For the first time in a federal case, a suspect has been ordered to use her fingerprint to unlock her iPhone using Touch ID. The LA Times reports that a federal judge signed a warrant allowing the FBI to compel a suspect in an identity theft case to to unlock the phone just 45 minutes after her arrest.
Authorities obtained a search warrant compelling the girlfriend of an alleged Armenian gang member to press her finger against an iPhone that had been seized from a Glendale home […]
In the Glendale case, the FBI wanted the fingerprint of Paytsar Bkhchadzhyan, a 29-year-old woman from L.A. with a string of criminal convictions who pleaded no contest to a felony count of identity theft.
The warrant is consistent with a 2014 case where a Virginia District Court ruled that while passcodes are protected by the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, fingerprints are not. Legal experts, however, have differing views …
Fingerprints are currently viewed by the law as ‘real or physical evidence,’ meaning that law enforcement has a right to access to them without a warrant. However, some law professors say that this view is now outdated when a fingerprint can provide access to incriminating data.
“It isn’t about fingerprints and the biometric readers,” said Susan Brenner, a law professor at the University of Dayton who studies the nexus of digital technology and criminal law, but rather, “the contents of that phone, much of which will be about her, and a lot of that could be incriminating.”
Others, however, disagree.
Albert Gidari, the director of privacy at Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society, said the action might not violate the 5th Amendment prohibition of self-incrimination. “Unlike disclosing passcodes, you are not compelled to speak or say what’s ‘in your mind’ to law enforcement,” Gidari said. “‘Put your finger here’ is not testimonial or self-incriminating.”
In this particular case, the argument will go no further: Bkhchadzhyan pleaded ‘no contest’ to a felony count of identity theft. There seems little doubt, however, that some future case will make it to the Supreme Court.
Via Engadget
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
“. . . while passcodes are protected by the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, fingerprints are not.”
Which is why you should power off your iPhone if you are being pulled over and don’t want your privacy broken! While I have nothing on my iOS device that I am ashamed of (porno or some other type of information); I am not a terrorist – but I am an American who sees the government overreaching into my privacy far too many times – most, without my knowledge or permission.
I’m sure all the people on the other side of this argument / discussion will see my views as Un-American – “Nothing to hide, let them see” – but this is an invasion of my Rights as provided under the Constitution and Bill of Rights!
Excellent idea.
Always plan on doing the same…but what if they kick your door in and your phone is across the room?
Nothing Un-American about your excellent point! (and I’m not even American)
It’s called dehumanization and its about teaching you that you are a slave, and they are the master. Resistance to tyranny is the single most American characteristic.
“I’m sure all the people on the other side of this argument / discussion will see my views as Un-American – “Nothing to hide, let them see””
This is what Edward Snowden had to say about those people:
“Saying that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different to saying you don’t care about freedom of speech because you have nothing to say. It’s a deeply anti-social principle, because rights are not just individual, they’re collective.”
In this case the FBI is not asking for a fingerprint… In fact, the FBI has probably already fingerprinted the accused, so they don’t need a warrant for that.
The warrant is not to get a fingerprint. The warrant is to force an accused person to unlock their phone, to provide the FBI with evidence against themselves. That is unconstitutional!
FBI getting this warrant for this in the first place, and then using PR to convince the public that they are just asking for fingerprints (when they are clearly doing something unconstitutional) is disgusting.
But how do you video tape the crooked cop if your phone is off?
> I’m sure all the people on the other side of this argument / discussion will see my views as Un-American
On the other hand, I think the “only criminals need to be worried about police spying” are Un-American and should feel ashamed – that kind of attitude (along with rising nationalism and crushing debt) is what lead to Nazi Germany.
Thank you for speaking out about this. Many many folks agree with you.
Wow America.. You truly are the mighty democracy that you want us to believe you are…
I agree with 89p13 regarding government overreach. This does not seem like over-reach to me though. In fact I’m happy (and surprised) the FBI bothered with a warrant. As you should know, within days(hours?) of Apple introducing TouchID, people were able to fool it by using high resolution scans of fingerprints attached to fake fingers. And as far as I’m aware no one takes issue with Law Enforcement fingerprinting suspects.
All this being said it might be worth Apple considering a TouchID + PIN option for security conscious users.
God bless america.
My ideal configuration would be;
Touch ID for Apple Pay and purchases
Passcode for the rest.
If they want me to pay for coffee fine.
I suspect the difference is that while you have to say or enter a passcode/password/passphrase, you literally leave your fingerprint on everything you touch.
The courts rule that fingerprints are no different than a key to a door, its a tangible item. Passwords are mental and the government has no right to our thoughts.
Right. It’s not a thought. It’s a physical object. My point is that even more than a key, which can be kept secret, a fingerprint is already public information, you leave copies of them everywhere. Courts have already ruled that your face, another physical item, is public and the police don’t need a warrant to search CCTV video for suspects. I see this as an extension of that idea. In contrast I believe that things like your DNA are considered private. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe most jurisdictions require a warrant for a blood or other sample for DNA matching. DNA would also be a physical object but a private one.
They are not asking for a fingerprint. They are asking the suspect to use her finger to unlock a phone. Being able to do this implies more than simply unlocking it. It implies ownership or control over the device and is a self admission to being connected to the data on the phone.
I quit using TouchID to unlock my phone some time ago. I don’t even use a 6 digit PIN to unlock. 10+ alpanumeric and special characters.
If you are that much of a major target for FBI/NSA/CIA (or have fantasies that you are) then you should not use a cellular phone.
Don’t forget they can track your every movement – and more – via data from your cellular service provider.
That’s enough for a drone strike or to extrajudicial rendition you to a black site overseas (or whatever you think is going to happen to you).
You probably need to stop posting on here as well.
“You probably need to stop posting on here as well.”
If ever there were a time for someone to take their own advice.
Surprised this was even necessary, the individual had to be finger printed upon arrest so the FBI could have easily just created a fake print from the provided arresting prints.
Yeah, though it’s not that easy (http://9to5mac.com/2013/09/25/video-reveals-how-the-touch-id-hack-was-performed-trivial-attack-that-took-30-hours/), and you only get three attempts
True, and they wouldn’t know which finger to use, though pointers and thumbs have the highest likelihood of success.
Hesitant to be the pedant, but it’s five attempts to disable TouchID.
@ecogneato
I did not know that. I always thought it was three. Good to know. Thanks.
Interesting – it falls back to the passcode screen after three attempts, but then allows two more fingerprint attempts.
About time Apple provided a proper, secure means of access for law enforcement, relatives of the deceased etc …. access only by Apple and only on court order.
All this stuff where cops and grieving relatives can’t access iPhones – yet it appears any hacker and private security company can – is pure BS.
A federal judge granted a federal agency permission to break the 5th amendment. No surprise there. Corruption at its best
Did the order specify which finger had to be pressed though? She could press her pinky to the phone, or another wrong finger, to lockout Touch ID.
“Fingerprints are currently viewed by the law as ‘real or physical evidence,’ meaning that law enforcement has a right to access to them without a warrant.”
That is true, but in this case the FBI is not asking for a fingerprint… In fact, the FBI has probably already fingerprinted the accused, so they don’t need a warrant for that.
The warrant is not to get a fingerprint. The warrant is to force an accused person to unlock their phone, to provide the FBI with evidence against themselves. That is unconstitutional!
FBI getting this warrant for this in the first place, and then using PR to convince the public that they are just asking for fingerprints (when they are clearly doing something unconstitutional) is disgusting.
This is really stupid since it is so easy to make touch id not work. I can easily turn my finger slightly so it will error three times.
Come to think of it, all you would have to do is ask them which finger they want you to use and it what position. They can’t force you to tell them, so they would have to guess until it errors out.
Stupid thing for the FBI to “go to the mattresses over” as the system is easily gamed by the accused (notice how I didn’t say the guilty):
• Power off phone as soon as you see the cops.
or
• Get decent lawyer to hold this up on appeal for two days.
or
• Only use your pinkies for touch ID.
FBI is building a case where they can get everything they want, anytime they want it.
The FBI and their incompetent security – are far more dangerous than any “terrorists”.