7 ms·

Judge Rules Suspect Can Be Required to Unlock Phone with Fingerprint

82 points by dustinfarris 12y ago

andreyf 12y ago
> Baust will head to the police station on Monday morning [to comply with the ruling], but [his lawyer] believes police still may be unable to unlock the phone because it should require a password [demanding which is unconstitutional], in addition to a fingerprint, once it has been shut off. Am I naive for thinking these technicalities are really silly? Is not the goal here to establish whether accessing and searching one's phone is fair game at some point in an investigation / trial?
- ipsin 12y ago
  This is not "some point in an investigation / trial", this is a specific point. They have a warrant. I'm not a big fan of "compelled evidence" (gathering DNA, blood or fingerprints from a suspect), but the courts have been saying it's ok, and that's the approach they're taking here. They just can't (so far, in the US) compel you to actually produce testimonial evidence like passwords, passcodes, etc.
DevX101 12y ago
Fingerprints are usernames, not passwords http://blog.dustinkirkland.com/2013/10/fingerprints-are-user-names-not.html http://blog.dustinkirkland.com/2013/10/fingerprints-are-user...
- colinbartlett 12y ago
  I am really tired of this argument. Biometric information is a means to verify identification. A username and a password is also a means to verify identification. A fingerprint is no more a username than a password is a username. In the case of a username/password it's the combination that's required to verify the identity.
  - jude- 12y ago
    Fingerprints identify individuals, but they should not be relied upon for authentication (which is what the article was getting at). Unlike a password or private key, you can't change your fingerprints when they get compromised.
  - tlrobinson 12y ago
    So a fingerprint is like a username and password you go around writing on everything you touch. Got it.
  - kerkeslager 12y ago
    > Biometric information is a means to verify identification. A username and a password is also a means to verify identification. A fingerprint is no more a username than a password is a username. In the case of a username/password it's the combination that's required to verify the identity. Is it really? I think if I send you an email at colinbartlett@whateversitehostsyouremail.com I've verified your identity as much as I need with only your username. A username and password is a case of identification (username) and authentication (password). Authentication is proof. When you have authenticated identification (like a username and password) it's proof that the person is why they say they are. The reason people conflate identification with authentication is that we typically use the two together. But there are lots of cases where we only care about one or the other. For example, many systems (such as routers) implement administrative tasks with an administrative password. You don't care who performed the task, you only care that they had permission to do it. That's authentication without identification. Similarly, there are plenty of cases where you don't care about authentication, you only care about identification. For example, anyone can send you an email. On many systems you can send people messages anonymously: there's no authentication necessary, no proof of anything necessary to be allowed to send the message. The only thing necessary is the identity of the receiver. That's identification without authentication. Fingerprints are identification. They are used as authentication because the difficulty of collecting the identification gives a small barrier to falsifying authentication, but they're pretty terrible for that purpose. You leave your fingerprints all over the place: it's like if you just went around writing your bank PIN everywhere. There are already proofs of concepts of people constructing fingerprints from polymers; this is a simple case of privilege escalation, where gaining one level of privilege allows you access to a higher level of privilege. Given that most people give everyone access to their fingerprints that's a pretty low point to allow escalation from.
deadgrey19 12y ago
"providing fingerprints and other biometric information is considered outside the protection" Is it just me, or is there a contradiction here? I'm happy to provide you with a finger print (in ink), but that in itself is not enough to unlock the phone. You need my live hand attached to my live finger. I think the problem here is that it is an oversimplification to call it a "finger print".
- FireBeyond 12y ago
  Not really. While there were comments about ‘sub dermal fields’ with the iPhone, it was very quickly shown that you do not need even a reasonable facsimile of flesh, let alone live flesh, to fool the sensor.
- kyboren 12y ago
  DNA tests are done by cotton swab of your 'live' cheek. Should they only be done on 'dead' dandruff? In any case, it should be pretty easy to recreate a sufficiently-convincing fake finger given an ink fingerprint. But that all misses the point. The only reason passwords get special treatment is that an order to compel production of a password is an order to testify against oneself. For example, unless the defendant already admits to knowing the password, the fact that the defendent knew the password after production would be obviously prejudicial. It would be tantamount to requiring the defendent to testify, "yes, it was me". In other words, compulsory production of information whose existence and location is not a foregone conclusion probably falls foul of the Fifth Amendment. Compulsory production of your finger does not require you to provide any information other than information that clearly exists about you. (IANAL)
emergentcypher 12y ago
Having your fingerprint as the key is no different than having a physical key. Which the police can steal and use. It's not in your head, so there is no 5th amendment protection for self-incrimination. I only see it being useful as an additional factor in multi-factor auth.
blazespin 12y ago
Just use the wrong finger.
- jemfinch 12y ago
  Just go to jail for contempt.
  - spiritplumber 12y ago
    Scream "I have nothing but contempt for this court!" and then attack the shark robots to 80s music. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_EFSQPJh8w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_EFSQPJh8w
  - higherpurpose 12y ago
    I think I saw Matthew Green propose a solution for this: Apple could allow you to use a different finger to force the phone to prompt for a password. In theory you shouldn't get jailed for contempt over this since you'd be doing it much earlier than being in Court in front of a judge - like when you see the cops coming.
    - asadotzler 12y ago
      Not necessary. Just power off when you see the cops coming.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    I only have about an 80% success rate with Touch ID anyway. It doesn't seem to like sweaty fingers. Every so often I get unlucky five times in a row and have to unlock it with my password. Who's to say it didn't happen by accident? Or is having sweaty fingers going to effectively be an imprisonable offense now, the way forgetting your password is in jurisdictions where you can be compelled to reveal your password?
dkopi 12y ago
"But providing fingerprints and other biometric information is considered outside the protection of the Fifth Amendment, the judge said." Which is why 2 factor authentication is so important.
DigitalSea 12y ago
It was bound to happen. You can view the fingerprint reader on the iPhone and other phones like the Samsung Galaxy S5 which feature fingerprint readers as having made it easier for law enforcement to get into your phone. I would not be surprised if the fingerprint scans the police take from you down at the station or the ones you give up when entering a US airport when travelling from another country could be used to open up a fingerprint protected phone in the near future. No matter what anyone says, the fingerprint reader is convenience, not extra security.
- swartkrans 12y ago
  Police can get a warrant to force you to vomit up drugs you swallowed, so forcing you to put your finger on a thing being a legal thing shouldn't be a surprise.
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  I know this decision was "expected", however, I can't help but get the feeling that in an "ideal society", where governments wouldn't abuse their powers, and people's rights would be much more "reasonable" (in a good way), the government would not be able to force you to put your finger on something. After all we have so many laws that offer similar type of protections already, such as a wife not having to testify against her husband. At some point the society decided that it's the "right thing" to do. Perhaps the society can decide that having the government force you to unlock your devices with your finger is unacceptable.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    > After all we have so many laws that offer similar type of protections already, such as a wife not having to testify against her husband. At some point the society decided that it's the "right thing" to do. To put it in context: spousal privilege is rooted deeply in religious tradition going back hundreds if not thousands of years. It fell naturally out of a belief that people already had (the indivisible marital unit). That's what it takes to overcome the default presumption that "the public has the right to every man's evidence." Now, the fact that something has been the case for probably 800 years doesn't mean it can't be changed, but does suggest that if people really had a problem with it, they would have taken issue with it by now.
edwhitesell 12y ago
I'm surprised it took this long to come to a legal decision. A fingerprint is a means to identify someone, not a security mechanism (like a password).
- 001sky 12y ago
  Biomentric security is not a "security mechanism"? This seems pedantic and absurd. A password or a username is no different than any other proxy variable to verify identity and authorizations. The bigger question is about the implications of "authorized user access" schemata, more generally. For example, what happens when technology allows intrusive searches of the human brain/memory? Who is an authorized user and what is a viable way to protect against "unreasonable searches" of the human mind? Obviously the concept of a "password" is anachronistic.
  - kybernetyk 12y ago
    > Biomentric security is not a "security mechanism"? "Biometric security" is authentication - not authorization.
    - 001sky 12y ago
      Any "authorizarion code"--such as a password or a secret handshake--is an (ex-post) proxy for an (ex-ante) authorization.
      - Natsu 12y ago
        It's quite possible to authorize without authenticating and vice versa, though it's a bit uncommon. They're separate concepts for a reason, though.
serf 12y ago
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/iphone-fingerprint-scanner-test,news-17587.html http://www.tomsguide.com/us/iphone-fingerprint-scanner-test,... "One of the contest's organizers, Washington D.C.-based security researcher Nick de Petrillo, scanned his penis with TouchID and then used it to unlock his phone. He announced his success on Twitter on Saturday (Sept. 21) and fellow security researcher Andrew Ruef replied "Now no one will ever, ever steal your phone. [Is this] the secret to the correct use of TouchID?" " Future HN headline: "Judge Rules Suspect Can Be Required to Unlock Phone with Penis"
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  Must be frustrating to have to use your phone in public.
- baddox 12y ago
  Police have been known to commit deliberate, lengthy, unabashed sexual assault and rape in the supposed pursuit of justice, so I'd probably just stick to using my fingerprint. Here's one example: http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/16/justice/new-mexico-search-settlement/ http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/16/justice/new-mexico-search-sett...
orbitingpluto 12y ago
So now having eczema qualifies you to be in contempt of court?
pseudometa 12y ago
"Broccoletti believes police still may be unable to unlock the phone because it should require a password, in addition to a fingerprint, once it has been shut off." What a great ending to the story.
rayiner 12y ago
Not surprising if you think about the law. The historical bent of the Anglo-American legal system is that courts have very expansive powers to facilitate the collection of evidence. The 5th amendment is a specific limitation to this power, which prohibits compelling a person to serve as witness against himself. Taken literally this is a very specific limit, but has been construed expansively. But a physical action like unlocking a phone with a fingerprint is not testimonial at all.
- rdtsc 12y ago
  Set password as a confession of a crime -- "I am the Zodiac Killer". Wonder if 5th will still apply in that case. Presumably they can force the person to type the password themselves and guarantee to not look or record they keystrokes. If they refuse, keep them in jail for contempt of court indefinitely.
  - tedunangst 12y ago
    > Set password as a confession of a crime Where did this silly meme come from? Sure, great, they can't use your "confession" to prosecute you for being the zodiac killer. They don't give a shit. They're going to prosecute you for the crimes for which evidence exists on your phone and leave the confession out of it.
    - rdtsc 12y ago
      > Where did this silly meme come from? Playing the same legal "semantics" that DOJ is playing with respect to torture, privacy and other legal issues.
      - tedunangst 12y ago
        Oh, right. Best of luck.
        rdtsc 12y ago
        Well, sitting here on my chair talking about constitutional legalities, on a discussion forum, I'll need all the luck I can get ;-)
suprgeek 12y ago
If he still wants to ensure that the Cops should actually have to do more work despite this decision, then there are four possible outs: - If Touch ID hasn't been used in 48 hours, you'll need to enter your passcode or password to re-enable it. - If your iPhone has been rebooted or reset, you'll need to enter your passcode or password to re-enable it. - If a fingerprint isn't recognized 5 times in a row, you'll need to enter your passcode or password to re-enable it. - If a remote lock has been sent via Find my iPhone, you'll need to enter your passcode or password to re-enable it. Remote lock - or delay for 48 hours - or - give the wrong finger 5 times in a row - or get the phone reset/Rebooted (careful of contempt of court - there few things more unstoppable than a pissed-off Judge with contempt powers)
- lucb1e 12y ago
  - wrong finger is seen as a distress signal. Device will open up and hide/erase anything that isn't already "public" knowledge (e.g. call records can be verified with the cell company, but photos cannot)
  - eridius 12y ago
    You made that up. suprgeek's list is stuff that's actually true.
    - lucb1e 12y ago
      Oh, I didn't know that. Thought it were ideas...
      - Joof 12y ago
        It's a good idea. Too bad it's impossible to hack that into iOS...
        lunixbochs 12y ago
        It's actually possible to do this on a jailbroken device. I had a discussion about this and the consensus was you're probably on better legal and usability ground to just use a shorter passcode timeout (like 30 minutes).
remarkEon 12y ago
Anyone find a link to the actual ruling? I'm sort of tired of seeing these ad hoc write ups. I need to see what the judge actually wrote.
- deancollinsyc 12y ago
  ...and if this applies to laptops etc. (which I assume it does).
jaunkst 12y ago
I suspect that future idealologies of what is considered to being an extension of ones personal being will be challenged.
mirkules 12y ago
One thing that nobody has mentioned yet is that generally speaking, when you are booked, your possessions are confiscated (including your phone) and your fingerprints are taken. It is very trivial to transform even a latent fingerprint and fool even high-end devices (using play-dough, for example) into authenticating. Therefore, cops would technically not even need you to be physically present to unlock your phone. Chances are, your thumbs or index fingers are the ones used to unlock your device, so if I were a cop, that's what I'd try first. I'm not sure though how this would stand up on legal grounds. Anyone?

82 points by dustinfarris 12y ago

> Baust will head to the police station on Monday morning [to comply with the ruling], but [his lawyer] believes police still may be unable to unlock the phone because it should require a password [demanding which is unconstitutional], in addition to a fingerprint, once it has been shut off. Am I naive for thinking these technicalities are really silly? Is not the goal here to establish whether accessing and searching one's phone is fair game at some point in an investigation / trial?

ipsin 12y ago
This is not "some point in an investigation / trial", this is a specific point. They have a warrant. I'm not a big fan of "compelled evidence" (gathering DNA, blood or fingerprints from a suspect), but the courts have been saying it's ok, and that's the approach they're taking here. They just can't (so far, in the US) compel you to actually produce testimonial evidence like passwords, passcodes, etc.

DevX101 12y ago

Fingerprints are usernames, not passwords http://blog.dustinkirkland.com/2013/10/fingerprints-are-user-names-not.html http://blog.dustinkirkland.com/2013/10/fingerprints-are-user...

colinbartlett 12y ago
I am really tired of this argument. Biometric information is a means to verify identification. A username and a password is also a means to verify identification. A fingerprint is no more a username than a password is a username. In the case of a username/password it's the combination that's required to verify the identity.
- jude- 12y ago
  Fingerprints identify individuals, but they should not be relied upon for authentication (which is what the article was getting at). Unlike a password or private key, you can't change your fingerprints when they get compromised.
- tlrobinson 12y ago
  So a fingerprint is like a username and password you go around writing on everything you touch. Got it.
- kerkeslager 12y ago
  > Biometric information is a means to verify identification. A username and a password is also a means to verify identification. A fingerprint is no more a username than a password is a username. In the case of a username/password it's the combination that's required to verify the identity. Is it really? I think if I send you an email at colinbartlett@whateversitehostsyouremail.com I've verified your identity as much as I need with only your username. A username and password is a case of identification (username) and authentication (password). Authentication is proof. When you have authenticated identification (like a username and password) it's proof that the person is why they say they are. The reason people conflate identification with authentication is that we typically use the two together. But there are lots of cases where we only care about one or the other. For example, many systems (such as routers) implement administrative tasks with an administrative password. You don't care who performed the task, you only care that they had permission to do it. That's authentication without identification. Similarly, there are plenty of cases where you don't care about authentication, you only care about identification. For example, anyone can send you an email. On many systems you can send people messages anonymously: there's no authentication necessary, no proof of anything necessary to be allowed to send the message. The only thing necessary is the identity of the receiver. That's identification without authentication. Fingerprints are identification. They are used as authentication because the difficulty of collecting the identification gives a small barrier to falsifying authentication, but they're pretty terrible for that purpose. You leave your fingerprints all over the place: it's like if you just went around writing your bank PIN everywhere. There are already proofs of concepts of people constructing fingerprints from polymers; this is a simple case of privilege escalation, where gaining one level of privilege allows you access to a higher level of privilege. Given that most people give everyone access to their fingerprints that's a pretty low point to allow escalation from.

deadgrey19 12y ago

"providing fingerprints and other biometric information is considered outside the protection" Is it just me, or is there a contradiction here? I'm happy to provide you with a finger print (in ink), but that in itself is not enough to unlock the phone. You need my live hand attached to my live finger. I think the problem here is that it is an oversimplification to call it a "finger print".

FireBeyond 12y ago
Not really. While there were comments about ‘sub dermal fields’ with the iPhone, it was very quickly shown that you do not need even a reasonable facsimile of flesh, let alone live flesh, to fool the sensor.
kyboren 12y ago
DNA tests are done by cotton swab of your 'live' cheek. Should they only be done on 'dead' dandruff? In any case, it should be pretty easy to recreate a sufficiently-convincing fake finger given an ink fingerprint. But that all misses the point. The only reason passwords get special treatment is that an order to compel production of a password is an order to testify against oneself. For example, unless the defendant already admits to knowing the password, the fact that the defendent knew the password after production would be obviously prejudicial. It would be tantamount to requiring the defendent to testify, "yes, it was me". In other words, compulsory production of information whose existence and location is not a foregone conclusion probably falls foul of the Fifth Amendment. Compulsory production of your finger does not require you to provide any information other than information that clearly exists about you. (IANAL)

emergentcypher 12y ago

Having your fingerprint as the key is no different than having a physical key. Which the police can steal and use. It's not in your head, so there is no 5th amendment protection for self-incrimination. I only see it being useful as an additional factor in multi-factor auth.

blazespin 12y ago

Just use the wrong finger.

jemfinch 12y ago
Just go to jail for contempt.
- spiritplumber 12y ago
  Scream "I have nothing but contempt for this court!" and then attack the shark robots to 80s music. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_EFSQPJh8w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_EFSQPJh8w
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  I think I saw Matthew Green propose a solution for this: Apple could allow you to use a different finger to force the phone to prompt for a password. In theory you shouldn't get jailed for contempt over this since you'd be doing it much earlier than being in Court in front of a judge - like when you see the cops coming.
  - asadotzler 12y ago
    Not necessary. Just power off when you see the cops coming.
- mikeash 12y ago
  I only have about an 80% success rate with Touch ID anyway. It doesn't seem to like sweaty fingers. Every so often I get unlucky five times in a row and have to unlock it with my password. Who's to say it didn't happen by accident? Or is having sweaty fingers going to effectively be an imprisonable offense now, the way forgetting your password is in jurisdictions where you can be compelled to reveal your password?

dkopi 12y ago

"But providing fingerprints and other biometric information is considered outside the protection of the Fifth Amendment, the judge said." Which is why 2 factor authentication is so important.

DigitalSea 12y ago

It was bound to happen. You can view the fingerprint reader on the iPhone and other phones like the Samsung Galaxy S5 which feature fingerprint readers as having made it easier for law enforcement to get into your phone. I would not be surprised if the fingerprint scans the police take from you down at the station or the ones you give up when entering a US airport when travelling from another country could be used to open up a fingerprint protected phone in the near future. No matter what anyone says, the fingerprint reader is convenience, not extra security.

swartkrans 12y ago
Police can get a warrant to force you to vomit up drugs you swallowed, so forcing you to put your finger on a thing being a legal thing shouldn't be a surprise.
higherpurpose 12y ago
I know this decision was "expected", however, I can't help but get the feeling that in an "ideal society", where governments wouldn't abuse their powers, and people's rights would be much more "reasonable" (in a good way), the government would not be able to force you to put your finger on something. After all we have so many laws that offer similar type of protections already, such as a wife not having to testify against her husband. At some point the society decided that it's the "right thing" to do. Perhaps the society can decide that having the government force you to unlock your devices with your finger is unacceptable.
- rayiner 12y ago
  > After all we have so many laws that offer similar type of protections already, such as a wife not having to testify against her husband. At some point the society decided that it's the "right thing" to do. To put it in context: spousal privilege is rooted deeply in religious tradition going back hundreds if not thousands of years. It fell naturally out of a belief that people already had (the indivisible marital unit). That's what it takes to overcome the default presumption that "the public has the right to every man's evidence." Now, the fact that something has been the case for probably 800 years doesn't mean it can't be changed, but does suggest that if people really had a problem with it, they would have taken issue with it by now.

edwhitesell 12y ago

I'm surprised it took this long to come to a legal decision. A fingerprint is a means to identify someone, not a security mechanism (like a password).

001sky 12y ago
Biomentric security is not a "security mechanism"? This seems pedantic and absurd. A password or a username is no different than any other proxy variable to verify identity and authorizations. The bigger question is about the implications of "authorized user access" schemata, more generally. For example, what happens when technology allows intrusive searches of the human brain/memory? Who is an authorized user and what is a viable way to protect against "unreasonable searches" of the human mind? Obviously the concept of a "password" is anachronistic.
- kybernetyk 12y ago
  > Biomentric security is not a "security mechanism"? "Biometric security" is authentication - not authorization.
  - 001sky 12y ago
    Any "authorizarion code"--such as a password or a secret handshake--is an (ex-post) proxy for an (ex-ante) authorization.
    - Natsu 12y ago
      It's quite possible to authorize without authenticating and vice versa, though it's a bit uncommon. They're separate concepts for a reason, though.

serf 12y ago

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/iphone-fingerprint-scanner-test,news-17587.html http://www.tomsguide.com/us/iphone-fingerprint-scanner-test,... "One of the contest's organizers, Washington D.C.-based security researcher Nick de Petrillo, scanned his penis with TouchID and then used it to unlock his phone. He announced his success on Twitter on Saturday (Sept. 21) and fellow security researcher Andrew Ruef replied "Now no one will ever, ever steal your phone. [Is this] the secret to the correct use of TouchID?" " Future HN headline: "Judge Rules Suspect Can Be Required to Unlock Phone with Penis"

higherpurpose 12y ago
Must be frustrating to have to use your phone in public.
baddox 12y ago
Police have been known to commit deliberate, lengthy, unabashed sexual assault and rape in the supposed pursuit of justice, so I'd probably just stick to using my fingerprint. Here's one example: http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/16/justice/new-mexico-search-settlement/ http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/16/justice/new-mexico-search-sett...

orbitingpluto 12y ago

So now having eczema qualifies you to be in contempt of court?

pseudometa 12y ago

"Broccoletti believes police still may be unable to unlock the phone because it should require a password, in addition to a fingerprint, once it has been shut off." What a great ending to the story.

rayiner 12y ago

Not surprising if you think about the law. The historical bent of the Anglo-American legal system is that courts have very expansive powers to facilitate the collection of evidence. The 5th amendment is a specific limitation to this power, which prohibits compelling a person to serve as witness against himself. Taken literally this is a very specific limit, but has been construed expansively. But a physical action like unlocking a phone with a fingerprint is not testimonial at all.

rdtsc 12y ago
Set password as a confession of a crime -- "I am the Zodiac Killer". Wonder if 5th will still apply in that case. Presumably they can force the person to type the password themselves and guarantee to not look or record they keystrokes. If they refuse, keep them in jail for contempt of court indefinitely.
- tedunangst 12y ago
  > Set password as a confession of a crime Where did this silly meme come from? Sure, great, they can't use your "confession" to prosecute you for being the zodiac killer. They don't give a shit. They're going to prosecute you for the crimes for which evidence exists on your phone and leave the confession out of it.
  - rdtsc 12y ago
    > Where did this silly meme come from? Playing the same legal "semantics" that DOJ is playing with respect to torture, privacy and other legal issues.
    - tedunangst 12y ago
      Oh, right. Best of luck.
      - rdtsc 12y ago
        Well, sitting here on my chair talking about constitutional legalities, on a discussion forum, I'll need all the luck I can get ;-)

suprgeek 12y ago

If he still wants to ensure that the Cops should actually have to do more work despite this decision, then there are four possible outs: - If Touch ID hasn't been used in 48 hours, you'll need to enter your passcode or password to re-enable it. - If your iPhone has been rebooted or reset, you'll need to enter your passcode or password to re-enable it. - If a fingerprint isn't recognized 5 times in a row, you'll need to enter your passcode or password to re-enable it. - If a remote lock has been sent via Find my iPhone, you'll need to enter your passcode or password to re-enable it. Remote lock - or delay for 48 hours - or - give the wrong finger 5 times in a row - or get the phone reset/Rebooted (careful of contempt of court - there few things more unstoppable than a pissed-off Judge with contempt powers)

lucb1e 12y ago
- wrong finger is seen as a distress signal. Device will open up and hide/erase anything that isn't already "public" knowledge (e.g. call records can be verified with the cell company, but photos cannot)
- eridius 12y ago
  You made that up. suprgeek's list is stuff that's actually true.
  - lucb1e 12y ago
    Oh, I didn't know that. Thought it were ideas...
    - Joof 12y ago
      It's a good idea. Too bad it's impossible to hack that into iOS...
      - lunixbochs 12y ago
        It's actually possible to do this on a jailbroken device. I had a discussion about this and the consensus was you're probably on better legal and usability ground to just use a shorter passcode timeout (like 30 minutes).

remarkEon 12y ago

Anyone find a link to the actual ruling? I'm sort of tired of seeing these ad hoc write ups. I need to see what the judge actually wrote.

deancollinsyc 12y ago
...and if this applies to laptops etc. (which I assume it does).

jaunkst 12y ago

I suspect that future idealologies of what is considered to being an extension of ones personal being will be challenged.

mirkules 12y ago

One thing that nobody has mentioned yet is that generally speaking, when you are booked, your possessions are confiscated (including your phone) and your fingerprints are taken. It is very trivial to transform even a latent fingerprint and fool even high-end devices (using play-dough, for example) into authenticating. Therefore, cops would technically not even need you to be physically present to unlock your phone. Chances are, your thumbs or index fingers are the ones used to unlock your device, so if I were a cop, that's what I'd try first. I'm not sure though how this would stand up on legal grounds. Anyone?