19 ms·

Feds Can't Force You to Unlock Your iPhone with Finger or Face, Judge Rules

787 points by koolba 8y ago

kevin_b_er 8y ago
I won't believe this ruling is safe until it goes thru higher levels. The Executive Branch has over the past 2 decades has shown a large propensity for attempts to disregard the 4th and 5th amendments, and I see no change in this posture or the attempts to subvert them with the current political climate.
- lgleason 8y ago
  There is a high probability that this will be challenged at a higher level.
  - gigatexal 8y ago
    Let’s hope the Supreme Court hears it and it stands.
    - trumped 8y ago
      I hope that it doesn't so that hopefully people will stop using their body as a password (it should only be used as a login name if you absolutely need to use it)
    - sonnyblarney 8y ago
      It won't stand because it's not pragmatic. The issue around 'passwords being in your mind' is interesting, but they'll move past it. If you have evidence of a crime on your phone, it must be part of the process. There's nothing remotely unlawful about search of property so long as there is merit, oversight, warrant etc.. Ultimately, this will be no different than searching your car. Now, the cops doing it without a warrant, shenanigans at the border, searchings stuff they should not be - this is all another matter entirely. There will be some weird scenarios around people 'forgetting' passwords etc. but otherwise, it's just a new angle on the same old thing. Those who would like to see better judicial reform I think should look elsewhere, into such issues as why/how warrants are issued, the transparency around them, etc..
      - chii 8y ago
        If the police can force you to unlock a safe, they should also be allowed to force you to unlock a phone. But, unlocking a phone should come with a lot of paper work and checks and balances to ensure that it's done only when really required?
        manfredo 8y ago
        My understanding is that if you are in possession of a key to a safe then law enforcement or the court can compel you to produce the key. But if the safe has a combination, then the court cannot make you give up the combination as that may be self incriminating. Not to mention the practical aspects of trying to compel someone to give up a secret. What if they claim to have forgotten the combination? What if they actually _did_ forget? I imagine the situation with electronics will be similar. If a key to, say, an encrypted volume is stored on a flash drive then they may compel someone to produce it (analogous to a safe key). But if the drive is protected by a password, then the government cannot compel someone to provide the secret.
        dahfizz 8y ago
        I think that's why the article mentions finger prints and faceid. Those are the 'keys' to your phone.
      - richardthered 8y ago
        The problem with forcing someone to reveal a secret (e.g. a password), is that ultimately, there's no way to prove that someone actually knows the password. If I say that I forgot the password, and a judge throws me in jail for contempt of court, I could rot there forever. There is absolutely no way for me to ever prove that I truly forgot the password. You can't prove a negative. With fingerprints or face scanning, neither of these is an issue. You put your fingerprint on the device, or you scan your face. So, I think that forcing someone to reveal a secret that is purely in their head is fundamentally different than compelling other forms of access (physical keys, fingerprint scans, face scans, etc.). The physical access methods can be verified to either work or not. That's not true for mental secrets.
    - gammateam 8y ago
      The only way for this to stand is if the 9th circuit upholds the ruling and the Supreme Court declines to hear it Another circuit will disagree with the 9th circuit and the supreme is forced to take the case, they wont uphold a novel 9th circuit ruling There isnt an interpretation of the constitution possible for them to, and a the composition of the court makes this even more unlikely to pluck from thin air
- ataturk 8y ago
  Try 1-10, well maybe not 3, but don't give them any ideas.
- AmericanChopper 8y ago
  The judicial branch and the legislature have also been quite hostile to the 4th during that period. Its absolutely not a problem isolated to the executive.
  - lukifer 8y ago
    Thank you, Antonin "Emails aren't Papers" Scalia.
    - nerdponx 8y ago
      What's the "emails aren't papers" thing in reference to?
      - AmericanChopper 8y ago
        Scalia had a pretty narrow interpretation of the 4th, and believed that ‘conversations’ in general were not ‘persons, houses, papers [or] effects’, meaning wiretaps were not within the scope of the amendment.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- burtonator 8y ago
  Bio identification is for usernames... not passwords. NEVER use a fingerprint or an iris scan for a password. That's insane! Just don't do it.
  - Joky 8y ago
    What about a second factor for TFA?
    - spaceribs 8y ago
      I have a simple test for if I should use biometrics for something: Replace every instance of "New Biometric Tech" with "Social Security Number".
      - 77pt77 8y ago
        So it will become ubiquitous.
  - parent5446 8y ago
    Most people don't have attackers going after them who are harvesting fingerprints to get into their devices.
    - mLuby 8y ago
      Am I wrong that an (inevitable) biometric data breach would mean this can be done on the cheap (if you were unlucky enough to have given your data to a third party)?
      - Godel_unicode 8y ago
        Yes, at least for finger prints. Getting the print is easy, especially with glass back phones, it's making a good enough fake that's non-trivial.
        8y ago
- ransom1538 8y ago
  "I won't believe this ruling is safe until it goes thru higher levels." Yes - right now, there are people being held indefinitely for not decrypting hard drives the US [1]. The law used is: "All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. § 1651)". As one judge said, "We don't want your password - we just want the hard drives in unencrypted state." https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/legal/man-who-refused-to-decrypt-hard-drives-still-in-prison-after-two-years/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/legal/man-who-refused-...
  - 5ML 8y ago
    I fear I'll be barbecued for asking, but I must: What's the alternative? I am a privacy advocate and understand that the law can (and likely will) abuse a forced decryption law. However, the story you linked is about a _police officer_ who was suspected of child pornography. His sister reported him to the police and 'content stored on the encrypted hard drive matched file hashes for known child pornography content'. How can you look in the mirror and think he should go free without the evidence being examined? I couldn't live in a world where a suspect could say "Well, I forgot the password" and walk away Scott-free on such an ugly crime.
    - MapleWalnut 8y ago
      That's the cost of liberty.
    - vxNsr 8y ago
      > How can you look in the mirror and think he should go free without the evidence being examined? I couldn't live in a world where a suspect could say "Well, I forgot the password" and walk away Scott-free on such an ugly crime. This is the price we pay for an imperfect world, I'd rather a few murderers walk than many innocent men be imprisoned. Your balanced, nuanced idealism simply doesn't work at scale, you cannot assume that every judge, jury, and LEO will be good, so you've got to give the criminals rights even if you're pretty sure they're criminals. As a judge or LEO I'd have a much harder time looking in the mirror knowing I stole an innocent man's life than knowing that I might not have stopped every criminal.
- rayiner 8y ago
  It’s okay if you think we should not force people to unlock their phones pursuant to a criminal investigation. But it’s disingenuous to paint this as an attempt to “disregard” the 4th and 5th amendments. The Supreme Court in the 1950s and 1960s expanded the scope of those amendments far beyond the text. They turned the 4th amendment into a general purpose “privacy” amendment, even though the amendment doesn’t use that word or anything nearly as expansive. And they took the 5th amendment, which refers only to forcing someone to testify against themselves in a criminal case, and turned it into a broad protection against self incrimination. But that amendment doesn’t use the phrase “self incrimination” or anything nearly as broad. This is not novel. It’s always been the rule that the police can force you to turn over evidence in your possession, even though they can’t force you to serve as a “witness” against yourself. The idea that turning over a password is like forcing someone to testify against himself because it involves a mental recollection is already a very stretchy interpretation of the 5th amendment. Extending that even further to situations that aren’t testimonial in any way (Face ID or Touch ID) is hard to defend as a matter of Constitutional interpretation (even if you think it is good policy). The background principle of the law is that courts are entitled to all the evidence so they can find the truth. The amendments are exceptions to those rules created for specific purposes. But they are exceptions; they are not the rule. To the extent that anyone is trying to “bypass” something, folks reading those amendments unreasonably broadly are trying to bypass the general rule in favor of discovering evidence.
  - foxhill 8y ago
    bear in mind that whilst the scope of those ammendments may have been, for want of a better term, “extended” (SC sets precedent for interpretation, as far as i’m aware, i.e. the amendments do not actually change), you must also bear in mind that the scope and power of the government has expanded incredibly since they were written. the concept of privacy, outside of say, what a married couple do in the bedroom, didn’t really exist when the constitution was created. devices that are essentially extensions to ones “self” in the digital world couldn’t even have been imagined, let alone the rights required to make that one as as free as the america that was being created.
    - 8y ago
jakelazaroff 8y ago
Relevant excerpt: > “The undersigned finds that a biometric feature is analogous to the 20 nonverbal, physiological responses elicited during a polygraph test, which are used to determine guilt or innocence, and are considered testimonial.” So it's analogous to a passcode because you're divulging something stored by your body, as opposed to e.g. a metal key which is artificial. Tangentially related, it's astounding to me that polygraphs are still considered valid evidence given how widely they've been discredited.
- tick_tock_tick 8y ago
  Look up studies on the reliability of witness testimony if you want to get really scared on how courts run.
  - SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
    Even forensic science can be used questionably. Really, once you're in the court room it's entirely rhetoric and fudge-factor.
    - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
      Agreed. Pretty much everything in forensic science turns out to be junk science over a long enough timeline. Hair, bite marks, fire progression, all junk. There's even a few cracks in the fingerprint wall. Don't get me started on all the field test kits of various types that LEOs use. The only things that seem to be reliable are things that don't have their roots in forensic science (e.g. using DNA to identify people) and even then you still have to depend on a crime lab (run by the people doing the prosecuting) to not be sloppy.
      - ColanR 8y ago
        And along those lines, I've heard that DNA tests aren't reliable either.
        8y ago
porpoisely 8y ago
But can they seize your phone and crack it and look through your stuff without your permission or getting a warrant/judicial oversight? Otherwise, the only thing this does is add one extra step ( and additional cost which doesn't matter since taxpayers are footing the bill ) for the Feds to break into your phone.
- krastanov 8y ago
  Law enforcement is permitted to do that only if they have a warrant. The question is whether they can compel you to give up a password (mostly no) or compel you to give up biometric key (unknown, but this court says no). And it is not just an extra step. Cracking an encryption is infeasible or extremely expensive when properly encrypted.
  - vorpalhex 8y ago
    > Cracking an encryption is infeasible or extremely expensive when properly encrypted This depends highly on your threat model. What your local sheriff's office can do, versus the FBI, versus the NSA. Mall security Rent-A-Cops can peek through an unlocked phone, but probably aren't going to be doing any kind of cracking other than the obvious possibilities.
    - donaldknuth123 8y ago
      Well most people aren't drug kingpins or hackers that need to worry about the NSA showing up to crack their phone. Its also possible for the FBI to stake out your house and bug your home but that's also not something most people worry about.
    - beatgammit 8y ago
      Well, they don't have to crack it on the spot, just clone it for later. Yes, your local sheriff's office or even police station won't likely have that tech, but a popular border check point could. The question is whether they can legally do that without a warrant. And if this ruling stands, they'll basically be required to get the warrant if they want access to your device (unless you're naive enough to just hand it over unlocked).
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
- donaldknuth123 8y ago
  I think the 5th amendment is pretty clear, you can't be compelled to testify against yourself. What does that have to do with false confessions? If you make a statement in court that is used to convict you this is not a false confession but the law says you need not make that statement at all.
laurentl 8y ago
Any idea if and how this ruling (if upheld) can be used to refuse phone seizures / password requests by CBP when entering the country? The ruling relies on the 5th amendment so its scope is limited to American citizens I guess. And whatever the rule of law it’s probably not a good idea to piss off a CBP agent... but still, it’d be nice to be able to travel to the US without having to wipe one’s phone and social media accounts.
- briandear 8y ago
  There is a Border Search Exception to the 4th Amendment established by the courts; this ruling has no relevance at at port of entry.
  - dreamcompiler 8y ago
    It has no relevance to the Border Patrol within 100 miles of a US border or coastline, which is even more ridiculous.
    - brianpgordon 8y ago
      *If they have cause to believe you just crossed the border.
    - beatgammit 8y ago
      Yeah, it should be more like 10 miles or less. I don't understand why they're given so much leeway.
      - anticensor 8y ago
        This should have been enough: A. Contiguous states - 12 nautical miles towards sea, one full state inwards B. Alaska and Puerto Rico - 12 nautical miles towards sea, 3 nautical miles inwards C. Archipelagic territories (including Hawaii) - 100 nautical miles towards sea, 1 nautical mile inwards D. Airports - airport administrative zone
- 8y ago
scarface74 8y ago
This nice and all in theory but looking through the lens of reality where police are legally allowed to lie to get a confession - claiming they have evidence that they don’t have to coerce a confession and seeing that “rubber hose decryption” is real, it really doesn’t mean much in practice. Edit: Since people don’t seem to believe that police are actually legally allowed to lie during an interrogation: https://www.njmoorelaw.com/10-ways-police-can-lie-to-you https://www.njmoorelaw.com/10-ways-police-can-lie-to-you
- oskkejdjdkjd 8y ago
  Police are absolutely allowed to lie during an interrogation. I’ve seen it done multiple times. The most disturbing interrogation I’ve ever seen was actually the one where a teenager murdered his own father while under the influence of magic mushrooms. He was taken into the interrogation room shortly after the murder but enough time had elapsed that he was sober and just starting to understand the gravity of what he had done. The police sent in a soft-voiced female who spoke in a very caring and patient way. 99/100 people who watch that interrogation video would say that the woman was a therapist or councilor of some kind. Everything she asked and stated appeared to concern the wellbeing of this kid and the resolution of the terrible even that had taken place. In reality, everything she did was a cunning ploy with some kind of hidden goal. The entire interaction was calculated to extract information from him, very specific information, to be used against him in court. Every tangent of questioning she went on, seemingly random to the untrained eye, was highly specific in its value in a legal context. An interrogation like this is not an example of outright lying, which is legal and commonly practiced, but it is much more sinister. It is an example of an interrogator assuming another identity and drawing the suspect into a false sense of warmth and security in order to make the suspect incriminate himself. To me, it is the same as having a conversation with your mother after a traumatic event, only to see her rip her own face off, a mask, to reveal the grotesque face of a police interrogator, and then going to jail for what you disclosed. Absolutely terrifying and dystopian. You absolutely must be proactive and protect yourself in this world. Even in “free” countries like the USA. https://youtu.be/rBpDHJIwcUk?t=1495 https://youtu.be/rBpDHJIwcUk?t=1495 TLDR: the police are allowed to lie to you https://youtu.be/_WnhP91NJeU?t=1600 https://youtu.be/_WnhP91NJeU?t=1600
newnewpdro 8y ago
So they just need to reproduce your likeness to unlock your poorly-secured device? Sounds significant, when you're already in custody. /s
- mikeash 8y ago
  And do so within 48 hours, and with enough fidelity not to trigger a lockout with failed attempts.
  - newnewpdro 8y ago
    Sounds like a process that will be quickly automated and sold to law enforcement for a pretty penny. Immediately take retinal scan and face scan, fingerprint, and photograph. A minute later a 3d-printed head and finger emerges back in the basement of the station.
nerflad 8y ago
This might be a good time to let others know: Android (at least my OnePlus) has a "Lockdown" mode in the shutdown menu that locks the screen and prevents the usage of the biometric methods. You have to use the password. This is good because passwords have already been hashed out in court and are unequivocally protected by the fifth amendment; you don't have to tell an officer your password (and entering it for them constitutes telling them).
- miles 8y ago
  In iOS 11 and higher, you can disable Touch ID by pressing the power button 5 times in quick succession: https://www.macrumors.com/2017/08/17/ios-11-emergency-sos-disables-touch-id/ https://www.macrumors.com/2017/08/17/ios-11-emergency-sos-di... > In iOS 11, Apple has added an "Emergency SOS" feature that's designed to give users a quick and easy way to summon emergency services should the need arise. As it turns out, there's a secondary benefit to Emergency SOS - it's also a way to quickly and discreetly disable Touch ID. ... This is a handy hidden feature because it allows Touch ID to be disabled discreetly in situations where someone might be able to force a phone to be unlocked with a fingerprint, such as a robbery or an arrest. With Touch ID disabled in this way, there is no way to physically unlock an iPhone with a finger without the device's passcode.
  - gph1234 8y ago
    "Pressing power button 5 times in quick succession" doesn't work on my iPhone 8 Plus running iOS 12. To achieve the same effect, I need to hold the power button and one of the volume buttons for a couple of seconds.
    - miles 8y ago
      Sorry - looks like the power button x5 trick only works on iPhone 7 and earlier (had tested successfully on a 6S before posting): https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208076 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208076
      - 8y ago
mirimir 8y ago
As others have noted, this decision comes from a low-level court. And from what I've seen recently, it won't stand. Indeed, the basis of the opinion is iffy: > “If a person cannot be compelled to provide a passcode because it is a testimonial communication, a person cannot be compelled to provide one’s finger, thumb, iris, face, or other biometric feature to unlock that same device,” the judge wrote. Because defendants' right under the 5th to withhold passcodes is not at all settled. And even if they can't be compelled, they can be jailed indefinitely for contempt of court. Even if, as that ex cop in Philadelphia claims, they've forgotten it. So anyway, this is iffy advice: > The best advice for anyone concerned about government overreach into their smartphones: Stick to a strong alphanumeric passcode that you won’t be compelled to disclose.
- brianpgordon 8y ago
  I didn't read the opinion but even the quotes that Forbes pulled are eyebrow-raising. Like: “The undersigned finds that a biometric feature is analogous to the 20 nonverbal, physiological responses elicited during a polygraph test, which are used to determine guilt or innocence, and are considered testimonial.” This is the kind of wacky magistrate judge ruling that I'm sure the US Attorney rolls their eyes at.
Zak 8y ago
> Stick to a strong alphanumeric passcode that you won’t be compelled to disclose. I can imagine this having value against criminals as well. The number of people willing to beat a password out of a victim is smaller than the number of people willing to hold a victim up against the wall for a second to press their finger to a reader.
- mamon 8y ago
  Except criminals that could beat you up on a street are not interested in your data, they just want to sell the hardware and have money for drugs. It's easier for them to just type wrong passcode 10 times and have the phone wipe its whole content.
  - basil-rash 8y ago
    Does the wipe put it back into factory default mode? It was my understanding that it would put it into a "locked to X user" mode, requiring an iCloud password to reactivate.
throw2016 8y ago
There is something extremely disturbing about the state wanting to go through your private papers. The only way this should be possible in a democracy is rarely and only by due process with a judge's order and ample safeguards, explicit conditions built into the law with no room for abuse by 'friendly judges' or 'overzealous' state machinery. Anything else is a police state in the making. This is fundamental to the definition of a democracy and you can't dilute this without diluting the meaning of democracy at which point you should use some other word to describe your system.
- brokenmachine 8y ago
  This is 100% true. I really wish the lobotomized "I have nothing to hide" sheep would understand this. For every one of these laws, you need to think about what a world in which searches like this happened routinely to everyone - even the "good guys™" - would be like.
supernova87a 8y ago
I doubt this will hold up. You can be compelled by a court to have your blood withdrawn if a warrant is issued while you're under suspicion of DUI. Why would it not be similarly allowable to have your finger placed on the unlock button? Testimonial privilege (against being forced to testify) is about not being made to say / speak statements against your own prosecution. Speech. Testimony. Having evidence taken is not forcing you to speak, testify, or make a statement, at least in the current interpretation of evidence. This ruling is not for sure at all.
- gammateam 8y ago
  “A California [federal] judge” yeah I stopped reading there Even the 9th circuit appeals court upholding this ruling wouldnt be something to trust This part of the country simply doesnt have consensus with the rest and doesnt have power over the constitution, whether I like the ruling or not.
  - pc86 8y ago
    Until a higher court overturns it this is the law of the land in that jurisdiction. Whether they agree with a court 2,000 miles away is completely irrelevant. Also you should occasionally read things that you disagree with, if only to test your own assumptions and prejudices about yourself and the world around you. It makes you an objectively better person.
    - gammateam 8y ago
      There can be a lack of appeal which lets the district court ruling stand. What does your second paragraph have to do with anything mentioned in this thread
- arcturus17 8y ago
  In the eyes of the law, how is this different to being compelled to give your passcode though? Of course it’s easier and they could maybe even unlock a phone with your corpse but in jurisdictions where the law protects the individual’s privacy above all else this shouldn’t make a difference.
tptacek 8y ago
My bet is that this doesn't stand, because (from the haphazard reading I've done) it doesn't comport with the reasoning used to allow people to refuse passwords, which is that the act of disclosing a password is a form of self-testimony --- not that rifling through a phone is intrinsically self-testimony. If I understand correctly (and there are lawyers on HN who can shoot this down) people have tried and failed to make this same claim about breathalyzer and blood tests and failed. Just having an opinion about the case isn't all that interesting, and other people have said roughly the same thing on this thread, so what I'd like to contribute is the offer to go in on a long bet against the precedential value of this particular case. If it's eventually overturned, $100 to the charity of my choice; if it's exhausted procedurally and allowed to stand, $100 to yours. Any takers?
- tedunangst 8y ago
  But this ruling has to do with a sort of bulk unlock. Isn't there case law that the police can't go around collecting blood from a whole group looking for a match?
abalone 8y ago
Tip 1, which most people know: To quickly disable Face/TouchID you can squeeze left and right side buttons together (any combo) for two seconds to bring up the power off display. Tip 2, which probably most people don't know: If you aren't holding the phone -- if someone shoves it in your face -- you can close your eyes to prevent FaceID from working and say "Hey Siri, who's phone is this?" Not that it's wise to do this to frustrate a violent attacker, but it might work for some situations.
- renholder 8y ago
  >...you can close your eyes to prevent FaceID from working and say "Hey Siri, who's phone is this?" That's specific to Apple and I wouldn't be surprised if that got you an obstruction charge in the states. Plus, if you don't produce the password, afterwards, you're now sitting in jail for contempt - even if you may have actually forgotten it. It's a much safer avenue, legally, to just use a password to unlock the device.
devilindetails 8y ago
so, I get arrested and fall asleep and then the fingerprint reader works, so is the face rockon, unlocking my phone... do not trust human mediocracy of law enforcement or otherwise,
tjpnz 8y ago
As someone not from the US how could you be compelled to unlock your device using biometrics? Does this actually involve violence?
- wnevets 8y ago
  INAL but I believe its usually contempt of court, you'll be locked up til you comply.
- nubbins 8y ago
  Aren’t all laws ultimately backed by threat of force whether to take your property or imprison you (not sure I’d call this violence)? You can be held in contempt if you ignore a court order but I doubt they would like smash your thumb down on the screen.
adriancristi 8y ago
As if a court order ever stopped a highly motivated group of people from using technology however they wanted, with or without either your consent or the consent of the company providing the technology platform ...
- anigbrowl 8y ago
  Actually court orders do that all the time. Sure, it can't stop physical force being used but it can invalidate the results for legal purposes.
__derek__ 8y ago
> U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Ah, OK, so this is as meaningful as the judge who decided that the ACA was unconstitutional.
torstenvl 8y ago
This is a magistrate's response to a warrant application. It doesn't have minimal jurisprudential value, it has zero jurisprudential value. The headline is wrong to even use the word "judge" - at the federal level, there is a meaningful distinction between a judge and a magistrate.
yspeak 8y ago
Poorly written unedited article by a random Forbes so-called contributor. This is district court. Has no applicability except for that court. Thus is not news.
crazyc51 8y ago
As a Root Android user, any time I have reason to believe that a situation with the police is going to end even slightly bad on my end, I power off my phone. And as a Root user I have several layers of security on all my devices. I also take a mental note of what my battery percentage is at, that way I know if my phone has been turned on at all. As for a little back story on myself; I am wrongly labeled as a drug felon. My wife (separated for over a year) decided to try meth shortly after our wedding and got hooked in a bad way. I have a history with said drug and didn't want her to try but she insisted saying that it would help her understand why I am the way I am. I didn't know about her use of the drug and was in jail for 2 weeks because she had them in the car and I got pulled over and searched. After my release the cops in the area basically harassed me by pulling me over every other day at minimum. I was in and out of jail several times within 2 months. I had come into possession of the phone she had when I was in jail because she got a new one and I always saved the old phones to test my rooting and hacking skills with. Even though the phone was wiped, by her deleting all of her account info and messages, I was able to do a text recovery on the phone. I found in a few chats that she had with some of her friends and family while I was in jail for the 2 weeks, her telling them that I was in jail for her drugs. Of course everyone thinks that it's weed first, but we were in Colorado, so she clarified that it was for meth. Now because of specific laws I can't even use those messages to clear my name and she won't take the stand to the law and accept her punishment for the use of the drugs.
_Codemonkeyism 8y ago
I guess they will just put your phone to your face and claim it was unlocked.
pseingatl 8y ago
It'll be just a short time before this is overturned. Fingerprints are non-testimonial. So is a photograph of your face. So is a sample of your handwriting. You can be forced to give a handwriting sample. As to polygraphs, at the federal criminal level, they have been approved in only one federal circuit, and then only under limited circumstances. See, U.S. v. Picinonna. Despite this federal non-acceptance, they are widely used at the federal administrative level for security clearances and the like. In the private sector, there are little restrictions on their use. You could also use divining rods, tarot cards, crystal balls and similar implements to discover the truth of a statement if you wanted to. However you can't weight a person down and throw him in the lake to see if he floats.
rocqua 8y ago
If you fall asleep, can the police just hold your finger to your phone? It seems very clear to me that this is not a testimonial act. Nor is their 'coercion' here in the communicative sense. I'm guessing there are other laws that prevent police from handling your body to retrieve evidence, or at the very least, laws that require a warrant for such actions.
ChicagoBoy11 8y ago
> The FAA would require that drones have “an anti-collision light illuminated and visible for at least three statute miles,” as well as testing and training. I'm a private pilot, and I have the hardest time spotting airplane traffic from 3sm miles away. Ready to sit back and have some popcorn reading articles about how manufacturers are supposedly complying with this rule. Unless there's some novel lighting technology I don't know about, this seems like a nontrivial problem to me.
- swarnie_ 8y ago
  Wait.... What? Did you get lost on your way here? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18907490 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18907490

787 points by koolba 8y ago

I won't believe this ruling is safe until it goes thru higher levels. The Executive Branch has over the past 2 decades has shown a large propensity for attempts to disregard the 4th and 5th amendments, and I see no change in this posture or the attempts to subvert them with the current political climate.

lgleason 8y ago
There is a high probability that this will be challenged at a higher level.
- gigatexal 8y ago
  Let’s hope the Supreme Court hears it and it stands.
  - trumped 8y ago
    I hope that it doesn't so that hopefully people will stop using their body as a password (it should only be used as a login name if you absolutely need to use it)
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    It won't stand because it's not pragmatic. The issue around 'passwords being in your mind' is interesting, but they'll move past it. If you have evidence of a crime on your phone, it must be part of the process. There's nothing remotely unlawful about search of property so long as there is merit, oversight, warrant etc.. Ultimately, this will be no different than searching your car. Now, the cops doing it without a warrant, shenanigans at the border, searchings stuff they should not be - this is all another matter entirely. There will be some weird scenarios around people 'forgetting' passwords etc. but otherwise, it's just a new angle on the same old thing. Those who would like to see better judicial reform I think should look elsewhere, into such issues as why/how warrants are issued, the transparency around them, etc..
    - chii 8y ago
      If the police can force you to unlock a safe, they should also be allowed to force you to unlock a phone. But, unlocking a phone should come with a lot of paper work and checks and balances to ensure that it's done only when really required?
      - manfredo 8y ago
        My understanding is that if you are in possession of a key to a safe then law enforcement or the court can compel you to produce the key. But if the safe has a combination, then the court cannot make you give up the combination as that may be self incriminating. Not to mention the practical aspects of trying to compel someone to give up a secret. What if they claim to have forgotten the combination? What if they actually _did_ forget? I imagine the situation with electronics will be similar. If a key to, say, an encrypted volume is stored on a flash drive then they may compel someone to produce it (analogous to a safe key). But if the drive is protected by a password, then the government cannot compel someone to provide the secret.
        dahfizz 8y ago
        I think that's why the article mentions finger prints and faceid. Those are the 'keys' to your phone.
    - richardthered 8y ago
      The problem with forcing someone to reveal a secret (e.g. a password), is that ultimately, there's no way to prove that someone actually knows the password. If I say that I forgot the password, and a judge throws me in jail for contempt of court, I could rot there forever. There is absolutely no way for me to ever prove that I truly forgot the password. You can't prove a negative. With fingerprints or face scanning, neither of these is an issue. You put your fingerprint on the device, or you scan your face. So, I think that forcing someone to reveal a secret that is purely in their head is fundamentally different than compelling other forms of access (physical keys, fingerprint scans, face scans, etc.). The physical access methods can be verified to either work or not. That's not true for mental secrets.
  - gammateam 8y ago
    The only way for this to stand is if the 9th circuit upholds the ruling and the Supreme Court declines to hear it Another circuit will disagree with the 9th circuit and the supreme is forced to take the case, they wont uphold a novel 9th circuit ruling There isnt an interpretation of the constitution possible for them to, and a the composition of the court makes this even more unlikely to pluck from thin air
ataturk 8y ago
Try 1-10, well maybe not 3, but don't give them any ideas.
AmericanChopper 8y ago
The judicial branch and the legislature have also been quite hostile to the 4th during that period. Its absolutely not a problem isolated to the executive.
- lukifer 8y ago
  Thank you, Antonin "Emails aren't Papers" Scalia.
  - nerdponx 8y ago
    What's the "emails aren't papers" thing in reference to?
    - AmericanChopper 8y ago
      Scalia had a pretty narrow interpretation of the 4th, and believed that ‘conversations’ in general were not ‘persons, houses, papers [or] effects’, meaning wiretaps were not within the scope of the amendment.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
burtonator 8y ago
Bio identification is for usernames... not passwords. NEVER use a fingerprint or an iris scan for a password. That's insane! Just don't do it.
- Joky 8y ago
  What about a second factor for TFA?
  - spaceribs 8y ago
    I have a simple test for if I should use biometrics for something: Replace every instance of "New Biometric Tech" with "Social Security Number".
    - 77pt77 8y ago
      So it will become ubiquitous.
- parent5446 8y ago
  Most people don't have attackers going after them who are harvesting fingerprints to get into their devices.
  - mLuby 8y ago
    Am I wrong that an (inevitable) biometric data breach would mean this can be done on the cheap (if you were unlucky enough to have given your data to a third party)?
    - Godel_unicode 8y ago
      Yes, at least for finger prints. Getting the print is easy, especially with glass back phones, it's making a good enough fake that's non-trivial.
      - 8y ago
ransom1538 8y ago
"I won't believe this ruling is safe until it goes thru higher levels." Yes - right now, there are people being held indefinitely for not decrypting hard drives the US [1]. The law used is: "All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. § 1651)". As one judge said, "We don't want your password - we just want the hard drives in unencrypted state." https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/legal/man-who-refused-to-decrypt-hard-drives-still-in-prison-after-two-years/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/legal/man-who-refused-...
- 5ML 8y ago
  I fear I'll be barbecued for asking, but I must: What's the alternative? I am a privacy advocate and understand that the law can (and likely will) abuse a forced decryption law. However, the story you linked is about a _police officer_ who was suspected of child pornography. His sister reported him to the police and 'content stored on the encrypted hard drive matched file hashes for known child pornography content'. How can you look in the mirror and think he should go free without the evidence being examined? I couldn't live in a world where a suspect could say "Well, I forgot the password" and walk away Scott-free on such an ugly crime.
  - MapleWalnut 8y ago
    That's the cost of liberty.
  - vxNsr 8y ago
    > How can you look in the mirror and think he should go free without the evidence being examined? I couldn't live in a world where a suspect could say "Well, I forgot the password" and walk away Scott-free on such an ugly crime. This is the price we pay for an imperfect world, I'd rather a few murderers walk than many innocent men be imprisoned. Your balanced, nuanced idealism simply doesn't work at scale, you cannot assume that every judge, jury, and LEO will be good, so you've got to give the criminals rights even if you're pretty sure they're criminals. As a judge or LEO I'd have a much harder time looking in the mirror knowing I stole an innocent man's life than knowing that I might not have stopped every criminal.
rayiner 8y ago
It’s okay if you think we should not force people to unlock their phones pursuant to a criminal investigation. But it’s disingenuous to paint this as an attempt to “disregard” the 4th and 5th amendments. The Supreme Court in the 1950s and 1960s expanded the scope of those amendments far beyond the text. They turned the 4th amendment into a general purpose “privacy” amendment, even though the amendment doesn’t use that word or anything nearly as expansive. And they took the 5th amendment, which refers only to forcing someone to testify against themselves in a criminal case, and turned it into a broad protection against self incrimination. But that amendment doesn’t use the phrase “self incrimination” or anything nearly as broad. This is not novel. It’s always been the rule that the police can force you to turn over evidence in your possession, even though they can’t force you to serve as a “witness” against yourself. The idea that turning over a password is like forcing someone to testify against himself because it involves a mental recollection is already a very stretchy interpretation of the 5th amendment. Extending that even further to situations that aren’t testimonial in any way (Face ID or Touch ID) is hard to defend as a matter of Constitutional interpretation (even if you think it is good policy). The background principle of the law is that courts are entitled to all the evidence so they can find the truth. The amendments are exceptions to those rules created for specific purposes. But they are exceptions; they are not the rule. To the extent that anyone is trying to “bypass” something, folks reading those amendments unreasonably broadly are trying to bypass the general rule in favor of discovering evidence.
- foxhill 8y ago
  bear in mind that whilst the scope of those ammendments may have been, for want of a better term, “extended” (SC sets precedent for interpretation, as far as i’m aware, i.e. the amendments do not actually change), you must also bear in mind that the scope and power of the government has expanded incredibly since they were written. the concept of privacy, outside of say, what a married couple do in the bedroom, didn’t really exist when the constitution was created. devices that are essentially extensions to ones “self” in the digital world couldn’t even have been imagined, let alone the rights required to make that one as as free as the america that was being created.
  - 8y ago

jakelazaroff 8y ago

Relevant excerpt: > “The undersigned finds that a biometric feature is analogous to the 20 nonverbal, physiological responses elicited during a polygraph test, which are used to determine guilt or innocence, and are considered testimonial.” So it's analogous to a passcode because you're divulging something stored by your body, as opposed to e.g. a metal key which is artificial. Tangentially related, it's astounding to me that polygraphs are still considered valid evidence given how widely they've been discredited.

tick_tock_tick 8y ago
Look up studies on the reliability of witness testimony if you want to get really scared on how courts run.
- SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
  Even forensic science can be used questionably. Really, once you're in the court room it's entirely rhetoric and fudge-factor.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    Agreed. Pretty much everything in forensic science turns out to be junk science over a long enough timeline. Hair, bite marks, fire progression, all junk. There's even a few cracks in the fingerprint wall. Don't get me started on all the field test kits of various types that LEOs use. The only things that seem to be reliable are things that don't have their roots in forensic science (e.g. using DNA to identify people) and even then you still have to depend on a crime lab (run by the people doing the prosecuting) to not be sloppy.
    - ColanR 8y ago
      And along those lines, I've heard that DNA tests aren't reliable either.
      - 8y ago

porpoisely 8y ago

But can they seize your phone and crack it and look through your stuff without your permission or getting a warrant/judicial oversight? Otherwise, the only thing this does is add one extra step ( and additional cost which doesn't matter since taxpayers are footing the bill ) for the Feds to break into your phone.

krastanov 8y ago
Law enforcement is permitted to do that only if they have a warrant. The question is whether they can compel you to give up a password (mostly no) or compel you to give up biometric key (unknown, but this court says no). And it is not just an extra step. Cracking an encryption is infeasible or extremely expensive when properly encrypted.
- vorpalhex 8y ago
  > Cracking an encryption is infeasible or extremely expensive when properly encrypted This depends highly on your threat model. What your local sheriff's office can do, versus the FBI, versus the NSA. Mall security Rent-A-Cops can peek through an unlocked phone, but probably aren't going to be doing any kind of cracking other than the obvious possibilities.
  - donaldknuth123 8y ago
    Well most people aren't drug kingpins or hackers that need to worry about the NSA showing up to crack their phone. Its also possible for the FBI to stake out your house and bug your home but that's also not something most people worry about.
  - beatgammit 8y ago
    Well, they don't have to crack it on the spot, just clone it for later. Yes, your local sheriff's office or even police station won't likely have that tech, but a popular border check point could. The question is whether they can legally do that without a warrant. And if this ruling stands, they'll basically be required to get the warrant if they want access to your device (unless you're naive enough to just hand it over unlocked).

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

donaldknuth123 8y ago
I think the 5th amendment is pretty clear, you can't be compelled to testify against yourself. What does that have to do with false confessions? If you make a statement in court that is used to convict you this is not a false confession but the law says you need not make that statement at all.

laurentl 8y ago

Any idea if and how this ruling (if upheld) can be used to refuse phone seizures / password requests by CBP when entering the country? The ruling relies on the 5th amendment so its scope is limited to American citizens I guess. And whatever the rule of law it’s probably not a good idea to piss off a CBP agent... but still, it’d be nice to be able to travel to the US without having to wipe one’s phone and social media accounts.

briandear 8y ago
There is a Border Search Exception to the 4th Amendment established by the courts; this ruling has no relevance at at port of entry.
- dreamcompiler 8y ago
  It has no relevance to the Border Patrol within 100 miles of a US border or coastline, which is even more ridiculous.
  - brianpgordon 8y ago
    *If they have cause to believe you just crossed the border.
  - beatgammit 8y ago
    Yeah, it should be more like 10 miles or less. I don't understand why they're given so much leeway.
    - anticensor 8y ago
      This should have been enough: A. Contiguous states - 12 nautical miles towards sea, one full state inwards B. Alaska and Puerto Rico - 12 nautical miles towards sea, 3 nautical miles inwards C. Archipelagic territories (including Hawaii) - 100 nautical miles towards sea, 1 nautical mile inwards D. Airports - airport administrative zone
8y ago

scarface74 8y ago

This nice and all in theory but looking through the lens of reality where police are legally allowed to lie to get a confession - claiming they have evidence that they don’t have to coerce a confession and seeing that “rubber hose decryption” is real, it really doesn’t mean much in practice. Edit: Since people don’t seem to believe that police are actually legally allowed to lie during an interrogation: https://www.njmoorelaw.com/10-ways-police-can-lie-to-you https://www.njmoorelaw.com/10-ways-police-can-lie-to-you

oskkejdjdkjd 8y ago
Police are absolutely allowed to lie during an interrogation. I’ve seen it done multiple times. The most disturbing interrogation I’ve ever seen was actually the one where a teenager murdered his own father while under the influence of magic mushrooms. He was taken into the interrogation room shortly after the murder but enough time had elapsed that he was sober and just starting to understand the gravity of what he had done. The police sent in a soft-voiced female who spoke in a very caring and patient way. 99/100 people who watch that interrogation video would say that the woman was a therapist or councilor of some kind. Everything she asked and stated appeared to concern the wellbeing of this kid and the resolution of the terrible even that had taken place. In reality, everything she did was a cunning ploy with some kind of hidden goal. The entire interaction was calculated to extract information from him, very specific information, to be used against him in court. Every tangent of questioning she went on, seemingly random to the untrained eye, was highly specific in its value in a legal context. An interrogation like this is not an example of outright lying, which is legal and commonly practiced, but it is much more sinister. It is an example of an interrogator assuming another identity and drawing the suspect into a false sense of warmth and security in order to make the suspect incriminate himself. To me, it is the same as having a conversation with your mother after a traumatic event, only to see her rip her own face off, a mask, to reveal the grotesque face of a police interrogator, and then going to jail for what you disclosed. Absolutely terrifying and dystopian. You absolutely must be proactive and protect yourself in this world. Even in “free” countries like the USA. https://youtu.be/rBpDHJIwcUk?t=1495 https://youtu.be/rBpDHJIwcUk?t=1495 TLDR: the police are allowed to lie to you https://youtu.be/_WnhP91NJeU?t=1600 https://youtu.be/_WnhP91NJeU?t=1600

newnewpdro 8y ago

So they just need to reproduce your likeness to unlock your poorly-secured device? Sounds significant, when you're already in custody. /s

mikeash 8y ago
And do so within 48 hours, and with enough fidelity not to trigger a lockout with failed attempts.
- newnewpdro 8y ago
  Sounds like a process that will be quickly automated and sold to law enforcement for a pretty penny. Immediately take retinal scan and face scan, fingerprint, and photograph. A minute later a 3d-printed head and finger emerges back in the basement of the station.

nerflad 8y ago

This might be a good time to let others know: Android (at least my OnePlus) has a "Lockdown" mode in the shutdown menu that locks the screen and prevents the usage of the biometric methods. You have to use the password. This is good because passwords have already been hashed out in court and are unequivocally protected by the fifth amendment; you don't have to tell an officer your password (and entering it for them constitutes telling them).

miles 8y ago
In iOS 11 and higher, you can disable Touch ID by pressing the power button 5 times in quick succession: https://www.macrumors.com/2017/08/17/ios-11-emergency-sos-disables-touch-id/ https://www.macrumors.com/2017/08/17/ios-11-emergency-sos-di... > In iOS 11, Apple has added an "Emergency SOS" feature that's designed to give users a quick and easy way to summon emergency services should the need arise. As it turns out, there's a secondary benefit to Emergency SOS - it's also a way to quickly and discreetly disable Touch ID. ... This is a handy hidden feature because it allows Touch ID to be disabled discreetly in situations where someone might be able to force a phone to be unlocked with a fingerprint, such as a robbery or an arrest. With Touch ID disabled in this way, there is no way to physically unlock an iPhone with a finger without the device's passcode.
- gph1234 8y ago
  "Pressing power button 5 times in quick succession" doesn't work on my iPhone 8 Plus running iOS 12. To achieve the same effect, I need to hold the power button and one of the volume buttons for a couple of seconds.
  - miles 8y ago
    Sorry - looks like the power button x5 trick only works on iPhone 7 and earlier (had tested successfully on a 6S before posting): https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208076 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208076
    - 8y ago

mirimir 8y ago

As others have noted, this decision comes from a low-level court. And from what I've seen recently, it won't stand. Indeed, the basis of the opinion is iffy: > “If a person cannot be compelled to provide a passcode because it is a testimonial communication, a person cannot be compelled to provide one’s finger, thumb, iris, face, or other biometric feature to unlock that same device,” the judge wrote. Because defendants' right under the 5th to withhold passcodes is not at all settled. And even if they can't be compelled, they can be jailed indefinitely for contempt of court. Even if, as that ex cop in Philadelphia claims, they've forgotten it. So anyway, this is iffy advice: > The best advice for anyone concerned about government overreach into their smartphones: Stick to a strong alphanumeric passcode that you won’t be compelled to disclose.

brianpgordon 8y ago
I didn't read the opinion but even the quotes that Forbes pulled are eyebrow-raising. Like: “The undersigned finds that a biometric feature is analogous to the 20 nonverbal, physiological responses elicited during a polygraph test, which are used to determine guilt or innocence, and are considered testimonial.” This is the kind of wacky magistrate judge ruling that I'm sure the US Attorney rolls their eyes at.

Zak 8y ago

> Stick to a strong alphanumeric passcode that you won’t be compelled to disclose. I can imagine this having value against criminals as well. The number of people willing to beat a password out of a victim is smaller than the number of people willing to hold a victim up against the wall for a second to press their finger to a reader.

mamon 8y ago
Except criminals that could beat you up on a street are not interested in your data, they just want to sell the hardware and have money for drugs. It's easier for them to just type wrong passcode 10 times and have the phone wipe its whole content.
- basil-rash 8y ago
  Does the wipe put it back into factory default mode? It was my understanding that it would put it into a "locked to X user" mode, requiring an iCloud password to reactivate.

throw2016 8y ago

There is something extremely disturbing about the state wanting to go through your private papers. The only way this should be possible in a democracy is rarely and only by due process with a judge's order and ample safeguards, explicit conditions built into the law with no room for abuse by 'friendly judges' or 'overzealous' state machinery. Anything else is a police state in the making. This is fundamental to the definition of a democracy and you can't dilute this without diluting the meaning of democracy at which point you should use some other word to describe your system.

brokenmachine 8y ago
This is 100% true. I really wish the lobotomized "I have nothing to hide" sheep would understand this. For every one of these laws, you need to think about what a world in which searches like this happened routinely to everyone - even the "good guys™" - would be like.

supernova87a 8y ago

I doubt this will hold up. You can be compelled by a court to have your blood withdrawn if a warrant is issued while you're under suspicion of DUI. Why would it not be similarly allowable to have your finger placed on the unlock button? Testimonial privilege (against being forced to testify) is about not being made to say / speak statements against your own prosecution. Speech. Testimony. Having evidence taken is not forcing you to speak, testify, or make a statement, at least in the current interpretation of evidence. This ruling is not for sure at all.

gammateam 8y ago
“A California [federal] judge” yeah I stopped reading there Even the 9th circuit appeals court upholding this ruling wouldnt be something to trust This part of the country simply doesnt have consensus with the rest and doesnt have power over the constitution, whether I like the ruling or not.
- pc86 8y ago
  Until a higher court overturns it this is the law of the land in that jurisdiction. Whether they agree with a court 2,000 miles away is completely irrelevant. Also you should occasionally read things that you disagree with, if only to test your own assumptions and prejudices about yourself and the world around you. It makes you an objectively better person.
  - gammateam 8y ago
    There can be a lack of appeal which lets the district court ruling stand. What does your second paragraph have to do with anything mentioned in this thread
arcturus17 8y ago
In the eyes of the law, how is this different to being compelled to give your passcode though? Of course it’s easier and they could maybe even unlock a phone with your corpse but in jurisdictions where the law protects the individual’s privacy above all else this shouldn’t make a difference.

tptacek 8y ago

My bet is that this doesn't stand, because (from the haphazard reading I've done) it doesn't comport with the reasoning used to allow people to refuse passwords, which is that the act of disclosing a password is a form of self-testimony --- not that rifling through a phone is intrinsically self-testimony. If I understand correctly (and there are lawyers on HN who can shoot this down) people have tried and failed to make this same claim about breathalyzer and blood tests and failed. Just having an opinion about the case isn't all that interesting, and other people have said roughly the same thing on this thread, so what I'd like to contribute is the offer to go in on a long bet against the precedential value of this particular case. If it's eventually overturned, $100 to the charity of my choice; if it's exhausted procedurally and allowed to stand, $100 to yours. Any takers?

tedunangst 8y ago
But this ruling has to do with a sort of bulk unlock. Isn't there case law that the police can't go around collecting blood from a whole group looking for a match?

abalone 8y ago

Tip 1, which most people know: To quickly disable Face/TouchID you can squeeze left and right side buttons together (any combo) for two seconds to bring up the power off display. Tip 2, which probably most people don't know: If you aren't holding the phone -- if someone shoves it in your face -- you can close your eyes to prevent FaceID from working and say "Hey Siri, who's phone is this?" Not that it's wise to do this to frustrate a violent attacker, but it might work for some situations.

renholder 8y ago
>...you can close your eyes to prevent FaceID from working and say "Hey Siri, who's phone is this?" That's specific to Apple and I wouldn't be surprised if that got you an obstruction charge in the states. Plus, if you don't produce the password, afterwards, you're now sitting in jail for contempt - even if you may have actually forgotten it. It's a much safer avenue, legally, to just use a password to unlock the device.

devilindetails 8y ago

so, I get arrested and fall asleep and then the fingerprint reader works, so is the face rockon, unlocking my phone... do not trust human mediocracy of law enforcement or otherwise,

tjpnz 8y ago

As someone not from the US how could you be compelled to unlock your device using biometrics? Does this actually involve violence?

wnevets 8y ago
INAL but I believe its usually contempt of court, you'll be locked up til you comply.
nubbins 8y ago
Aren’t all laws ultimately backed by threat of force whether to take your property or imprison you (not sure I’d call this violence)? You can be held in contempt if you ignore a court order but I doubt they would like smash your thumb down on the screen.

adriancristi 8y ago

As if a court order ever stopped a highly motivated group of people from using technology however they wanted, with or without either your consent or the consent of the company providing the technology platform ...

anigbrowl 8y ago
Actually court orders do that all the time. Sure, it can't stop physical force being used but it can invalidate the results for legal purposes.

__derek__ 8y ago

> U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Ah, OK, so this is as meaningful as the judge who decided that the ACA was unconstitutional.

torstenvl 8y ago

This is a magistrate's response to a warrant application. It doesn't have minimal jurisprudential value, it has zero jurisprudential value. The headline is wrong to even use the word "judge" - at the federal level, there is a meaningful distinction between a judge and a magistrate.

yspeak 8y ago

Poorly written unedited article by a random Forbes so-called contributor. This is district court. Has no applicability except for that court. Thus is not news.

crazyc51 8y ago

As a Root Android user, any time I have reason to believe that a situation with the police is going to end even slightly bad on my end, I power off my phone. And as a Root user I have several layers of security on all my devices. I also take a mental note of what my battery percentage is at, that way I know if my phone has been turned on at all. As for a little back story on myself; I am wrongly labeled as a drug felon. My wife (separated for over a year) decided to try meth shortly after our wedding and got hooked in a bad way. I have a history with said drug and didn't want her to try but she insisted saying that it would help her understand why I am the way I am. I didn't know about her use of the drug and was in jail for 2 weeks because she had them in the car and I got pulled over and searched. After my release the cops in the area basically harassed me by pulling me over every other day at minimum. I was in and out of jail several times within 2 months. I had come into possession of the phone she had when I was in jail because she got a new one and I always saved the old phones to test my rooting and hacking skills with. Even though the phone was wiped, by her deleting all of her account info and messages, I was able to do a text recovery on the phone. I found in a few chats that she had with some of her friends and family while I was in jail for the 2 weeks, her telling them that I was in jail for her drugs. Of course everyone thinks that it's weed first, but we were in Colorado, so she clarified that it was for meth. Now because of specific laws I can't even use those messages to clear my name and she won't take the stand to the law and accept her punishment for the use of the drugs.

_Codemonkeyism 8y ago

I guess they will just put your phone to your face and claim it was unlocked.

pseingatl 8y ago

It'll be just a short time before this is overturned. Fingerprints are non-testimonial. So is a photograph of your face. So is a sample of your handwriting. You can be forced to give a handwriting sample. As to polygraphs, at the federal criminal level, they have been approved in only one federal circuit, and then only under limited circumstances. See, U.S. v. Picinonna. Despite this federal non-acceptance, they are widely used at the federal administrative level for security clearances and the like. In the private sector, there are little restrictions on their use. You could also use divining rods, tarot cards, crystal balls and similar implements to discover the truth of a statement if you wanted to. However you can't weight a person down and throw him in the lake to see if he floats.

rocqua 8y ago

If you fall asleep, can the police just hold your finger to your phone? It seems very clear to me that this is not a testimonial act. Nor is their 'coercion' here in the communicative sense. I'm guessing there are other laws that prevent police from handling your body to retrieve evidence, or at the very least, laws that require a warrant for such actions.

ChicagoBoy11 8y ago

> The FAA would require that drones have “an anti-collision light illuminated and visible for at least three statute miles,” as well as testing and training. I'm a private pilot, and I have the hardest time spotting airplane traffic from 3sm miles away. Ready to sit back and have some popcorn reading articles about how manufacturers are supposedly complying with this rule. Unless there's some novel lighting technology I don't know about, this seems like a nontrivial problem to me.

swarnie_ 8y ago
Wait.... What? Did you get lost on your way here? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18907490 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18907490