319
submitted 6 months ago by TaviRider@reddthat.com to c/privacy@lemmy.ml

The legal situation is more complex and nuanced than the headline implies, so the article is worth reading. This adds another ruling to the confusing case history regarding forced biometric unlocking.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Lemming421@lemmy.world 58 points 6 months ago

Reminder that on an iPhone, if you hold the Volume Up and Power buttons simultaneously for several seconds, the phone will vibrate and will require the PIN or password next time you unlock it, not Face/TouchID. This happens whether the screen is on or off, so you can discretely do it in your pocket.

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 27 points 6 months ago

Or just use pin all the time, no face or fingerprint.

[-] fl42v@lemmy.ml 14 points 6 months ago

And then some random dude takes a peek at you entering said password, and steals the phone :/

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] jose1324@lemmy.world 17 points 6 months ago

Basically every Android also has a variation of this

[-] admiralteal@kbin.social 5 points 6 months ago

Absent an idiotic carrier/mfg skin that disables the feature, you just long-press power then click "lockdown".

Or reboot the device. Rebooting the device will also leave it encrypted if your device has encryption (the PIN/password is needed to decrypt, essentially).

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago

So you know what it is? I just tried both volume keys and all I got was TalkBack (Google's screen reader).

[-] Mac@mander.xyz 7 points 6 months ago

it's called lockdown mode. on my phone you press and hold the power button and select the option. you might have to enable this in settings.

[-] Blizzard@lemmy.zip 13 points 6 months ago

Holy connoli, you are right! I just enabled it.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[-] gomp@lemmy.ml 29 points 6 months ago

Makes perfect sense to me (not a lawyer, not a US person)... what doesn't make sense is how many people still think biometric is high security (maybe because of how cool they make it look in the movies?)

[-] Korne127@lemmy.world 57 points 6 months ago

Idk… you being forced to use your body against your will to reveal secret and private things sounds pretty awful to me

[-] RealFknNito@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago

Biometric is high security against thieves and nosy girlfriends, not kidnappers or cops apparently. You need to be physically present for most of them which means it can't be done without you knowing. The problem arises when the person who wants access also has access to you.

[-] astraeus@programming.dev 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Yeah, it’s like if you kept a bunch of illegal things in a safe the authorities have the authority to force you to unlock the safe.

[-] TaviRider@reddthat.com 47 points 6 months ago

Authorities with a warrant can drill into a safe to get to its contents. That’s legally distinct from forcing someone to unlock the safe by entering the combination. It takes some mental effort to enter a combination, so it counts as “testimony”, and in the USA people can’t be forced to testify against themselves.

The parallel in US law is that people can be forced to unlock a phone using biometrics, but they can’t be forced to unlock a phone by entering a passcode. The absurd part here is that the actions have the same effect, but one of them can be compelled and the other cannot.

[-] Fester@lemm.ee 10 points 6 months ago

It’ll be interesting to see if it applies to facial recognition. In iOS, at least, you need to look at the phone to unlock it. That’s an intentional action. If you look to the side or close your eyes, it won’t work.

So if you’re conscious, you can’t easily be forced to unlock the phone with your face and eyes if you’re able to resist. But if you’re unconscious, then maybe they could use your face (assuming your eyes aren’t rolled back into your head because the cops gave you brain damage.)

[-] ShortN0te@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 months ago

But you can be easily tricked. Even easier than with the fingerprint.

"Hey, can you look at those pictures?", shows some printed out pictures with the phone hiding behind and then quickly just dropping the pictures.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ShortN0te@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago

Depends on the country you life in. And even in the USA it is to my knowledge not correct. They can try to crack it themself but you have not to comply.

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 8 points 6 months ago

Also not a lawyer or a US person, but from listening to American tech media, this has been an issue of some debate for a decade or more now.

The trick lies in their 5th amendment right against self-incrimination. Police cannot require you to give your PIN because that would violate 5th amendment rights. It has been ruled in some parts of America (but the ruling in other parts has been the opposite, IIRC) that you can be forced to give biometric unlocks. In my opinion this is kinda silly and inconsistent. It might be in line with the letter of the law, but it's certainly not in keeping with its spirit.

[-] Adalast@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

As an American and avid rights understander, it is not the 5th Amendment which this risks violating (which you did cite correctly), but the 4th Amendment, which guarantees protection from undue searches and seizures of your person, property, or effects. This is the whole reason for the warrant requirement and the reason you hear us bitching whenever something comes up that lets police or agents of the government acquire non-public access to information or property in a warrantless way.

An example: the police are investigating Mary's death and suspect you of having planned the murder in the Notes app on your phone, so they want to get into your phone. Without a court order (warrant), you have to give them permission. With the court order, you must give the passcode and/or unlock the phone.

Now, at this point, if your passcode happened to be 'I killed John02&' you could argue 5th Amendment protection because divulging the information would incriminate yourself in the crime, or a different crime.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 28 points 6 months ago

This isn't new. I've been on the passcode to unlock train for a long time because of this. It's only news in that it's been codified by the court. You can't be compelled to reveal info.

On iPhone: press and hold the lock button and either volume button for 1-2sec. It'll force a passcode despite biometrics.

[-] Raiderkev@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago

You can also turn your phone off. Phones require a passcode after booting up.

[-] BreakDecks@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 months ago

I hate Siri, but you can do a "Hey Siri, whose phone is this?" and it will force PIN unlock. Great if you aren't able to physically touch the phone.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] guy@lemmy.world 25 points 6 months ago

Not sure about all phone models, but at least with mine, if I switch it off then it requires a PIN, rather than biometrics, upon being switched back on. Thus if the police arrive, immediately switching off your phone could be a sensible thing to do

[-] Xatolos@reddthat.com 8 points 6 months ago

Restarting phone as well so the same thing

[-] runjun@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

On iPhone, maybe Android too, you click the power button 5 times and you have enter the pin.

[-] moody@lemmings.world 10 points 6 months ago

On my phone, it gives a 5 second delay before making an SOS call.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] uriel238 16 points 6 months ago

This may be the first time a federal ruling has been made but I don't know if it applies to state crimes. Many counties across the nation have ruled one way or another.

SCOTUS once ruled law enforcemeny cannot compel you to unlock a device at all and cannot access your phone without a warrant, but I don't know if that is current. Police can legally lie to you (and beat you with a $5 wrench and pronably get away with it in court).

They also have strong phone cracking packages despite FBI's lament about evidence locked away in seized devices.

Generally, do not consent to searches or cooperate without a lawyer present. Expect everything an officer tells you is intended to mislead. They will even lie in court to the judge.

[-] firefly@neon.nightbulb.net 7 points 6 months ago

@TaviRider@reddthat.com

First order of business: never enable the thumbprint lock on your phone.

Second order of business: never conduct any sensitive business or communication with a mobile phone.

Third order of business: use a very strong passphrase to lock your phone.

Fourth order of business: understand that all your phone calls and text messages are hoovered up into spook databases.

[-] psychothumbs@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago

This is one of many reasons you should use a password of some kind that you keep inside of your head to unlock your phone rather than a biometric that people can use to unlock it against your will.

[-] Lemongrab@lemmy.one 8 points 6 months ago

Or just use lockdown mode in android to force phone to only unlock with password

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Zerush@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)
[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 9 points 6 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The US Constitution's Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination does not prohibit police officers from forcing a suspect to unlock a phone with a thumbprint scan, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday.

The ruling does not apply to all cases in which biometrics are used to unlock an electronic device but is a significant decision in an unsettled area of the law.

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."

Payne conceded that "the use of biometrics to open an electronic device is akin to providing a physical key to a safe" but argued it is still a testimonial act because it "simultaneously confirm[s] ownership and authentication of its contents," the court said.

The Supreme Court "held that this was not a testimonial production, reasoning that the signing of the forms related no information about existence, control, or authenticity of the records that the bank could ultimately be forced to produce," the 9th Circuit said.

The Court held that this act of production was of a fundamentally different kind than that at issue in Doe because it was "unquestionably necessary for respondent to make extensive use of 'the contents of his own mind' in identifying the hundreds of documents responsive to the requests in the subpoena."


The original article contains 662 words, the summary contains 241 words. Saved 64%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] uzi@lemmy.ca 7 points 6 months ago

People who demand constant internet connect when thy go out have a higher probability of having too much personal information on their phone. It's a difference in mindset or mentality.

Cell service is overrated. Given the amount of people in public that are either scrolling or on some form of a social media shows having data service is not as important as people think it is. I have a GrapheneOS phone for listening to music and if I want to check for public wi-fi for a specific task but most days I never connect online when I am out and I've never signed up for a cell data plan before.

Life can be happier when someone is out in public and can't check messages, that usually can wait anyways for a few hours, and they can enjoy the world around, not what's on a screen.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Lycist@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago

Hmm, is there an app/feature where if I use my thumb-print instead of say, my fore-finger print, it wipes the phone instead?

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

This has been a theory for a while, just not sure it was a specifically ruled precedent. The notion being similar to how they can force fingerprinting but not testimony. Access to a physical lock or location you can't simply say 'stay out' but they can't force you to divulge a password since it's a thought in your mind.

Also, relying on biometrics is terrible, quick but immutable keys are a big no-no.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2024
319 points (100.0% liked)

Privacy

31616 readers
725 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

Chat rooms

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS