3 ms·

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 thi

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).
spaceheeder 8y ago
They do need a warrant now, although they did not used to, and obviously don't need one if you hand an unlocked phone over upon request (same as if you go along with 'let me see your backpack'). It's unlikely this ruling will be upheld since providing biometrics to unlock a phone is difficult to construe as 'testimony' since it's performing an action, like complying with a court order to unlock your front door in response to a warrant should you not desire for the police to kick said door in. The biggest gray area currently is whether typing in a password is 'something you do' or 'something you know', and you can find different precedent to support both conclusions in US jurisprudence for the time being. Hopefully SCOTUS will come down on the side of 'something you know' if/when such a case ever makes it before them.
- perpetualpatzer 8y ago
  > It's unlikely this ruling will be upheld since providing biometrics to unlock a phone is difficult to construe as 'testimony' Agreed, feels like this rises and falls with the forced blood draws issue that was decided in the 60s [0]. Maybe if you claim the phone isn't yours, unlocking it with your face or password would be testimonial? Not sure if that defense would survive them calling the number that was registered to you. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmerber_v._California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmerber_v._California
- rocqua 8y ago
  The biggest gray area currently is whether typing in a password is 'something you do' or 'something you know' It seems pretty clear to me that a password is 'something you know', whilst a fingerprint is 'something you are'. Moreover, typing in a password is very clearly a communicative act, whilst placing a finger on a scanner is a lot more murky. It might communicate intent, but it can't communicate ideas. Maybe things change if you need to know which fingers work.

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).

spaceheeder 8y ago

They do need a warrant now, although they did not used to, and obviously don't need one if you hand an unlocked phone over upon request (same as if you go along with 'let me see your backpack'). It's unlikely this ruling will be upheld since providing biometrics to unlock a phone is difficult to construe as 'testimony' since it's performing an action, like complying with a court order to unlock your front door in response to a warrant should you not desire for the police to kick said door in. The biggest gray area currently is whether typing in a password is 'something you do' or 'something you know', and you can find different precedent to support both conclusions in US jurisprudence for the time being. Hopefully SCOTUS will come down on the side of 'something you know' if/when such a case ever makes it before them.

perpetualpatzer 8y ago
> It's unlikely this ruling will be upheld since providing biometrics to unlock a phone is difficult to construe as 'testimony' Agreed, feels like this rises and falls with the forced blood draws issue that was decided in the 60s [0]. Maybe if you claim the phone isn't yours, unlocking it with your face or password would be testimonial? Not sure if that defense would survive them calling the number that was registered to you. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmerber_v._California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmerber_v._California
rocqua 8y ago
The biggest gray area currently is whether typing in a password is 'something you do' or 'something you know' It seems pretty clear to me that a password is 'something you know', whilst a fingerprint is 'something you are'. Moreover, typing in a password is very clearly a communicative act, whilst placing a finger on a scanner is a lot more murky. It might communicate intent, but it can't communicate ideas. Maybe things change if you need to know which fingers work.