Court: Police CAN Force Users to Unlock iPhones With Fingerprints

[revelarts]

Court Rules Police Can Force Users to Unlock iPhones With Fingerprints, But Not Passcodes

A Circuit Court judge in Virginia has ruled that fingerprints are not protected by the Fifth Amendment, a decision that has clear privacy implications for fingerprint-protected devices like newer iPhones and iPads.


According to Judge Steven C. Fucci, while a criminal defendant can't be compelled to hand over a passcode to police officers for the purpose of unlocking a cellular device, law enforcement officials can compel a defendant to give up a fingerprint.

The Fifth Amendment states that "no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," which protects memorized information like passwords and passcodes, but it does not extend to fingerprints in the eyes of the law, as speculated by Wiredlast year.

Judge Steven C. Frucci ruled this week that giving police a fingerprint is akin to providing a DNA or handwriting sample or an actual key, which the law permits. A pass code, though, requires the defendant to divulge knowledge, which the law protects against, according to Frucci's written opinion.

Read More...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Court Rules Police Can Force Users to Unlock iPhones With Fingerprints, But Not Passcodes

Soon every damn right we have will be totally subject to being voided by any government official for any reason..
Its called control , for control --absolute control-- must exist before absolute power can hold sway.
They when able will force every company to filter directly thru one of their set up monitoring stations.
By passing ALL PASSWORDS ETC..
NEXT TEN TO TWENTY YEARS WILL SEE MASSIVE UPHEAVAL, WARS AND DESTRUCTION.
We as a nation will be destroyed in order for the One World Government to exist.
That's why Obama says no borders.. Refuses to close our borders..
He is rapidly giving up our National Sovereignty every chance he gets.. -Tyr

[jimnyc]

The Fifth Amendment states that "no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," which protects memorized information like passwords and passcodes, but it does not extend to fingerprints in the eyes of the law, as speculated by Wired last year.

Judge Steven C. Frucci ruled this week that giving police a fingerprint is akin to providing a DNA or handwriting sample or an actual key, which the law permits. A pass code, though, requires the defendant to divulge knowledge, which the law protects against, according to Frucci's written opinion.

Based on a court order, I have no issue with a defendant having to give up a DNA sample, or handwriting sample, or key.... These things have been done a gazillion times. If this is based on a court order, I take no issue with it. Otherwise, all everyone would have to do is use the fingerprint option on their phones security to hide things. This is the same as the recent case about the Feds wanting to make sure they can access an Apple phone, with a warrant of course, if the phone is so locked down that they can't access it. I still stay with my "safe" example. If someone has a safe in their house, and say busted for dealing 50 kilos of cocaine. The police will easily get a warrant to search the home. Now suppose they find a huge safe, but for whatever reason they cannot gain access - with a court order in hand, they will likely break it if the owner doesn't for over a key. Same with searching a vehicle, with warrant in hand for entire vehicle, and no key for the trunk and an uncooperative owner, they will break the lock to gain entry. Once the warrant is in hand, the accused shouldn't be able to "hide" things covered in the warrant.

[tailfins]

I was reading the comments in the article and the way to guard against this is to use a finger other than the index finger. Authorities can't make you tell them which finger and after five failed attempts a password is required.

[aboutime]

Soon every damn right we have will be totally subject to being voided by any government official for any reason..
Its called control , for control --absolute control-- must exist before absolute power can hold sway.
They when able will force every company to filter directly thru one of their set up monitoring stations.
By passing ALL PASSWORDS ETC..
NEXT TEN TO TWENTY YEARS WILL SEE MASSIVE UPHEAVAL, WARS AND DESTRUCTION.
We as a nation will be dGOestroyed in order for the One World Government to exist.
That's why Obama says no borders.. Refuses to close our borders..
He is rapidly giving up our National Sovereignty every chance he gets.. -Tyr

Tyr. Sorry to disagree with you but. That is already happening. Think about it. Everything any of us do in our daily lives has some connection to Government control.

If you have a SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER, BIRTH CERTIFICATE, PAY TAXES, VOTE, WORK, GET PAID, EAT, HAVE AN ADDRESS, DRIVE,
VISIT A DOCTOR, DENTIST, HOSPITAL, FISH, HUNT, SWIM, WALK, RIDE A BIKE, PAY BILLS.

THEY ALREADY HAVE ALL THEY NEED TO RUN OUR LIVES.

[jimnyc]

If arrested, they have a right to fingerprint anyway. They can even then take that print to use elsewhere. If not arrested, and no warrant, no entry. I suppose it depends on the crime. Perhaps if someone is arrested, and getting entry to the phone is imperative to the case - quick let a judge decide if it's "warranted" and let him decide instead of the police.

Hell, they should hire a few folks like that in every precinct, this way judges can make the decisions and take a little of that power away from the police.

[fj1200]

Court Rules Police Can Force Users to Unlock iPhones With Fingerprints, But Not Passcodes

The interesting thing is that he was following law and precedent. Not a rogue decision.