5 ms·

There is an option in iOS to allow you to use TouchID after you've logged into your phone (so authenticating inside of apps, or using TouchID for the app store)

There is an option in iOS to allow you to use TouchID after you've logged into your phone (so authenticating inside of apps, or using TouchID for the app store) but to disable TouchID logging into your phone (so you're forced to use the passcode). I've had this on since I discovered it and have been happy. My concern around something like the what the article mentions (and the other methods like force restarting your phone (I am not a lawyer so might not be an actual concern)) would be any charges of destruction of evidence (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519) or otherwise getting caught up in a law where they could use the fact that you purposely disabled TouchID on your phone after you have been caught or something.

daenney 9y ago
There's no destruction of evidence though, they just can't access it without getting the password from you. Which is pretty much the same thing as when they'd need you to unlock your computer etc. If you throw your phone on the ground, drive over it with a truck and set it on fire, sure. But all you're doing here is ensuring they can't grab your fingerprints and unlock the device against your will and without a warrant.
- sbierwagen 9y ago
  "Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both." Just because it's not destruction of evidence doesn't mean you can't go to jail for making the evidence hard to get at.
  - cmsimike 9y ago
    Exactly - reminds me of the person who is being held indefinitely due to not giving up the encrypted hard drive password. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/man-jailed-indefinitely-for-refusing-to-decrypt-hard-drives-loses-appeal/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/man-jailed-indef...
    - gruez 9y ago
      it should be noted that other jurisdictions have ruled that forcing someone to give their decryption password violates the fifth amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_Stat...
    - carlisle_ 9y ago
      There is an important difference in this case from other cases like this. The police argue that they already know what's on the hard drive: >Forensic examination also disclosed that Doe [Rawls] had downloaded thousands of files known by their "hash" values to be child pornography. The files, however, were not on the Mac Pro, but instead had been stored on the encrypted external hard drives. Combine this with the witness statement (defendant's sister said he showed her CP) and this becomes a little bit more unique than just not procuring a password.
      - kogepathic 9y ago
        > The police argue that they already know what's on the hard drive Then send it to trial and let a jury decide if the evidence is compelling enough to convict. What they're doing now is just indefinite detention.
        carlisle_ 9y ago
        I'm not a lawyer and I don't know much about contempt works. Indefinite detention sounds bad but I don't know how else it would be handled or if this is actually that unusual of a case besides the cryptographic aspect. I am all for due process and fair treatment but this is also a bit of a tangent from the original topic.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - eridius 9y ago
    I don't think requiring a warrant before providing the evidence is the same thing as impeding an investigation. You may as well claim that demanding a warrant before allowing police into your house is "destruction of evidence".
  - daenney 9y ago
    Never said you couldn't go to jail for it, just not for destruction of evidence. You also have to account for the 5th Amendment and the right against self-incrimination. This thing is a lot more complicated than quoting choice excerpts from Title 18. Aside from that, Title 18 doesn't apply to just any situation. Not unlocking your phone when the border patrol asks you for it is not a crime against the United States. They can make your life difficult, deny you entry and send you back, but that's a different matter. As to within the US I'm not sure, but to the best of my knowledge they have to present you with a warrant. https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/what-do-when-encountering-law-enforcement-airports-and-other-ports-entry-us https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/what-do-when-encounter...
  - FireBeyond 9y ago
    >any record, document, or tangible object Many of us here are programmers, so we might be mislead by 'record' or 'document', but this is not talking about software configuration, but tangible objects. Faking bank statements, shredding accounting records, and the like. For similar reasons to the situation where you can't be compelled to give up a password (a record in the IT sense, but not in this sense), I think it'd be a very hard sell to classify this in this sense. Obligatory: IANAL.
    - Retric 9y ago
      You can be compelled to give up passwords.
      - Xylakant 9y ago
        Depends. In the UK, yes, in then US I don't know, but in germany you can't. And it cannot be held against you.
    - mfoy_ 9y ago
      "or tangible document", not "or other tangible documents" which would imply the "records" and "documents" had to be tangible, which they do not. Files are regularly referred to as documents and all manner of data are referred to as "records", as a programmer. So if I deliberately made it harder for authorities to get into my browser history on my phone I'd possibly be guilty of "concealing" "records" which may have been relevant.

daenney 9y ago

There's no destruction of evidence though, they just can't access it without getting the password from you. Which is pretty much the same thing as when they'd need you to unlock your computer etc. If you throw your phone on the ground, drive over it with a truck and set it on fire, sure. But all you're doing here is ensuring they can't grab your fingerprints and unlock the device against your will and without a warrant.

sbierwagen 9y ago
"Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both." Just because it's not destruction of evidence doesn't mean you can't go to jail for making the evidence hard to get at.
- cmsimike 9y ago
  Exactly - reminds me of the person who is being held indefinitely due to not giving up the encrypted hard drive password. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/man-jailed-indefinitely-for-refusing-to-decrypt-hard-drives-loses-appeal/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/man-jailed-indef...
  - gruez 9y ago
    it should be noted that other jurisdictions have ruled that forcing someone to give their decryption password violates the fifth amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_Stat...
  - carlisle_ 9y ago
    There is an important difference in this case from other cases like this. The police argue that they already know what's on the hard drive: >Forensic examination also disclosed that Doe [Rawls] had downloaded thousands of files known by their "hash" values to be child pornography. The files, however, were not on the Mac Pro, but instead had been stored on the encrypted external hard drives. Combine this with the witness statement (defendant's sister said he showed her CP) and this becomes a little bit more unique than just not procuring a password.
    - kogepathic 9y ago
      > The police argue that they already know what's on the hard drive Then send it to trial and let a jury decide if the evidence is compelling enough to convict. What they're doing now is just indefinite detention.
      - carlisle_ 9y ago
        I'm not a lawyer and I don't know much about contempt works. Indefinite detention sounds bad but I don't know how else it would be handled or if this is actually that unusual of a case besides the cryptographic aspect. I am all for due process and fair treatment but this is also a bit of a tangent from the original topic.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- eridius 9y ago
  I don't think requiring a warrant before providing the evidence is the same thing as impeding an investigation. You may as well claim that demanding a warrant before allowing police into your house is "destruction of evidence".
- daenney 9y ago
  Never said you couldn't go to jail for it, just not for destruction of evidence. You also have to account for the 5th Amendment and the right against self-incrimination. This thing is a lot more complicated than quoting choice excerpts from Title 18. Aside from that, Title 18 doesn't apply to just any situation. Not unlocking your phone when the border patrol asks you for it is not a crime against the United States. They can make your life difficult, deny you entry and send you back, but that's a different matter. As to within the US I'm not sure, but to the best of my knowledge they have to present you with a warrant. https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/what-do-when-encountering-law-enforcement-airports-and-other-ports-entry-us https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/what-do-when-encounter...
- FireBeyond 9y ago
  >any record, document, or tangible object Many of us here are programmers, so we might be mislead by 'record' or 'document', but this is not talking about software configuration, but tangible objects. Faking bank statements, shredding accounting records, and the like. For similar reasons to the situation where you can't be compelled to give up a password (a record in the IT sense, but not in this sense), I think it'd be a very hard sell to classify this in this sense. Obligatory: IANAL.
  - Retric 9y ago
    You can be compelled to give up passwords.
    - Xylakant 9y ago
      Depends. In the UK, yes, in then US I don't know, but in germany you can't. And it cannot be held against you.
  - mfoy_ 9y ago
    "or tangible document", not "or other tangible documents" which would imply the "records" and "documents" had to be tangible, which they do not. Files are regularly referred to as documents and all manner of data are referred to as "records", as a programmer. So if I deliberately made it harder for authorities to get into my browser history on my phone I'd possibly be guilty of "concealing" "records" which may have been relevant.