5 ms·

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 havin

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.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    "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." I think it certainly does suggest that, but it's worth noting that what we really have a problem with shifts over time. Whether that's going to be relevant here, I can't say...
imaginenore 12y ago
Except it's not really a fingerprint reader - it scans under your epidermis. You can't get the fingerprint from the police files and create a fake finger to unlock the phone.
- dmd 12y ago
  This is not actually true. It is, in fact, a fingerprint reader. https://blog.lookout.com/blog/2013/09/23/why-i-hacked-apples-touchid-and-still-think-it-is-awesome/ https://blog.lookout.com/blog/2013/09/23/why-i-hacked-apples...
josephlord 12y ago
I think that is wrong. Having the finger print makes longer (or even just enable at all) pass codes practical. The passcode is also a part of the key used to encrypt the on device data and is not stored on the device so by having a longer key brute forcing is made less practical. Note also that the passcode is needed occasionally and if the wrong print is used it can be triggered sooner. The attacker doesn't get many chances using the scanned fingerprint. I'm not saying it is impossible to break or that a long passcode on its own isn't more secure but for most people the TouchID is a better trade off.

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.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  "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." I think it certainly does suggest that, but it's worth noting that what we really have a problem with shifts over time. Whether that's going to be relevant here, I can't say...

imaginenore 12y ago

Except it's not really a fingerprint reader - it scans under your epidermis. You can't get the fingerprint from the police files and create a fake finger to unlock the phone.

dmd 12y ago
This is not actually true. It is, in fact, a fingerprint reader. https://blog.lookout.com/blog/2013/09/23/why-i-hacked-apples-touchid-and-still-think-it-is-awesome/ https://blog.lookout.com/blog/2013/09/23/why-i-hacked-apples...

josephlord 12y ago

I think that is wrong. Having the finger print makes longer (or even just enable at all) pass codes practical. The passcode is also a part of the key used to encrypt the on device data and is not stored on the device so by having a longer key brute forcing is made less practical. Note also that the passcode is needed occasionally and if the wrong print is used it can be triggered sooner. The attacker doesn't get many chances using the scanned fingerprint. I'm not saying it is impossible to break or that a long passcode on its own isn't more secure but for most people the TouchID is a better trade off.