Everybody in this general area, unlock your phones

[Nightfall]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2016/10/16/doj-demands-mass-fingerprint-seizure-to-open-iphones/

TL;DR takeaway: don't use fingerprint lock on anything you want to stay locked. I think that point has been hashed over on APS before, but it's worth repeating.

[HeroHog]

Yup! I pointed this out a while back. The new iOS allows REAL passwords now, not just dinky 4 number PINs.

[Scout26]

So the warrant basically reads:

"We don't know what we are looking for, but when we find it, we'll let the court know."

[Ben]

Did we ever decide if the language can be interpreted to include biometric safes?

[KD5NRH]

Did we ever decide if the language can be interpreted to include biometric safes?

And can a safe be made that works off semen samples?  I mean, if they're gonna make me unlock it, they should at least have to watch that.

[RevDisk]

Did we ever decide if the language can be interpreted to include biometric safes?

Yes. You can be legally compelled to provide any biometric, even blood sample, by warrant. That's why few folks recommend biometric security, along with its fairly dismal performance unless you go with high end systems.

Compelling to provide passwords and encryption keys are... more mirky. There is no law on the matter. Some courts do not see it as a violation of the Fifth Amendment, some courts do. Worst case, if the evidence could give you a longer sentence than contempt of court, you shut up and take the contempt of court.

Though in some states with a broken or corrupt judicial branch, like Pennsylvania, we put a guy in prison for 14 years for not paying up in a divorce case, when it wasn't known or proven that he actually had access to the funds in order to actually do so. Fed max is 18 months. Mind you, he did nearly a decade and a half without trial or being found guilty of a crime.

[HankB]

Fingerprint 1 unlocks the device.

Fingerprints 2-10 wipe it.

[HeroHog]

Tell them it's set to only recognize a certain part of the head of yer erect manhood.

[Firethorn]

Fingerprint 1 unlocks the device.

Fingerprints 2-10 wipe it.

A better option is that the device actually has 2 images - the one that you have stuff you want to protect on, and one that is 'clean' of that, but used enough to look, well, used.

So you provide the 'wrong' print, then maybe 1-2 more wrong ones, at which point the device automatically 'forgets' the first image exists and just always goes to the 2nd clean one.

[RevDisk]

Fingerprint 1 unlocks the device.

Fingerprints 2-10 wipe it.

Legally, that's a bad idea. Assuming they can't clone the original device...  destruction of evidence usually comes with stiff penalties. Better to either not use biometrics, or biometrics and a passcode. Better yet is to not keep incriminating evidence on your cell phone. Most of the cops I know tell me usually criminals just put incriminating photos on their facebook page anyways.

A better option is that the device actually has 2 images - the one that you have stuff you want to protect on, and one that is 'clean' of that, but used enough to look, well, used.

So you provide the 'wrong' print, then maybe 1-2 more wrong ones, at which point the device automatically 'forgets' the first image exists and just always goes to the 2nd clean one.

Unfortunately there's no phones that currently allow this. Bit complicated to achieve even on a PC.

[dogmush]

Legally, that's a bad idea. Assuming they can't clone the original device...  destruction of evidence usually comes with stiff penalties. Better to either not use biometrics, or biometrics and a passcode. Better yet is to not keep incriminating evidence on your cell phone. Most of the cops I know tell me usually criminals just put incriminating photos on their facebook page anyways.

QFTMFT.

Obviously, don't do illegal things.*

That said we here probably range from "a lot more security conscious" to "exponentially more security conscious" then the vast majority of Americans.  I use the fingerprint lock on my GS7 because it's convenient and keeps my coworkers from taking dick pics if I leave it on my desk.  Yes the .gov could force me to unlock it and get my Gmail, my pictures, and my Panda Pop scores. 

Stuff I don't want anyone, or agents of the .gov, to find gets encrypted on a laptop.

I agree that this warrant is pretty much crap, but at this point the law is pretty much what it is.  If you put it on a phone, or link it to a phone, the cops can get it if they want it.  Pretty much period.  Conduct your mobile computing selves accordingly.

*Mandatory Disclaimer.

[230RN]

"Legally, that's a bad idea. Assuming they can't clone the original device...  destruction of evidence usually comes with stiff penalties."

You could always change your name to Clinton.

That seems to work.

[HeroHog]

THEY destroyed the evidence, I just didn't give them the password.

[RevDisk]

THEY destroyed the evidence, I just didn't give them the password.

Chris can tell you there's an insider legal term for regular people that play games with evidence. "Convicts".  


Yes, there is two sets of rules. If you are not wealthy and not connected (either will do in a pinch but both is preferable for breaking the law), the rules most certainly DO apply to you. You have to be connected up with the legal system, or have enough money to pay that level of connections, to get away with breaking the law. People have played cute and literally plead the Clinton defense, and got slapped down by judges.

[HeroHog]

iPhones come with a built in feature that 10 wrong passwords result in a bricked phone. Screw them.

[dogmush]

iPhones come with a built in feature that 10 wrong passwords result in a bricked phone. Screw them.

Sure they do.  And there's no way around that.  And the courts didn't hold that Apple HAD to get around it.

The only reason there's not case law on that is the cops got the phone open.  The only real question is who wanted that case law less, Apple or the government.