Judge rules Cops can force use of fingerprint to unlock phone

The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Tboy

    Moving forward
    Rating - 100%
    87   0   0
    Jul 14, 2008
    1,636
    48
    Greenwell Springs
    If you have your phone setup to unlock by finger print it looks like you can be forced to unlock it, assuming probable cause. The article also states that is most likely to make it to the Supreme Court.

    They make a distinction between physical and mental accessing of locked devices. I wonder if this would apply to a biometric safe as well.

    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/04/24/judge_forced_fingertoiphone_unlock/
     

    Bangswitch

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 10, 2019
    2,221
    38
    a location near you
    I can’t properly articulate why, but that just doesn’t feel right. Warrant? Maybe. PC definitely feels wrong.

    Encryption seems to be changing the game so much that there is a push to change the rules.

    Physical doors and locks can be defeated without willing participants. Modern encryption and the *circuit breakers* that prevent brute force hacks are far more difficult to crack. I understand the frustration, but just like the FBI trying to compel Apple to give them the encryption key this should be a no go. I don’t know if there’s a better solution but this ain’t it.
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,714
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    The cops had a warrant. The difference between this case and the "encryption key," is your freedom of speech and your reasonable expectation of privacy. Your freedom of speech allows you to say or not say your passcode. One might think the 5th Amendment might be at play here but it's not. The passcode cannot incriminate you. One might also think fingerprints might be viewed as something private but you leave them laying around so your expectation of privacy is minimal.
     

    Emperor

    Seriously Misunderstood!
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Mar 7, 2011
    8,376
    113
    Nether region
    I detest the idea of anyone being for or against enforcement of a law only based on whether or not it concerns themselves; but I gotta tell ya, this epidemic texting while driving crap is way, way out of control already, and only getting worse each day.

    I am seriously starting to think the slippery slope of allowing the cops to examine phones roadside after eye-witnessing a texting driver while under way is not so slippery for the benefit of public safety.

    It is only a matter of time before any one of you have or know someone (if you don't already), that will be seriously maimed or killed by one of these self-absorbed sacks of fecal matter! Then what?

    And how funny is that? I am the ultimate freedomist and privacy hawk, and I am almost ready to throw it all away because these dimwits can't wait to get to work to text the other dimwits on their contact list (who are most likely texting and driving also).
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,714
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    I detest the idea of anyone being for or against enforcement of a law only based on whether or not it concerns themselves; but I gotta tell ya, this epidemic texting while driving crap is way, way out of control already, and only getting worse each day.

    I am seriously starting to think the slippery slope of allowing the cops to examine phones roadside after eye-witnessing a texting driver while under way is not so slippery for the benefit of public safety.

    It is only a matter of time before any one of you have or know someone (if you don't already), that will be seriously maimed or killed by one of these self-absorbed sacks of fecal matter! Then what?

    And how funny is that? I am the ultimate freedomist and privacy hawk, and I am almost ready to throw it all away because these dimwits can't wait to get to work to text the other dimwits on their contact list (who are most likely texting and driving also).

    As it stands, the driver can lock their phone and say they were using the phone's navigation feature, an activity allowed by law. Am I going to confiscate the phone, set a search warrant, and have the digital forensics unit evaluate the phone over a texting while driving ticket?
     

    Emperor

    Seriously Misunderstood!
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Mar 7, 2011
    8,376
    113
    Nether region
    As it stands, the driver can lock their phone and say they were using the phone's navigation feature, an activity allowed by law. Am I going to confiscate the phone, set a search warrant, and have the digital forensics unit evaluate the phone over a texting while driving ticket?

    I get the limitations of enforcement! I understand the insignificance of the offense versus the more serious problems out there. But that is always the case till someone gets killed.

    So if a driver can be driving down Airline Hwy at 50 mph, in heavy morning traffic, and tapping the screen on their phones with head down damn near the whole time, that is allowable legally? Distracted driving during navigation is good to go? Serious question.
     

    991GT3

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 27, 2015
    264
    18
    Baton Rouge, LA
    It’s unconstitutional (by the spirit and letter of the law once you consider THE INTENT of the Founders).

    It’s a damned shame that we accept and make up excuses for every encroachment of the law.

    We are a nation of slaves...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,714
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    I get the limitations of enforcement! I understand the insignificance of the offense versus the more serious problems out there. But that is always the case till someone gets killed.

    So if a driver can be driving down Airline Hwy at 50 mph, in heavy morning traffic, and tapping the screen on their phones with head down damn near the whole time, that is allowable legally? Distracted driving during navigation is good to go? Serious question.

    Distracted driving during navigation does not violate the law concerning cell phone use in the car. You may be able to get them for Careless Operation or Reckless Operation.
     

    Bangswitch

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 10, 2019
    2,221
    38
    a location near you
    The cops had a warrant. The difference between this case and the "encryption key," is your freedom of speech and your reasonable expectation of privacy. Your freedom of speech allows you to say or not say your passcode. One might think the 5th Amendment might be at play here but it's not. The passcode cannot incriminate you. One might also think fingerprints might be viewed as something private but you leave them laying around so your expectation of privacy is minimal.

    No the encryption key I spoke of was Apple’s propriety code. The intent was to back door the phone of a terrorist and Apple told the FBI to **** off and won. My point was the good guys are loosing in the encryption game and I’m not entirely sure they shouldn’t. But because they are they are looking at all possible avenues to gain access to devices of bad people, but as you I’m sure figured out I’m a true believer in remaining suspicious of the government. It’s really more of a what was meant for good today may be used for evil tomorrow.

    I was thrown off because I saw PC referenced in the post, but I stand behind the concern. If PC isn’t being used it’s a matter of time. It’s not matter of just a fingerprint opening it because you are right we leave those everywhere. If it was as simple as just the finger prints, couldn’t they take a print from booking to open a phone?
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,714
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    No the encryption key I spoke of was Apple’s propriety code. The intent was to back door the phone of a terrorist and Apple told the FBI to **** off and won. My point was the good guys are loosing in the encryption game and I’m not entirely sure they shouldn’t. But because they are they are looking at all possible avenues to gain access to devices of bad people, but as you I’m sure figured out I’m a true believer in remaining suspicious of the government. It’s really more of a what was meant for good today may be used for evil tomorrow.

    I was thrown off because I saw PC referenced in the post, but I stand behind the concern. If PC isn’t being used it’s a matter of time. It’s not matter of just a fingerprint opening it because you are right we leave those everywhere. If it was as simple as just the finger prints, couldn’t they take a print from booking to open a phone?

    From reading the article, I believe the involvement of PC is there was PC to get a warrant. It's probably not PC in the way one might traditionally think when they see PC. I stop you for an armed robbery. You have a gun and the victim positively ID'd you. I have PC to arrest you and PC to get a warrant to search your phone if I can explain how your phone could provide additional evidence. I don't believe the article says the ruling implied I have PC to force you to unlock the phone on the spot without a warrant.

    With regards to the Apple backdoor. I'm somewhat torn, as it seems you may be. I'm a believer in personal freedoms and rights. But I'm also not a believer in the criminal using a technicality to get away with crimes so I think the police should be able to properly investigate, even if it means having a judge certify their PC. Under no circumstances do I believe the security should have a back door to which the government holds the keys. And I'm leery of a private company holding the keys as well. If something exists, is it only a matter of time before it falls into the wrong hands, either through hacking or a disgruntled employee or whatever? But if it exists, someone has to control it.
     

    Bangswitch

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 10, 2019
    2,221
    38
    a location near you
    Distracted driving during navigation does not violate the law concerning cell phone use in the car. You may be able to get them for Careless Operation or Reckless Operation.

    Nor does changing the radio, putting on makeup, eating a quarter pounder, or reading a novel. It kind of annoys me we made a law about texting honestly when careless and reckless driving are viable options.
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,714
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    It’s unconstitutional (by the spirit and letter of the law once you consider THE INTENT of the Founders).

    It’s a damned shame that we accept and make up excuses for every encroachment of the law.

    We are a nation of slaves...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    The constitution provides a procedure through which the police can gain information contained inside of something that might not otherwise be available to them due to privacy reasons. That procedure is called a warrant. In the case mentioned in the article, the court has already evaluated the information and decided the police are entitled to have that information. If the "something" was a locked room, would you find it unconstitutional for the judge to compel the owner to forfeit the key to the room?
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,714
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Nor does changing the radio, putting on makeup, eating a quarter pounder, or reading a novel. It kind of annoys me we made a law about texting honestly when careless and reckless driving are viable options.

    The interesting thing about that law is the possible unintended consequences. Let's assume some people will still text and drive. Before, they may have held the phone up so they could quickly look from the phone to the road. Now, they will sometimes hide the phone so it's much harder to transition between the phone and the road. Before, that transition was an eye movement. Now it's having to move the entire head. For the ones who are still breaking the law, I believe it has caused them to be more distracted.
     

    Bangswitch

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 10, 2019
    2,221
    38
    a location near you
    From reading the article, I believe the involvement of PC is there was PC to get a warrant. It's probably not PC in the way one might traditionally think when they see PC. I stop you for an armed robbery. You have a gun and the victim positively ID'd you. I have PC to arrest you and PC to get a warrant to search your phone if I can explain how your phone could provide additional evidence. I don't believe the article says the ruling implied I have PC to force you to unlock the phone on the spot without a warrant.

    With regards to the Apple backdoor. I'm somewhat torn, as it seems you may be. I'm a believer in personal freedoms and rights. But I'm also not a believer in the criminal using a technicality to get away with crimes so I think the police should be able to properly investigate, even if it means having a judge certify their PC. Under no circumstances do I believe the security should have a back door to which the government holds the keys. And I'm leery of a private company holding the keys as well. If something exists, is it only a matter of time before it falls into the wrong hands, either through hacking or a disgruntled employee or whatever? But if it exists, someone has to control it.

    I agree technology has really put us in some awkward circumstances. Bad guys getting off on technicalities sucks but it still cuts both ways a good guy being abused by an out of control government because he was lazy and used his fingerprint to access his phone instead of a pin could be unsavory as well.

    These are definitely awkward times, but what we allow today changes tomorrow’s outcomes good, bad or ugly.
     

    Bangswitch

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 10, 2019
    2,221
    38
    a location near you
    The interesting thing about that law is the possible unintended consequences. Let's assume some people will still text and drive. Before, they may have held the phone up so they could quickly look from the phone to the road. Now, they will sometimes hide the phone so it's much harder to transition between the phone and the road. Before, that transition was an eye movement. Now it's having to move the entire head. For the ones who are still breaking the law, I believe it has caused them to be more distracted.

    Agreed it feels like the insurance conversation now. :mamoru:
     

    Emperor

    Seriously Misunderstood!
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Mar 7, 2011
    8,376
    113
    Nether region
    The interesting thing about that law is the possible unintended consequences. Let's assume some people will still text and drive. Before, they may have held the phone up so they could quickly look from the phone to the road. Now, they will sometimes hide the phone so it's much harder to transition between the phone and the road. Before, that transition was an eye movement. Now it's having to move the entire head. For the ones who are still breaking the law, I believe it has caused them to be more distracted.

    Completely agree! I would submit however, that most don't even seem to care about hiding it at all anymore, and just go heads down in their laps (no pun intended), with no shame.

    I would also be willing to bet, there is a correlation between the advent and ease of texting with way more crashes. #Guesswhodoesn'twantcheaperautoinsurancehere. :D
     

    aboatguy

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 5, 2013
    74
    8
    The simple answer is to not use facial recognition or finger print instead of passwords or pins

    As I get older and more forgetful I'm pretty certain that the pressure/stress of a subpoena would cause me to fail to properly remember my passwords/pins ...

    Mike
     
    Last edited:

    maddenfreak13

    wannabe operator
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jul 14, 2007
    143
    16
    Houma, LA
    You can also set your iphone to erase after 10 months incorrect password attempts so this is a way out of that
     

    Staff online

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    195,226
    Messages
    1,546,116
    Members
    29,169
    Latest member
    LanceK
    Top Bottom