SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Bytram
Feds Can't Force You To Unlock Your iPhone With Finger Or Face, Judge Rules
A California judge has ruled that American cops can't force people to unlock a mobile phone with their face or finger. The ruling goes further to protect people's private lives from government searches than any before and is being hailed as a potentially landmark decision.
[...] But in a more significant part of the ruling, Judge Westmore declared that the government did not have the right, even with a warrant, to force suspects to incriminate themselves by unlocking their devices with their biological features. Previously, courts had decided biometric features, unlike passcodes, were not "testimonial." That was because a suspect would have to willingly and verbally give up a passcode, which is not the case with biometrics. A password was therefore deemed testimony, but body parts were not, and so not granted Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination.
That created a paradox: How could a passcode be treated differently to a finger or face, when any of the three could be used to unlock a device and expose a user's private life?
And that's just what Westmore focused on in her ruling. Declaring that "technology is outpacing the law," the judge wrote that fingerprints and face scans were not the same as "physical evidence" when considered in a context where those body features would be used to unlock a phone.
[...] There were other ways the government could get access to relevant data in the Facebook extortion case "that do not trample on the Fifth Amendment," Westmore added. They could, for instance, ask Facebook to provide Messenger communications, she suggested. Facebook has been willing to hand over such messages in a significant number of previous cases Forbes has reviewed.
[...] Andrew Crocker, senior staff attorney at the digital rights nonprofit Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the latest California ruling went a step further than he'd seen other courts go. In particular, Westmore observed alphanumeric passcodes and biometrics served the same purpose in unlocking phones.
[...] The magistrate judge decision could, of course, be overturned by a district court judge, as happened in Illinois in 2017 with a similar ruling. The best advice for anyone concerned about government overreach into their smartphones: Stick to a strong alphanumeric passcode that you won't be compelled to disclose.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday January 15 2019, @08:53PM (3 children)
The meat locker analogy breaks down.
The meat locker may contain evidence, but not every single detail of your entire life including the most private things that might be known about you. Things completely irrelevant to whether or not there are bodies in the meat locker.
Your phone contains such comprehensive information. Being able to get into your phone should require a far higher bar to jump over than being able to get into a meat locker. There are unlikely to be any dead bodies inside a smartphone.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by mobydisk on Friday January 18 2019, @05:39PM (2 children)
It does not break down because the warrant must state which things are extracted from the meat locker or the phone. So even if the hypothetical mobster kept all his personal information in the meat locker, they could not use that. The warrant would need to specifically state that they are searching for dead bodies. Part of the process is that the prosecutor will try to write the warrant as broadly as possible, and defense will try to reduce the scope of the warrant down as much as possible.
US Constitution Amendment IV:
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday January 18 2019, @06:17PM (1 child)
Here is a way the meat locker analogy breaks down.
They don't make a copy of the meat locker and keep it. Forever.
They do make a copy of your phone (generally) and keep it. Thus at a later point they can search for things (authorized or not) not covered by the warrant -- without anyone knowing.
The meat locker remains on someone's real property and it is likely they would or at least could know if someone sneaks in again to conduct another secret search.
Now you can argue that they don't make a copy of the phone and keep it forever. But how can you really know?
It would seem like the only way might be for the phone owner's lawyer to be present at the actual event where the phone is searched for the specific subject material named in the warrant. Assuming there even is a warrant.
I would suppose that not every case where they would try to force you to unlock your phone with your finger is being done under a warrant.
These people (government and police) must be kept honest. Because without necessary checks and enforcement mechanisms it is extremely clear that they will not -- over time -- continue to stay honest.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by mobydisk on Monday January 21 2019, @09:47PM
Fascinating point! Hmmmm....