Judge rules Cops can force use of fingerprint to unlock phone

I think the gubment has the technology to grab all info from your phone without being in physical possession of it. All this getting warrants and smoke and mirrors for obtaining the info is just a front. Just like when a suspect is being questioned, they already know the answers. The gubment can’t tip their hand so we get the dog and pony show. If the reason is big enough they will get the info without you ever knowing. Apple and other companies have to save face and act like they care about privacy but when the weight of the Feds come crashing down on them to crack phones they will cave but still act like they didn’t.

machinedrummer said:

I think the gubment has the technology to grab all info from your phone without being in physical possession of it. All this getting warrants and smoke and mirrors for obtaining the info is just a front. Just like when a suspect is being questioned, they already know the answers. The gubment can’t tip their hand so we get the dog and pony show. If the reason is big enough they will get the info without you ever knowing. Apple and other companies have to save face and act like they care about privacy but when the weight of the Feds come crashing down on them to crack phones they will cave but still act like they didn’t.

Click to expand...

When you say "they," who are you referring to. I know I've personally never gotten info from a phone without having the physical phone and having the digital forensics lab do a memory dump.

They= Apple, Samsung etc... phone manufacturers. I just think after the California shooting when there was a big fight about unlocking the terrorist phone due to privacy issues the gubment now has the technology and possibly even before that incident to break into any device with or without our knowledge. Probably hired some 16 year old to do it. I’m not referring to a traffic violation. Like I said I’m not worried about that, my phone was lost in a horrific boating accident.

machinedrummer said:

They= Apple, Samsung etc... phone manufacturers. I just think after the California shooting when there was a big fight about unlocking the terrorist phone due to privacy issues the gubment now has the technology and possibly even before that incident to break into any device with or without our knowledge. Probably hired some 16 year old to do it. I’m not referring to a traffic violation. Like I said I’m not worried about that, my phone was lost in a horrific boating accident.

Click to expand...

I've investigated just about anything except for homicides and sex crimes. Specialized units handled those. The method used by the hacker to break into the phone for the FBI was good on that model, not on successive models. You say the gubment now has the technology to break into any phone. Who do you include in the term "gubment?" I know I've never seen anything like that.

Didn’t say they did but I do think it is highly possible. Phones are wireless devices. I’ve received text and messages weeks and even months later than they were originally sent to me. It was floating around somewhere till it finally came through. My VCR is still flashing 12:00. One thing I’m sure of is that there is technology I’m not aware of.

Herein lies the problem ,we want non corrupt Leo to be able to get the information they need to protect us from terrorist and even those who are driving down the road watching movies and continually texting but who is going to decide when it is justified to force the opening of our phones? The FBI can be trusted !! Except for the ones trying to overthrow. government . The problem is we have to protect our rights even at the cost of giving up a measure of safety because if we give up our rights there will be no safety .

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

How did the police ever solve a crime before cell phones were invented?

thperez1972 said:

When you say "they," who are you referring to. I know I've personally never gotten info from a phone without having the physical phone and having the digital forensics lab do a memory dump.

Click to expand...

There's a few different things being talked about here.

One way to get information out of a phone is to get physical access to the device. This may mean using a password, a thumbprint, or someone's face (or whatever other biometric device is used to authenticate the user) to unlock it. That seems to be the gist of this court decision, since it makes a distinction between being forced to give a password (self-incrimination) versus putting a thumb on a thumbprint reader (not self-incrimination?).

Another way is for a manufacturer to have a "back door" in their product. Proprietary companies like Apple would never admit to the existence of such a thing (if it even exists), and I'm sure they'd keep telling the FBI to go pound sand if they ask.

I'm not a cryptographic expert, but I know enough about it to know that a brute-force attempt to decrypt a phone's persistent storage could take our best supercomputers many lifetimes to crack. Shy of trying to "ban" cryptography (good luck there), the cat is out of the bag on how cryptographic techniques like AES work. It would be a bit like truing to un-invent guns.

Another way is for the information to be streamed out onto the internet. And given that much of the content in our phone is already being stored on the cloud, this is far more likely than physically breaking into the device, since the device itself becomes irrelevant.

My reading on this topic suggests that the courts have poked and stabbed at various aspects of this challenging question, but none have come up with a single platform from which we can understand our rights and responsibilities with regard to our digital lives and privacy.

Mike

RaleighReloader said:

There's a few different things being talked about here.

One way to get information out of a phone is to get physical access to the device. This may mean using a password, a thumbprint, or someone's face (or whatever other biometric device is used to authenticate the user) to unlock it. That seems to be the gist of this court decision, since it makes a distinction between being forced to give a password (self-incrimination) versus putting a thumb on a thumbprint reader (not self-incrimination?).

Another way is for a manufacturer to have a "back door" in their product. Proprietary companies like Apple would never admit to the existence of such a thing (if it even exists), and I'm sure they'd keep telling the FBI to go pound sand if they ask.

I'm not a cryptographic expert, but I know enough about it to know that a brute-force attempt to decrypt a phone's persistent storage could take our best supercomputers many lifetimes to crack. Shy of trying to "ban" cryptography (good luck there), the cat is out of the bag on how cryptographic techniques like AES work. It would be a bit like truing to un-invent guns.

Another way is for the information to be streamed out onto the internet. And given that much of the content in our phone is already being stored on the cloud, this is far more likely than physically breaking into the device, since the device itself becomes irrelevant.

My reading on this topic suggests that the courts have poked and stabbed at various aspects of this challenging question, but none have come up with a single platform from which we can understand our rights and responsibilities with regard to our digital lives and privacy.

Mike

Click to expand...

That's a pretty good breakdown. As far as the back door, I have trouble seeing a legitimate company doing that. For starters, if it were ever found out, there would be a few negative repercussions. The company would lose trust with its customers. And the company could find itself in criminal or civil court. Take Apple for example. Their argument for not complying with the court order was two-fold. First, the technology did not currently exist. Second, it would be too burdensome for the company to create what was needed. I don't think the judge of the US Attorney would be too please to learn Apple lied to the judge in order to avoid complying. To create a hypothetical situation, let's say the feds are trying to get into a phone as part of an investigation. The manufacturer says they can't help, there is no back door to get in. During the investigation, innocent people are killed or badly injured. The phone is eventually cracked and there is evidence on the phone that would puts the guy in jail. Had the feds had that information sooner, the innocents would hot have been killed or injured. If it was learned the company had the means all along to get the information, you can bet the family of the victims will file a lawsuit. That's a lot of negative publicity, the company had the ability to spy on its customers but kept it quiet and people died so they could keep their secret. For the people not wearing aluminum foil hats, it's reasonable to believe Apple does not have a back door. Otherwise, you might have to believe the whole court drama between Apple and the FBI was just an act to throw the public off the trail to the truth. I can't think of a real positive reason for why a company would put in a back door.

The online aspect is very interesting. In the San Bernardino shooting, Apple was trying to work with the FBI. They tried to get the phone to back itself up to iCloud. But the FBI had requested the company that owned the phone reset the iCloud password. That meant the iCloud on the phone itself was now wrong and the phone could not sync to the cloud unless someone got into the phone and put in the correct iCloud password. So iClould could be a potential back door of sorts. But not every piece of data on a phone is synced. And the syncing feature could be turned off.

And we're back to accessing the physical phone. Different courts have ruled on this issue in contradictory ways. At the beginning of the year, a US District Court in California ruled the police could not compel the use of fingerprints or facial recognition as doing so became a fifth amendment issue.

In most all cases Apple has told any law enforcement flat out no. That it’s a breach of privacy. I commend them for that and it’s why I use their products.

It is possible to design a software platform where there is no way into it other than direct user access via the configured *front door*. A hacker could possibly exploit weaknesses in that software to reveal data.

On the other hand Google, FB, ATT and other digital conglomerates have rolled over and made available back doors for direct access to our digital lives.

I was reading somewhere, but can’t find a the law for it, that a person can be compelled to open a door, safe etc and if said person doesn’t comply, that in itself could be a crime. Still trying to find the law that states that to confirm if it’s legit.

Tboy said:

I was reading somewhere, but can’t find a the law for it, that a person can be compelled to open a door, safe etc and if said person doesn’t comply, that in itself could be a crime. Still trying to find the law that states that to confirm if it’s legit.

Click to expand...

I haven't read all of the details of the original case that the OP quoted, but here's my non-lawyerly understanding of things insomuch as it would concern your safe scenario.

A search warrant can compel that a safe be opened. The question of "how" is straightforward. If the safe locks with a key, then the key will either be produced willingly or the safe will be opened by a locksmith (with destructive force, if necessary). If it's a dial combination, then you're welcome to not self-incriminate by not providing the combination, but the same locksmith will come and open it with the same destructive force if needed. Since they're going to get in one way or another, providing the key/combination may be the best way through that (if you're actually in this situation you'd do best to talk to a lawyer of course).

The problem with many modern cell phones is that there's not a locksmith that can just torch it open. The nature of "locking" it makes the data unreadable, and that opens up the legal pandora's box that we have before us.

Mike

So, if I am using a biometric lock for my front door....??? U I understand the "argument" here is basically based around the unique criteria of obtaining data. BUT, accepting this as the means to provide "safety" is just another mark in the tally lessing what society accepts as a circumstance to advert rights.

My opinion on this is a warrant should still be required. IF the only evidence in a case is going to be what is found on a phone, being information not already available by other means or surveillance, then someone along the line should have done a better job of building the case.

Someone used San Bernardino as an example: The phone was not the sole source of information.

MTregre said:

So, if I am using a biometric lock for my front door....???

Click to expand...

We're all in suspense as to the rest of your question.

MTregre said:

U I understand the "argument" here is basically based around the unique criteria of obtaining data. BUT, accepting this as the means to provide "safety" is just another mark in the tally lessing what society accepts as a circumstance to advert rights.

My opinion on this is a warrant should still be required. IF the only evidence in a case is going to be what is found on a phone, being information not already available by other means or surveillance, then someone along the line should have done a better job of building the case.

Click to expand...

What is "this" and how does it add another mark? And if a warrant had been signed by a judge, would your feeling on this situation be different? As far as building the case, are you aware there is a difference between probable cause and beyond a reasonable doubt?

MTregre said:

Someone used San Bernardino as an example: The phone was not the sole source of information.

Click to expand...

Yes. How does that change anything mentioned in the thread regarding that situation?