“A Virginia circuit court judge ruled this week that smartphone users can be compelled to give up their fingerprint, but not their passcodes, allowing police to search their devices,” Zack Whittaker reports for ZDNet.
“A fingerprint — used by a number of devices, like the latest iPhones, iPads, and Samsung Galaxy phones and tablets — does not fall within these protections, which Judge Steven C. Frucci likened it to handing over a DNA sample,” Whittaker reports. “There is a caveat, however. If a device is locked by both a fingerprint and a passcode, the passcode wins, meaning the device is protected.”
Read more in the full article here.
Related articles:
Apple’s Touch ID may mean U.S. iPhone 5s users can’t ‘take the fifth’ – September 12, 2013
Apple changes the world again, propels biometrics into the mainstream with iPhone 5s’ Touch ID – September 12, 2013
USA! Land of the Fee, home of the Slave!
Careful there. Speaking truth to power can be dangerous to your wealth.
Whiskey tango foxtrot?!
….with a signed search warrant. There, fixed it for ya.
Just wipe your sweaty brow with your thumb… after 5 failures it’ll default to the passcode, then you’re safe. 😉
Good thinking!
Or use the wrong finger, or wrong part of the finger. Maybe the middle one.
You beat me to it Ron. 🙂
Use your middle finger. 😉
Even easier. Just hold the power button and the home button for 3-5 seconds. It will cause a reset of the device. After every restart/reset, the iPhone requires a passcode to unlock it. The fingerprint will not be enough.
For the record … I am not doing anything illegal, nor can I remember the last time I was stopped by the Police for anything.
That being said, the next time I get pulled over by a cop, that is exactly what I’m going to do. There should be plenty of time from being pulled over, until the cop is standing at the window to accomplish this.
I simply refuse for over 12 hours. If Big Twinky, my accountant, doesn’t receive a text from me ever 12 hours, he wipes my devices remotely.
Is he related to the big Samoan attorney used by Hunter S. Thompson?
I suspect that won’t hold up on appeal. In the meantime, if you are worried about police activity and live in Virginia, I guess you have to consider disabling Touch ID.
You have to set a passcode to use Touch ID. The article clearly says if the device has touch and passcode that the passcode wins. Will only be a problem for the droid world.
No, Android wins hand down on this one. Since the finger print reader is so lousy and often fails … They are likely never to have access to the contents.
I thought that at first, too, but the logic wasn’t there. I think they mean that if you need both to get in, it’s protected. If the Touch ID is enough, they’re in.
We don’t need a stinking signed search warrant.
We are Democrats.
Steven C. Frucci is a circuit court judge for the 2nd Judicial Circuit in Virginia. He was appointed to the court by (recently convicted) Governor Bob McDonnell in August 2013. His appointment will need to be approved by the Virginia General Assembly when it reconvenes in early 2014.
I suspect the good Judge is playing to the Republican-controlled Virginia General Assembly.
The Judge is a RepubliKKKan.
Like most Conservatards, he thinks civil liberties are not for the little people- only for the well connected and well to do. The RepubliKKKans have a Koch habit.
Don’t be an idiot. If you knew your history you’d know that the KKK was/is dominated by Democrats. Including Senator Robert Byrd, also from Virginia.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/18/AR2005061801105.html
Of course most Southerners were Dems because Abe Lincoln and Republicans prosecuted the Civil War, and who were responsible for the Emancipation Proclamation abolishing slavery.
…Senator Robert Byrd, also from West Virginia…
Yes. And we’ve always been at war with East Asia.
so… you call him an idiot, then tell him that the democrats that were part of the KKK in that era were acting like today’s republicans?
Yeah. That’s exactly what I said.
/ rolls eyes
Actually, you’re referring to the Dixiectats (states rights advocates cause black peoples) who were CONSERVATIVE (this is the operative word)) democrats in favor of Jim Crow, poll taxes, and white man supremacy (any of this sound familiar).
This movement weakened what was once the Solid South and began a shift towards economic policies to weaken and delay civil rights reforms. This finally lead to Truman’s being challenged by Strom Thurmond (yeah, that guy) as the Dixiecrat party presidential nominee.
As the world around them became more liberal (again. any of this sound familiar) the Dixiecrats became more aggressive in their oppression through subsequent Presidential civil rights progress, culminating in state troopers forcefully integrating Alabama.
After this, the solid south became a voting bloc for CONSERVATIVE politicians (you know, Republicans).
So the philosophy of the politician is their defining characteristic, not the political party.
That stuff I did up there…history.
Yesterday’s ConservaDems are todays Republicans. Don’t play coy.
HA! If you think it’s only the Democrats who have a stake in destroying the US Constitution, you’re naive.
I’ll leave it at that. Flame away! It’s getting chilly where I live.
Never take legal advice from a tech writer. What he’s talking about is after you’ve been arrested and charged, and with a search warrant. And what’s with that bozo in the comments section who’s yammering about Apple’s finger print ID being easily hacked? Does anybody have even one example to support that garbage?
There was a proof-of-concept demonstration of taking a fingerprint and creating a latex version that could be used to unlock an iPhone with Touch ID. But I would not classify that as “hacking,” much less “easy hacking.”
In practical terms, Touch ID appears to be a very secure method and far superior to the alternatives in terms of convenience.
Yes, it was done with thousands of dollars of high-tech equipment after laboring a day and a half.
But in a real world situation, before that amount of time passed, the owner would’ve gone to “Find My iPhone” and turned passcode lock on.
A point missed by most people reading and commenting on that story:
he admitted at the bottom of the article that he could definitely not have done it in the number attempts apple permits (by default). After those failed attempts on the vast majority of our phones he’d be required to use the password which also locks (by default) after a number of failed attempts
Or just hold the power button until the phone reboots. Password is required after reboot
Somebody on ZDNet had a great idea. They suggested an app that lets you unlock your phone with one of more fingers, but if you use a different finger it automatically wipes the phone.
Another way to prevent drunk texting
That could be ruled destruction of evidence and could be even worse of a crime than whatever they found. Your best best is to power down or restart the iPhone.
Do judges even know what the Constitution is anymore?
Not RepubliKKKan judges. They sign blanket search warrants for the entire United States- John Roberts, for example.
I think you’re confusing Republicans with DemoKKKrats.
Flip a coin. There are PoliTards on both sides.
Yesterday’s Southern Dems are today’s RepubliKKKans.
BTW- Warren G Harding was a Klansman and a Republican, and very corrupt. But that goes without saying.
Indiana had 3-4 Governors in a row- all Republicans and all Klansmen.
Do your homework.
John Roberts is a traitorous asshole, but let’s not blame Republicans. It’s liberals who try to legislate from the bench as if the Constitution doesn’t exist.
And it’s Republicans who interpret the Constitution in such literal and absurd ways as to be almost laughable. For instance, the right to bear arms including fully automatic assault rifles…
Please name one Republican politician who has advocated for the legality of the ownership of fully automatic weapons.
Seriously, I’m asking.
You’re a dumb ass. The Constitution was meant to be interpreted literally! Jeez. Where in the hell did you come from? North Korea? The 2nd Amendment says… and I quote from memory… “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. The 2nd Amendment lists two things: A well regulated militia; the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Then it states that these shall not be infringed. How else should I interpret that? The way you must be thinking, that Constitution could also be a recipe for biscuits. It was meant to LIMIT GOVERNMENT, and the Bill of Rights was specifically meant to protect the states and the individual from the federal government. My guess is that you’re ready to lay down your rights because some judge or politician tells you to. That’s crazy. I will fight injustice with my last dying breath, and I will not give up freedoms. If you think that’s absurd and laughable, then I pity you.
Funny how when Republicans do it- it’s OK and when Democrats do it- it’s legislating from the Bench.
How do you explain the 5 Republican Supremes appointing Dubya President in Y2K?
I’m not going to get into a back and forth partisan discussion. The bottom line is that the court is WRONG. I don’t give a damn who appointed the judges. Period. Go argue with someone who is interested in arguing with you. I’m not.
Yes, the court is wrong and the problem is conservatives and ‘police friendly’ judges.
Our civil liberties are not negotiable- even by lawyers in robes.
Piss off. I told you I’m not interested in arguing with you. My opinion stands, and nothing you say will change it. K. Thanks. Bye.
Not arguing with you- get a life.
I would just refuse to do it. Fsck ’em.
And lol @ the writer throwing the Galaxy in there. Nobody uses Samesung’s crappy fingerprint scanner. This is all about Touch ID and they know it.
Turn the phone off if your about to get pulled over. Then a passcode on power up is always required.
Curious then if there’s a passcode if they can confiscate your phone while they are getting a summons so it can’t be tampered with? Of course I suppose then it would still be possible to remotely wipe.
The headline uses the word “force” What do they mean by force? They put a gun to your head? Beat the crap outta ya? Grab your hand and make your finger unlock it? The judge says “compelled.” What happens if you just refuse and quote the Fourth Amendment?
freakin’ police state..Thanks, Dubya and Obola.
I don’t know how accurate this is but the last comment from the original story may shed some light on this…
The 11th Circuit in Atlanta has already decided (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/02/23/court-fifth-amendment-protects-suspects-from-decrypting-computers/) that passwords can’t be forced from you by a warrant as they are protected under the 5th because they are contained inside your head, are not physical and therefore would be compelling you to testify against yourself. Finger prints are a physical thing and are covered under the 4th amendment and can be obtained using a search warrant, just like DNA or house keys.
That said, it’s pretty clear the police can make a copy of your fingerprint, but that won’t unlock an iPhone.
I’m waiting for an attorney to argue that making you put your finger on your phone is actually the same as making you speak a password, that it is forcing you to testify in a behavioral sense. I’m not lawyer, but can’t testimony be given non-verbally as well as verbally? Is putting your finger on your phone different from asking a person who communicates with sign language to sign their pass code?
That’s right. Protecting and serving the shit outta you.
Callin’ it your job don’t make it right, boss…quit protectin and servin the shit outta me so much, boss.
If you’re stupid enough to try and choke your girlfriend while being videotaped…
Good thing that Apple makes you enter a passcode every time the phone restarts and also after using the wrong finger 5 times (tip: don’t register your thumb/index as TouchID, then you can safely offer to scan your index/thumb when cops pull you over)
Oh wait the article doesn’t mention any of these protections.. clearly it’s main message is uniquely to put down what yet another example of Apple’s superb execution (and consequently Apple Pay)
Or just angle your finger the wrong direction when they’re making you unlock it 5 times.
There’s an interesting thought … when being “compelled” to use your finger to unlock your iPhone hold up all 10 and ask them to guess which ones were entered?
Sounds like IOS 9 will include an option for fingerprint AND passcode.
I want that.
Hopefully 8.0.3 will.
Tell the Virginia Bozo that the Supremes say no. They say get a Warrant.
Last I checked, their word is final over lesser courts. Bet money the Judge is a Conservative “Police friendly” Judge.
The original article is rather more clear. The police did apply for a warrant, and clearly met the constitutional requirement of having probable cause to get one. If only the Fourth Amendment search and seizure requirements applied, the warrant could have been issued and the phone could have been opened.
The issue was the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Forcing someone to give the police a passcode is seen as requiring the person to give testimony against himself. That is barred, even with a warrant.
It is long established that requiring someone to provide breath or blood samples is non-testimonial, so the samples can be taken—forcibly if necessary—with a proper warrant. Taking fingerprint exemplars as part of routine booking doesn’t even require that. So, requiring a fingerprint that will be used to unlock a phone after getting a warrant may make legal sense.
If I were the defense lawyer, I would argue that the fingerprint is really just an alias for the password and is therefore testimony protected by the Fifth Amendment. With our current Supreme Court, that might fly.
This issue has been upheld in the US courts several times. If you are pulled over/arrested, turn off your iPhone. When turned back on, it will ask for only a password, which is in your head, and therefore considered protected by the constitution. This has also been upheld in the US courts.
Best idea from anyone. This is the easiest, most effective, and guaranteed way to go about it.
What a lot of advice. I gotta believe all you macho men will instead follow the cops orders. 6′ 3″ 220 lb armed officer and you guys smarting off. It will be a case of “I hated to shoot him, judge but I feared for my life. I had to pry his phone from his ice cold fingers your honor.”
well, that’s easy for you to say, Joe, you enjoy cavity searches.
The cops can’t force me to do a damned thing. The court was wrong. This ruling is a clear violation of both the 4th Amendment and the 5th Amendment. These judges must have been sick the day they taught the Constitution in law school. They will have to beat my password out of me or cut off my fingers to get into my iPhone. It doesn’t matter if I’ve committed a crime or not. This is a matter of telling the government to fuck off. They don’t have a right to my private information. Ever.
ATTENTION SECURITY GRID FIVE: We have a thinker in Sector 74a, ID: Howie Isaacks..A known domestic constitutionalist, may quote Bill Of Rights at any time. Approach with extreme caution.
“Copy that, Big Brother, this is Officer Obie [unintelligible] in Security Grid 5… Perp now in custody, subject found reading a [unintelligible] book…or something. Gonna do the big 10-DAD*, over and out.”
“doughnuts at Denny’s
I love that! Great avatar too!
You might re-read the Fourth Amendment. The drafters quite deliberately prohibited “unreasonable” seizures, not all seizures. The Bill of Rights only gives you the right to demand the issue of a proper warrant by an impartial magistrate before you can be required to surrender your papers or person.
The Fourth Amendment even sets out the rules for how the government can get to the private information contained in your paper or computer files—a warrant must issue based on probable cause. That is precisely the procedure the police followed here. If you don’t like it, take it up with Thomas Jefferson.
The Constitution intended a balance between the right to privacy and the right of the public to be protected from criminals. The advent of nearly unbreakable encryption has, it could be argued, upset that balance.
Searches pursuant to a valid 4th Amendment warrant are still legal; they are just factually impossible. We have given everyone the power to protect every bit of information they possess from even the most reasonable search or seizure. This is making it nearly impossible to convict any child molester, embezzler, con man, or terrorist who has the brains to use an unguessable password.
“We have given everyone the power to protect every bit of information they possess..”
you are hilarious. Incidentally, Thomas Jefferson was in France when the Bill Of Rights was drafted, you must mean James Madison.
PS – Take it up with Edward Snowden.
My bad: the Bill of Rights wasn’t by Jefferson, although he did write Madison from Paris to urge adoption of a bill of rights, which Madison had previously opposed. The real source for most of the document was George Mason and the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights.
That doesn’t alter my point, which was that the Fourth Amendment, like Section 10 of the Declaration of Rights, plainly allows searches and seizures pursuant to a judicial warrant supported by evidence. While there is abundant evidence that the power has sometimes been abused, I don’t know how any justice system could function if you took it away entirely. It isn’t being a strict constructionist to suggest that Mason and Madison (and Jefferson) got it wrong.
no one is arguing, at least not me, with “and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Warrants by secret courts (as ascribed by NSA through FISA) are a quite different story. They are not courts at all, they are Gestapo.
Warrant or not, I won’t allow them access to my devices. Let them figure out how to bypass the technology and do the work themselves. The 4th Amendment doesn’t state that a citizen must hand over their body parts in order to aid the cops in their search. We as citizens have to draw the line on the side of liberty.
one more thing…
“This is making it nearly impossible to convict any child molester, embezzler, con man, or terrorist who has the brains to use an unguessable password.”
The United States has the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world: IN THE WORLD. So, I think your baseless fear-mongering regarding making convictions “impossible” is a load of horseshit.
Most of the folks who are incarcerated committed violent offenses and/or crimes connected with drugs or alcohol. Apart from Club Fed, the average state pen is not exactly packed with people who had access to robust encryption to hide their offense. It’s those people we might want to worry about.
your thinking is the scariest thing I’ve seen this Halloween….I want you to spend the rest of Halloween thinking this through: The rate of incarceration (per 100,000 population) in the United States is 707 (excluding juvenile, military, illegal alien, Federal marshal and Indian detention)..for Libya it is 82.
Just for the record, I AGREE that we lock up far, far too many people in institutions where all they can learn are new criminal skills, then release them to a world where ex-cons can’t get honest work. We have treated our jails as the solution for people with mental illness and substance abusers.
It makes no sense. The alternative programs for effectively identifying youths and adults at risk and diverting them from crime are hardly a trade secret. Inpatient treatment for mental and addiction issues actually has a longer history than the modern penitentiary. The costs of providing an appropriate education for everyone are trivial compared to the cost of not doing so. All these approaches are much less expensive than treating prison as a cure-all for our social ills.
I was a prosecutor for thirty years, and all of us knew that. Unfortunately, we all work for politicians who have discovered that people will pay for almost anything if you can claim it is tough on crime, but will pay for nothing if it can be portrayed as coddling criminals.
okay, as a former prosecutor you would know this: In the United States, imprisonment isn’t justice, it’s an industry.My apologies if I sounded brusque, counselor, it is only that my country has become the England of King George III that the true “Greatest Generation” defeated not so long ago. And it pisses me off.
The problem to me is beyond simply the unconscionable numbers we lock up. It’s that such a large number of them are actually fully innocent. That’s what’s so scary. If any innocent person can be convicted of a crime not committed, then ANY OF US can also be convicted.
We need some politicians with real guts to start revising the criminal code. Decriminalize many things — not just drug offenses — and significantly reduce the sentences and sentencing guidelines for much of remains. Build in far better protections for mistaken convictions.
Many years ago, most of us were not afraid of our own government, our own country. That is not the case today. This is precisely what the Founding Fathers feared when they moved away from the (unworkable) Articles of Confederation to the newly written Constitution. They felt the Bill of Rights would protect us. Many of its protections (including even speech) have now been gutted. The country is in trouble and getting worse.
People need to stand up and do something about these enormous numbers locked up, especially those who are innocent, but also so many others who serve sentences that are too long, including for crimes that should not have even been crimes in the first place.
“This is making it nearly impossible to convict any child molester, embezzler, con man, or terrorist who has the brains to use an unguessable password.”
Because, before there were personal computers and smart phones we could search, we couldn’t convict anyone of these crimes. /s
We could convict them because they kept hard-copy kiddie porn or cooked books. The police could obtain those with a search warrant. Today, the brighter Sluggos keep the proof needed to convict them on computers behind nearly unbreakable encryption and unguessable passwords. A search warrant, be it ever so valid, is no good against that.
Local police don’t have access to code-breaking supercomputers like the NSA. So that puts them behind the curve in dealing with any crime involving documentary proof.
I don’t need to be educated on a document that I’ve ready many many many times. I’m aware of that criteria in the 4th Amendment, but they cannot force me to incriminate myself. Period. I won’t allow it. They will just have to hall my ass off to jail.
[QUOTE]The cops can’t force me to do a damned thing. The court was wrong. This ruling is a clear violation of both the 4th Amendment and the 5th Amendment. These judges must have been sick the day they taught the Constitution in law school. They will have to beat my password out of me or cut off my fingers to get into my iPhone. It doesn’t matter if I’ve committed a crime or not. This is a matter of telling the government to fuck off. They don’t have a right to my private information. Ever.[/QUOTE]
EVERYTHING that you do with your “smartphone” can be known WITHOUT your knowledge by those that ply “the trade.”
Count on it.
Niffy
The way the finger is being interpreted, at least for now, is that anyone arrested can have their fingerprint taken and therefore applied to your phone’s fingerprint reader.
BUT: A warrant (a legal warrant, versus a fake warrant) is required to take your iPhone and search it. That’s the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution in action.
What a US citizen never can be compelled to provide is a passcode, unless they choose to. That’s the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution in action. I provided a link to the wonderful document in another post below. Use it or lose it.
What losers. It’s your fucking data not theirs and they have no right. This is a loophole, not a law. Register only your pinkie fingers then, and set it to wipe all data after failed attempts, then try to unlock it with both thumbs, several times, before moving to index fingers.
I thought this makeshift workaround was good until I read another comment simply stating to turn your phone off. When you turn it back on it does after all require the password.
Only what you have to do is power it off, then when it is turned on you must enter a passcode before the iphone unlocks
My iPhone has both fingerprint and passcode protection. I’d guess that’s common.
I doubt that this judge’s ruling will stand uncontested.
Easy fix. Just turn off phone ahead of time. Soon as it’s on it will require passcode