Posted on 10/26/2016 7:00:10 PM PDT by nickcarraway
In what’s believed to be an unprecedented attempt to bypass the security of Apple iPhones, or any smartphone that uses fingerprints to unlock, California’s top cops asked to enter a residence and force anyone inside to use their biometric information to open their mobile devices.
FORBES found a court filing, dated May 9 2016, in which the Department of Justice sought to search a Lancaster, California, property. But there was a more remarkable aspect of the search, as pointed out in the memorandum: “authorization to depress the fingerprints and thumbprints of every person who is located at the SUBJECT PREMISES during the execution of the search and who is reasonably believed by law enforcement to be the user of a fingerprint sensor-enabled device that is located at the SUBJECT PREMISES and falls within the scope of the warrant.” The warrant was not available to the public, nor were other documents related to the case.
According to the memorandum, signed off by U.S. attorney for the Central District of California Eileen Decker, the government asked for even more than just fingerprints: “While the government does not know ahead of time the identity of every digital device or fingerprint (or indeed, every other piece of evidence) that it will find in the search, it has demonstrated probable cause that evidence may exist at the search location, and needs the ability to gain access to those devices and maintain that access to search them. For that reason, the warrant authorizes the seizure of ‘passwords, encryption keys, and other access devices that may be necessary to access the device,’” the document read.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
“GFY in the A”...My response....
Cops can “ask” for anything they want.
And you should say “no” to their requests.
Or “I do not consent.”
This is flat out sick and unconstitutional. Get a warrant upon probable cause. That’s it. Otherwise, stay out of our private documents!
They once asked me to provide a urine sample, so I said “from here?”
“the government asked for even more than just fingerprints”
WTF
Apple, and others using such fingerprint based security tech should add the ability to set one fingerprint as a ‘panic finger’ that disables fingerprint unlocking until you have turned it back on by some other method that can’t be employed by force against your will. Useful against smart bad guys, badged or not. And, if no one has ever thought of this added step before, I’ll accept royalties for its implementation.
“Feds Walk Into A Building, Demand Everyone’s Fingerprints To Open Phones”
This crap is why conservatives need to get off their fat, mammon-worshipping asses and elect a pro-2nd amendment, constitutional sheriff in their counties.
When the 50 IQ fed apes, dressed in their Rambo clown suits, walk in and demand anything, the sheriff steps in and tells them to GFY. He’s backed by an armed battalion-size deputy auxiliary (2,000 men) force ready to handle county “emergencies.”
I think there was a recent court finding about this kind of search.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/09/25/court_rules_that_defendants_don_t_have_to_provide_smartphone_passcodes.html
Evidently, current rulings say that a warrant can force you to provide you fingerprint, but not a passcode. A passcode is part of your mind and is protected by your 5th amendment rights.
So the short answer is if you don't want your phone searched, use a passcode, not a fingerprint.
ROFL!
Think I'll say "Open wide."
This fingerprint versus passcode stuff is nonsense. The courts may have ruled a fingerprint isn’t the same thing as a passcode, but it’s all based on getting access to documents that may incriminate the person. A person shouldn’t have to give ANYTHING that might incriminate themselves. That includes a blood test in my book, although sensors that measure such external things such as breath are a different matter.
I view the constitution as always putting the greater burden/limit on government. When there’s a question, the benefit of the doubt should go to We the People. Of course, this isn’t how the modern courts often rule, and a Hillary Clinton court will be a rubber stamp for whatever she wants.
Our federsl government is a threat to our freedoms.
Many state and local govts are too.
“They once asked me to provide a urine sample, so I said “from here?””
Even better, whip it out on the spot and say “Sure, you got a container?”
Set a long alphabetic/numeric passcode as your decryption key and your fingerprint won't help as long as you turn it off before giving the phone to police.
it was a warrant
Fingerprint plus password.
And if you never subjected yourself to providing a biometric login in the first place???
They can ask but cannot force you disclose your password.
Keep your passwords in your head
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.