Posted on 10/01/2018 6:59:16 AM PDT by LibWhacker
It finally happened. The feds forced an Apple iPhone X owner to unlock their device with their face.
A child abuse investigation unearthed by Forbes includes the first known case in which law enforcement used Apple Face ID facial recognition technology to open a suspect's iPhone. That's by any police agency anywhere in the world, not just in America.
It happened on August 10, when the FBI searched the house of 28-year-old Grant Michalski, a Columbus, Ohio, resident who would later that month be charged with receiving and possessing child pornography. With a search warrant in hand, a federal investigator told Michalski to put his face in front of the phone, which he duly did. That allowed the agent to pick through the suspect's online chats, photos and whatever else he deemed worthy of investigation.
The case marks another significant moment in the ongoing battle between law enforcement and tech providers, with the former trying to break the myriad security protections put in place by the latter. Since the fight between the world's most valuable company and the FBI in San Bernardino over access to an iPhone in 2016, Forbes has been tracking the various ways cops have been trying to break Apple's protections.
First came multiple cases in which suspects were told to unlock iPhones with their fingerprints, via Apple's Touch ID biometric login. The same technique was then used on dead subjects.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
I’m getting ready to ditch my smartphone. This is one of the reasons why.
My wife and I have TouchID on our new laptop and love it! Very convenient, but unfortunately the security risks are there.
Lord, don’t GET me started. This one’s not even close - it’s clear the person is MALE! Lazy English grammar is on my top 3 list of pet peeves.
#grumblegrumbleandgetoffmylawn
I think that may be the smart move, for myself, too. I mean, it’s not just the feds who pose a risk. With these newest phones, couldn’t a thug conceivably beat you up, take your phone and drain your bank account before you could even get up and brush the dust off?
If a thug tries to take my phone they first have to get past the .45 I carry.
I think Oklahoma would be a great place to relocate. Don’t come To Texas, our weather is TERRIBLE...
“I’ve GOT to get out of California. You know, it’s illegal to own a blowgun out here?!”
All the more reason to own one. They’ll never expect it.
At least it was xir, xey, or whatever.
If they get a warrant to get the I-phone does that mean that the suspect must help them find evidence?
I wonder if this would be a 5 amendment violation. A witness can remain silent, but does a witness or suspect have to help the investigator? If they wanted to get into his computer would the suspect be required to tell them the passwords? Is not helping considered to be obstruction?
I’ve mentioned Texas to my wife, but she’s not having it! And the weather is a big factor.
I’m no lawyer by any means. But yes, I think that’s one of the big questions: How much does you have to cooperate before you’re getting into self-incrimination?
DO you
Or a close up video. Would appear more real.
No, actually. The iPhone uses a “dot projection” 3D scanner to digitize your face. The face must actually have depth to unlock the phone. I guess a wax model might do...
Agreed. Two-factor auth is much more secure than any single auth method.
What I would like, would be for my right fingerprint to wipe the phone, my left would erase it back to factory defaults.
Do you have to use a biometric? Or can you stay with an alpha-numeric passcode?
Siamese twins brings up an interesting dilemma. If one commits the crime does that mean the other is complicit?
As best I can tell you the great majority of the legal profession is as badly divided on this question as Siam.
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.