Court Rules Police Can Force Users to Unlock iPhones With Fingerprints, But Not Passcodes

So much for biometric security (not that I thought that was a good idea).

Keep those passwords.

www.macrumors.com...

A Circuit Court judge in Virginia has ruled that fingerprints are not protected by the Fifth Amendment, a decision that has clear privacy implications for fingerprint-protected devices like newer iPhones and iPads. According to Judge Steven C. Fucci, while a criminal defendant can't be compelled to hand over a passcode to police officers for the purpose of unlocking a cellular device, law enforcement officials can compel a defendant to give up a fingerprint.

The Fifth Amendment states that "no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," which protects memorized information like passwords and passcodes, but it does not extend to fingerprints in the eyes of the law, as speculated by Wired last year.

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.

The ruling stemmed from a case involving David Baust, who was accused of strangling his girlfriend. Prosecutors believed Baust may have stored video of the attack on his phone, and requested that the judge force him to unlock it. If protected by a passcode, Baust will not be required to unlock his phone under the Fifth Amendment, but if protected with a fingerprint, he could potentially be forced to unlock the device.

If Baust's phone is an iPhone that's equipped with Touch ID, it's very likely that it will be passcode locked at this point and thus protected by law. Touch ID requires a passcode after 48 hours of disuse, a restart, or three failed fingerprint entry attempts, and the device has probably been in police custody for quite some time. It is unclear if the judge's ruling will have an impact on future cases involving cellular devices protected with fingerprint sensors, as it could be overturned by an appeal or a higher court.

My phone has a few games on it and a few pictures of me at Disneyland. All the important information I keep in my quantum encrypted memory.

At this point with our legal system, or lack there of, a car should have a phone shredder. Get pulled over, drop in the phone. If the police demand the phone, hand them the tray full of broken phone and let them know they are welcome to reassemble it and take a look around in it.

a reply to: infolurker

law enforcement officials can compel a defendant to give up a fingerprint.

Can't wait to hear of accidental "thumbings" occurring in the field behind this.

"He resisted your honor so we had to cut it off."

They seem to resist certain invasions of privacy for a while, but its not much of a resistance. Eventually they overrule their over rulings.

Every war torn technology to "catch the bad guys" eventually makes its way here. This one will, too:

images

a reply to: intrptr

You are going to shoot your eye out.

Maybe blind people are the future of spying.

Who wants to bet that fingerprint passwords become industry standard in short order?

This is another massive blow to our constitutional rights and a huge victory for the fascist police state we are becoming.

I wish those American patriots who whine about the 2nd amendment would finally exercise that right for its intended purpose. Sadly they are as docile as the rest of us

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: intrptr

You are going to shoot your eye out.

Maybe blind people are the future of spying.

One day, in the future, road side stops will be, "Just get out so we can make you walk a line, have a dog sniff your crotch, take a pin prick of blood, a lock of hair, a thumb print, iris scan, breathalyzer and a battery of anti terror suspect questions. And do you mind if we search your vehicle?" Thoroughly humiliated and your stuff riffled, you may now go on your way.

Don't get one single hurdle wrong.

a reply to: intrptr

Don't forget the quantum mind probe to determine if a person is, or ever has, thought about committing a crime.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: intrptr

You are going to shoot your eye out.

Maybe blind people are the future of spying.

One day, in the future, road side stops will be, "Just get out so we can make you walk a line, have a dog sniff your crotch, take a pin prick of blood, a lock of hair, a thumb print, iris scan, breathalyzer and a battery of anti terror suspect questions. And do you mind if we search your vehicle?" Thoroughly humiliated and your stuff riffled, you may now go on your way.

Don't get one single hurdle wrong.

You forgot "forfeit your cash" as it may have been used illegally. Or you may be thinking of using it for something wrong. And don't forget those "forced enemas and cavity searches", they saw you clench your buttocks!

Next they will have roadblocks to "relieve you" of your gold and silver watches and rings.

That is why I use my eleventh digit... Or male part to unlock my phone.. Duhuh
don't tell the cops.

So why are cell phones protected and Personal Computers are not? Just asking.

Easy solution:

have a friend or family member use their fingerprint as your biometric key to unlock your phone. Then set your phone so that you must manually lock it rather than it timing out and locking itself.

Cops try to make you unlock it with your fingerprint and it doesn't work..."sorry officer, I don't know why it won't unlock"

a reply to: LeatherNLace

They'll probably just issue a warrant for each and every single family member you have to come in and try their finger. (Knowing the government, this probably would happen...)

a reply to: StoutBroux

In the article: iPhone, a cellphone. It has nothing to do with what devices are protected, but how they're protected and which protection law enforcement is allowed to force you to unlock for them.

**Edit**
Forgot to add my 0.2 Amero's to the subject. I think it's insane. Biometric security serves the same purpose as any other means of security: To keep something secure. For the courts to rule that one and not the other doesn't fall under the 5th, it just shows you how truly inept our government can be.

I never keep any personal information on my devices. I either have an external hard drive that's encrypted within encrypted folders, or in my head. I've never been a fan of biometric security either. I had it on a laptop once, a Hewlett Packard I bought to use with work. I set up the fingerprint sensor, used it twice and went back to writing my password to log in instead.