16 ms·
Cops can force suspect to unlock phone with thumbprint, US court rules
- cranberryturkey 2y agoYeah no. That goes against the 5th
- anotherhue 2y agoYeah, the phone goes against the 5th finger.
- coldtea 2y agoThe 5th is words on paper. The people who write the laws or enforce them can do whatever they want by "interpeting" it or just ignoring it.
- letsSpy 2y ago[flagged]
- proc0 2y agoIsn't that every law? What's the point, are you justifying a tyrannical government?
- coldtea 2y agoThe point is something being "against the 5th" ain't gonna change anything if those that have the power want to do it. What does help is the power balances - how strongly the people will protest, it coming from one party and the other fighting it, and so on. And to answer the flagged guy: "so that means, as a regular citizen, I can interpret the laws how I want? since they are also words on paper." No, it obviously means those that have the political power can interpret the laws how they want. So unless you have that kind of power, you'll need to stand by the interpretation others make of it.
- SuperNinKenDo 2y agoTo be fair, discourse is an important element of power, because political institutions are held up by norms. This is why even totalitarian and authoritarian regimes will often attempt to find legal precent and jutsification for their actions.
- proc0 2y agoSure but under the current system the 5th still applies in other cases, granted in the context of this thread it was ruled that it does not, but it still went through the courts. OP was wrong because a fingerprint isn't really speech, I'm guessing.
- llamaimperative 2y agoIn theory sure, in practice no. Laws and precedents stand for long, long times, including this one which is not even close to a groundbreaking or controversial ruling.
- tedunangst 2y agoUnfortunately your analysis is too late. If only you had informed the judges sooner, they could have issued a correct ruling.
- torstenvl 2y agoWhat part of the Fifth Amendment do you believe applies here?
- defiamazing 2y ago[flagged]
- cranberryturkey 2y agothe right to remain silent and the search and seizure protections...
- meepmorp 2y agoNobody was compelled to give evidence against themselves. Fingerprints are external, physical features - it's no different than being made to give up a key to a locked door pursuant to a warrant. And parolees are released under supervision, with law enforcement having greater authority to search them and their property.
- cranberryturkey 2y agoexactly the police would need a warrant to unlock my phone, same as my front door.
- meepmorp 2y agoYou missed the bit about the guy in the story being in parole - parolees have fewer 4th amendment protections than other citizens, as a condition of their early release from prison. Different situations are different.
- torstenvl 2y agoYou think this violates "No person shall be . . . compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"? How so? What witnesseth a fingerprint?
- ImJamal 2y agoNo it doesn't. This is a parole who is only out of prison because he accepted that cops can search his property at any time. If he doesn't agree to that he can go back to jail and serve out his sentence.
- bsder 2y agoAs I understand it, this has always been the case? The point is that the police can't prove you do or do not remember a code. Consequently, they can't compel you to use that code. However, since your thumbprint definitely exists, they can compel you to use it.
- JohnFen 2y agoThat was my understanding as well. Are we missing something here?
- AdamJacobMuller 2y agoMy understanding of it was different. As I understood it, the police can not compel you to tell them something you know because this would be analogous to testifying against yourself, however, they can require you to give them something you have (or something they would find with a warrant) because it is a physical thing, not testimony. It's the difference between being required to give up a safe combination which the police can not compel you to tell them, vs, a key to a safe which the police could search you for and take from you and use to open the safe within the bounds of a warrant (or some other theoretical circumstances).
- ortusdux 2y agoI'd add this to the list of reasons why biometrics ≠ passwords.
- jetrink 2y ago> The point is that the police can't prove you do or do not remember a code. Consequently, they can't compel you to use that code. Also, they can't coerce you to reveal the code even if they can prove you know it. Confessions extracted under torture by inquisitors was a recent memory when the Bill of Rights was drafted.
- ukd1 2y agoWell, at least in the USA; in the UK the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), specifically under Part III - a Section 49 notice can be issues, which legally requires an individual to disclose passwords or encryption keys, though I can only see a few folks prosecuted for failure to disclose.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 2y ago> Payne's Fifth Amendment claim "rests entirely on whether the use of his thumb implicitly related certain facts to officers such that he can avail himself of the privilege against self-incrimination," the ruling said. Judges rejected his claim, holding "that the compelled use of Payne's thumb to unlock his phone (which he had already identified for the officers) required no cognitive exertion, placing it firmly in the same category as a blood draw or fingerprint taken at booking." > "When Officer Coddington used Payne's thumb to unlock his phone—which he could have accomplished even if Payne had been unconscious—he did not intrude on the contents of Payne's mind," the court also said. I think that is a pretty reasonable interpretation.
- AdamJacobMuller 2y agoFrom a practical point of view these kinds of cases are interesting to me, because, coming from an iPhone this seems like it would largely be a non-issue. If my phone was handed to or taken by an officer, I would either quickly do the 5-tap on the lock button which will require a password (not faceid or touchid) next time, or, simply by them handling it, faceid would be locked out. Is that not a thing with Android? I've seen articles where a suspect is requested or compelled to unlock a phone with biometrics which was held in evidence for months! Does Android (and I know this is a much broader question than with iPhone) just allow touch/face ID in perpetuity with no locks on it?
- OkayPhysicist 2y agoStock Android doesn't have a shortcut to disable thumbprint, to my knowledge, but it does require passcode on reboot. So a long hold of the power button would avoid this 5th amendment loophole.
- neurostimulant 2y agoMy android phone would refuse to unlock with biometrics and requires pin unlock every 24h. Is that manufacturer-specific feature?
- logicprog 2y agoOn GrapheneOS (what I use) there's this at least: https://grapheneos.org/features#more-secure-fingerprint-unlock https://grapheneos.org/features#more-secure-fingerprint-unlo...
- steve_rambo 2y agoI had a chuckle at this being a "non-issue". Where I am from, you'll get a severe beating (or worse) if you refused to provide the authentication credential, whatever it might be. It's like we're living on different planets. I can only humbly suggest fighting for your rights tooth and nail while you have them.
- 2y ago
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- greyface- 2y agoOn iOS, you can quickly ditch the current FaceID/TouchID session, and require a passcode for the next unlock, by holding power and volume buttons simultaneously for several seconds until the "power off" screen appears.
- ortusdux 2y agoThe only similar thing I know of on Android is that 4 failed attempts with an unknown finger disables fingerprint unlock. So I can lock my phone out in a few seconds using my middle finger.
- modeless 2y agoIn the power menu next to "power off" there is "lockdown".
- thallium205 2y agoAndroid had lockdown mode but it has to be enabled. https://www.androidcentral.com/apps-software/how-to-disable-biometrics-on-your-android-phone-from-the-lock-screen https://www.androidcentral.com/apps-software/how-to-disable-...
- rezonant 2y ago> So I can lock my phone out in a few seconds using my middle finger. This is perhaps off topic, but does this mean you put your phone in your pocket with the screen facing outward? I do the opposite, am I weird? EDIT: I suppose maybe you meant when the phone was on a table or something
- ortusdux 2y agoMy fingerprint reader is on the back of my device.
- simongr3dal 2y agoHow long before some court declares such practice equal to evidence tampering or obstruction?
- luxuryballs 2y agoAnyone know why a cop might want to do be able to do this?
- timothyduong 2y agoView messages, photos, calls, data. Was very common for drug dealers to break their phones on being caught
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- luxuryballs 2y agoSo if it’s to gather evidence then why shouldn’t they need a warrant?
- meepmorp 2y agoTo get access to the information on the phone?
- luxuryballs 2y agowell yeah but to what end?
- meepmorp 2y agoPresumably to look for evidence of criminal activity.
- luxuryballs 2y agoyet no warrant required to search your records and files, do they at least need probable cause? yet I don’t even know what probable cause would be for digital files, it’s not like they can smell drugs coming out of your phone
- enterprise_cog 2y ago
- supernova87a 2y agoIt will be interesting some day if the line becomes blurred between "what you know" and "what you are" and you could be compelled to turn over something against your will. Because that boundary is if anything getting less clear over time? For example, if your voiceprint were required to unlock your phone, but not a particular passphrase. Could you be compelled to speak (or just recorded speaking) general statements in order to unlock?
- autoexec 2y agoI'd argue that the solution then is the same as the solution now. Do not use or depend on biometrics for security or privacy. Stick with pins and passwords and you can't be compelled to give up that information just as you can't be compelled to give up the combination to a safe. I'd bet that law enforcement will be routinely using backdoors to gain access to our devices long before the laws that protect us from giving up a password are changed.
- dataflow 2y ago> I'd argue that the solution then is the same as the solution now. Do not use or depend on biometrics for security or privacy. Stick with pins and passwords and you can't be compelled to give up that information just as you can't be compelled to give up the combination to a safe. This is practically impossible. IMO it has been impossible for as long as phones have fused the decryption key and the screen unlock key into the same thing. (Some older Android ROMs let you have separate unlock and deception keys; does anyone know of any that still do?) Either you choose a strong encryption key, in which case you have to spend a ton of time typing it in every time you want to unlock your phone, or you choose something easy to type in which case the key becomes easy to crack. And in either case you have to do it over and over again in front of other people or security cameras constantly recording you.
- autoexec 2y agoAre passwords/passcodes really the only form of entropy used when generating encryption keys for an iphone? I'd expect that a longer password would only increase your security but that even the shortest password wouldn't leave the encrypted data trivial to crack. > And in either case you have to do it over and over again in front of other people or security cameras constantly recording you. That's partly prevented by having keys randomize their position on the screen so that your movements don't give away your code, and also by occasionally changing your password. Obviously if a camera is looking directly at the screen while you enter your password you're probably screwed.
- hollywood_court 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- boppo1 2y agoI think you're lost.
- layman51 2y agoI already knew there was a legal separation between biometric access and password access. But what I’m still confused about is whether someone who is very security or privacy focused would ever willingly want to use Face ID or Touch ID. Also, I believe things are different in civil trials too. I heard you might be compelled to give up a password and could even get in trouble if you claim you forgot it. It was a plot point in the Cryptonomicon novel.
- notRobot 2y agoIs it really so hard to believe that people who use biometric authentication might want to be particular about their security and privacy? Lots of folks who aren't tech super users care about that stuff.
- autoexec 2y agoSomeone who might want to be particular about their security and privacy could still use biometric authentication without knowing that it weakens both, but presumably someone "very security or privacy focused" would be aware that using biometric authentication exposes them to more risks and would avoid it for that reason.
- JohnFen 2y agoWhether or not biometric authentication exposes you to more risk depends on what your threat profile looks like. If it includes governmental action, then yes, biometrics are a weak spot. On the other hand, if your risk profile includes the government, then you should be taking much more extreme steps to protect yourself than a lockscreen, and using biometrics would really impact things much. If the cops unlock your phone (if you're comfortable taking the inherent security risk of even having a phone), they would still not find anything important that isn't encrypted separately.
- autoexec 2y ago> Whether or not biometric authentication exposes you to more risk depends on what your threat profile looks like. If it includes governmental action, then yes, biometrics are a weak spot. Even if it doesn't include the government biometrics still leave you much more vulnerable. You leave your biometric information everywhere you go. Your face is easily found in photographs. Fingerprints are left on everything you touch. Your voice is easily recorded and deepfaked. Attacks on biometric authentication are well documented and while some seem pretty impressive (https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/scientists-extract-fingerprints-from-photos-taken-from-up-to-three-meters-away/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/scientists-ex...) others are embarrassingly unsophisticated (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-easily-hackers-can-copy-your-fingerprints-2017-05-25 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-easily-hackers-c...). Unlike passwords your fingerprints can't be changed following a compromise either. I can also set a unique password for every device/service I use. Even if you managed to guess my hackernews password, that password would be useless to you for anything else. The face/voice/fingerprint that unlocks one device will forever be identical to the one that unlocks everything else someone has or will secure with it. biometrics sacrifice huge amounts of security for the sake of convenience and an appearance of being "high tech" and "fancy".
- happytiger 2y agoWe need a privacy bill of rights. There shouldn’t be a separation between biometrics and passwords.
- advisedwang 2y agoEh it's kind of a technicality that passwords are protected at all. It's not a privacy thing. If you keep incriminating documents in a safe, the police have every right (with a warrant) to cut it open and get the documents. If the safe has a code, you don't have to share the code, but only because SHARING the code requires you to be "a witness against yourself" in violation of the 5th amendment, not because you have a right to privacy in the safe. It's hard to justify giving a fingerprint as being a "witness against yourself". So with a warrant or other relevant due process it's hard to object.
- saagarjha 2y agoPolice are welcome to try breaking into the phone as well.
- SuperNinKenDo 2y agoI disagree with this idea myself. I believe that any compelled action that leads to your incrimination should be considered being a witness against yourself. I realise this isn't the established caselaw, and I already have some obvious potential reasons bubbling up in my mind as to why. For instance how can you give someone a breathalyser test if they refuse? It defnitely creates problems. That said, I think bigger problems with this standard are coming down the line eventually.
- advisedwang 2y ago"any compelled action" would also preclude giving ID at a traffic stop. Maybe even stopping for police at all. A line needs to be drawn somewhere, and I think it must be a balancing of the various interests rather than a hard and fast rule. For example privacy vs successfully convicting wrongdoers vs preventing convicting the innocent vs preventing abuse of power vs public safety etc etc.
- kjkjadksj 2y agoWhy force them and not borrow a tool from the FBI? Do you need a warrant to use those tools or something?
- amlozano 2y agoThose tools are expensive. Forcing someone to use their thumb or face is free.
- generalizations 2y agoWe've known this for a while; it's why iPhones have mechanisms to explicitly require a something-you-know authentication.
- Jtsummers 2y agohttps://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/04/17/22-50262.pdf https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/04/17/2... Payne was required as a part of his parole to reveal the passcode/password to his electronic devices. He had already told, when asked, the officer the color and location of his phone, then when asked for the passcode he denied the phone was his. That's when the officer physically forced him to unlock it with his thumb (this is the contentious part in the case). The fourth amendment challenge against the search starts on page 10, and the fifth amendment challenge on page 21. The fact that he was a parolee substantially factors into the decision regarding the fourth amendment challenge.
- moshun 2y agoDefinitely feels like a hop, skip and jump to police forcing your face or any other biometric access key against your will.
- _DeadFred_ 2y agoPolice can already unlock your phone using your face/finger prints. Been that way since at least 2018. But... they can't force you to tell them what to use https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/11/29/fbi-no-consent-required-for-forced-phone-unlocks-via-finger-or-face/?sh=555e60711e4e https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/11/29/fbi-n...
- m463 2y agoNote there's a way to quickly turn off biometrics on an iphone. Press and hold side button + volume up (or down) button until you see a slide to power off screen. You don't have to do anything - at that point biometrics have been disabled and only a pin will unlock the phone.
- P-Nuts 2y agoOr press the power button five times quickly
- snakeyjake 2y agoForcing me to apply my thumb to a fingerprint reader is, to my mind, no different than forcing me to empty my pockets to provide a key that unlocks something the court has ordered be unlocked. Parolees have restrictions placed on them as part of their release, including the right of police to inspect things on their person and property. If parolees find those conditions burdensome, they are more than welcome to reject parole and finish their sentence as it was originally imposed.
- leptons 2y agoThe title says "suspect", but in the article it's about a parolee, which seems is a bit different than just "a suspect" in the eyes of the law? Clickbait title strikes again.
- JohnFen 2y agoI don't think it's clickbait. The subject was a parolee who was also the suspect in a new crime.
- EA-3167 2y agoParolees are subject to all sorts of restrictions and obligations that a regular citizen is not, even when they're not a suspect in a new crime. That's the issue, their rights are already abrogated, and that's settled law.
- SuperNinKenDo 2y agoIs the question of blooddraws and fingerprints drawn from that fact? That is to say, was that a valid argument for compelling the fingerprint-unlock because parolees supply their fingerprints? I'm not American and had formed the impression that simply being remanded could involve fingerprinting in some states?
- EA-3167 2y ago
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]