sort of crap and get away from corrupt tyrannical overlords. This is why I conceal carry, why I work for myself and why I have a plan. If we get kilary into office this is only the beginning of the loss of your freedoms.
Click to expand...

Change 'kilary (which is just childish name calling)' with any candidate ever, and this has been stated each election.
 
spugm1r3 said:
I think perhaps they feel this is an extension of something they already do with cheek swabs for DNA. Difference is, with the cheek swabs, they think they will get a match to something they already have. This fingerprint/phone sweep is operating on the basis they might get something they don't know. Kind of b.s.

OK, maybe more than kind of.
Click to expand...


Exactly, actually, forcing people to unlock their phones for a search by warrant doesn't actually bother me as long as they have that whole "reasonable cause" thing straight. What bothers me is I don't see anything in this warrant that describes what they are searching for and last I checked they have to specify what they are trying to find as evidence. Doesn't mean that in the course of their search they might find other evidence of other unknown crimes, but it seems like they must at least say what they intend to find and how it is linked to a crime.

It seems to me like that is whats missing and that a Judge signed off on this is even more bothersome. Were they actually issued the warrant or did the judge turn the idiots down?

Jennifer Lynch, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), added: “It’s not enough for a government to just say we have a warrant to search this house and therefore this person should unlock their phone. The government needs to say specifically what information they expect to find on the phone, how that relates to criminal activity
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Simple solution: Disable Phone Unlock but use fingerprint for everything else like purchases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top