She should put liquid on her finger. 5 tries and it will ask for password.
And then she goes to jail for not following the legal order compelling her to unlock it. Maybe easy for you. I wouldn't call it that nor would I go to jail "on principle". I had that choice back in the early 70's and didn't choose to go to jail then either.
Spam has it right IMHO. If it's really all that big a deal to you, for whatever reason I can't personally imagine outside of doing something I'm going to jail for if they see it, then use a passcode rather than TouchID to secure your phone.
Why haven't they implemented this into TouchID? Soon the FBI will be using diseased people's fingers to unlock their phones or just chop yours off. With pulse/temperature detection TouchID can check if it's actually a living humans finger not some mold of it etc.
This is one of the reasons I support the NRA and other organizations trying to protect the Bill of Rights. If we loose the right to bear arms the rest of the Bill of Rights will be trashed rather quickly. This administration has been rather active in attacking the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, so this isn't some pipe dream. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a political party right now willing to stand up for our freedoms. While it doesn't do much good each and everyone of us must make a point to impress on our elected represetives just how important the Constitution is. Many don't give a damn but there are a few elected officials that still represent their constituents.
FYI, the GOA does a better job representing the rights and interests of citizens than the NRA.
Without guns, the GOA is just whining and paper. Like it or not, it's threat of violence that keeps both predators, and dictators in line. If you look at history, the first thing every dictator did before the real bloodshed began, was disarm the population. May I offer Dictators Adolf Hilter, Mao Tze Tung, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin as just a few examples.
This issue has little to do with privacy and everything to do with the erosion of freedoms outlined in the Bill of Rights. One of those freedoms is the idea that you can't be a witness against yourself. Seriously download a copy to the Constitution and the Bill of Rghts and read it. If you don't understand it get somebody to explain it to you.
It is extremely sad people don't give a damn about this country and the significant erosion of our freedoms in the last ten or so years.
I believe you misunderstand the term "forced to testify against yourself" or "self-indightment". If you are an illegal bookkeeper for the mob, I may not force you to divulge your knowledge of the accounts, the embezzlements, the payoffs, nor the money made by prostitution and drugs. I may not coerce your wife to testify against you. However, if I use a search warrant and discover your "second" set of books where you kept track of such things, those are admissible. That's all we are doing, instead of cracking a safe under a search warrant, we are using your fingerprints with the Search Warrant. Your fingerprints are not private, you leave them on everything you touch. Instead of a combination safe, you simply store the media under a different method.
This issue has little to do with privacy and everything to do with the erosion of freedoms outlined in the Bill of Rights. One of those freedoms is the idea that you can't be a witness against yourself. Seriously download a copy to the Constitution and the Bill of Rghts and read it. If you don't understand it get somebody to explain it to you.
It is extremely sad people don't give a damn about this country and the significant erosion of our freedoms in the last ten or so years.
There are 8 people that get to explain what the Bill of Rights means. There's a job opening for a 9th.
Hmm, interesting (though unrelated) point... can Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging be used as a lie detector test? It shows you what sections of the brain are used for thinking about a subject, that should give some indication about whether you are remembering an answer or making one up, shouldn't it?
It appears so. Funny: I didn't see fMRI mentioned in the Constitution. But then, neither is a power of Congress to make an "Air Force." Army, Navy...sure. Must be because of that big football game the Founders wanted to preserve.
It would be sooooo easy for me to subvert any attempt to get me to unlock my phone with TouchID. First of all, I have 10 fingers and all of them are not registered to the phone. Second, I have found that finger placement is very picky. Third, I find that when I use the correct finger and place it in what I think is exactly the correct position my success rate is about 1 in 3 on the iPhone 5s. I might have weird biometrics. If I were to do something that makes me paranoid or worried about my phone's contents being used against me but still want to use TouchID I would definitely only register some "unusual" fingers.
FYI, the GOA does a better job representing the rights and interests of citizens than the NRA.
Without guns, the GOA is just whining and paper. Like it or not, it's threat of violence that keeps both predators, and dictators in line. If you look at history, the first thing every dictator did before the real bloodshed began, was disarm the population. May I offer Dictators Adolf Hilter, Mao Tze Tung, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin as just a few examples.
Not following your criticism of the GOA here. They are an advocacy group, not a standing army.
This issue has little to do with privacy and everything to do with the erosion of freedoms outlined in the Bill of Rights. One of those freedoms is the idea that you can't be a witness against yourself. Seriously download a copy to the Constitution and the Bill of Rghts and read it. If you don't understand it get somebody to explain it to you.
It is extremely sad people don't give a damn about this country and the significant erosion of our freedoms in the last ten or so years.
There are 8 people that get to explain what the Bill of Rights means. There's a job opening for a 9th.
And Roberts should be sent home without pay for his Obamacare decision.
This isn't correct. TouchID has numerous safeguards for this exact type of situation. TouchID does not use the fingerprint as a master password and is automatically disabled in these cases:
After 48 hours of non-use. After a reboot. After five incorrect attempts. (You cannot be forced to tell LEOs which finger it is). If a lock command is sent to the device via Find My iPhone.
TouchID is meant to enable the usage of much longer and more secure passcodes without the risk of lookiloos seeing you enter it.
When TouchID is disabled, people tend to choose extremely short, 4 digit PINs due to how tedious it is to enter better passcodes on a mobile device.
I use the longest passcode I can
Have you run into a limit on the length of the alpha-numeric passcode for ios9? I currently use one with over 40 characters and have been wondering what is the max length possible on ios9. I have asked multiple people and Apple employees but nobody has be able to give me an answer as to the max length possible.
As I've mentioned a number of times, for any who require complete security with their iPhone, Touch ID should only be used for Apple Pay, but not to open the phone.
Anything you "have on you" (including your fingerprint) may legally be used against you. The contents of your brain (including a passcode) are secure (for now, at least until they perfect live brain activity scans and thought visualization...and believe it or not, this is being worked on).
The problem here really isn't what's possible, but what's allowed. I would think the whole purpose of the fifth amendment is a very simple one: information controlled by the investigated individual can only be used if that individual volunteers it; otherwise, if the government wants to prove that person guilty, it has to commit the heavy resources of an old school investigation, but law enforcement got lazy ever since a technological flaw in analog telephony allowed an "easy fix" through wiretapping.
The fifth amendment has a higher purpose than just protecting suspects: it is to make investigations expensive and hard, thus forcing the hand of the government to go only after cases with true merit: violent crimes, massive fraud schemes, etc.
The founders clearly did not envision a police state with the world's highest incarceration rate (higher than totalitarian states like China, Russia, Turkey, North Korea (unless you consider the last country to simply be a prison)) where people are routinely locked up for petty crimes like minor offenses, lifestyle choices, simply because investigations have become too easy and cheap, which is exactly where encryption can restore the balance of power back to where it should be, forcing the government once more to focus on the big fish.
Today, sophisticated criminal minds walk free, because they are "too hard" to catch, while police rather show high conviction rates by going after easy targets nobody really cares about. Only once every suspect is "too hard" to catch will the government be forced to focus again on the big fish, and start employing good old humint: undercover agents, stake outs, digging through trash piles, tailing people, GET WARRANTS to do specific telco and internet metadata analysis, etc. The government has plenty of investigative tools, but they want to be lazy and lock everyone up through what amounts to self incrimination. And that's got to stop, even if at some point computers can decode everyone of our thoughts.
This issue has little to do with privacy and everything to do with the erosion of freedoms outlined in the Bill of Rights. One of those freedoms is the idea that you can't be a witness against yourself. Seriously download a copy to the Constitution and the Bill of Rghts and read it. If you don't understand it get somebody to explain it to you.
It is extremely sad people don't give a damn about this country and the significant erosion of our freedoms in the last ten or so years.
I believe you misunderstand the term "forced to testify against yourself" or "self-indightment". If you are an illegal bookkeeper for the mob, I may not force you to divulge your knowledge of the accounts, the embezzlements, the payoffs, nor the money made by prostitution and drugs. I may not coerce your wife to testify against you. However, if I use a search warrant and discover your "second" set of books where you kept track of such things, those are admissible. That's all we are doing, instead of cracking a safe under a search warrant, we are using your fingerprints with the Search Warrant. Your fingerprints are not private, you leave them on everything you touch. Instead of a combination safe, you simply store the media under a different method.
The oily residue you leave behind in the shape of your fingerprint may not be private, but the act of putting your actual finger on a sensor and revealing which one was used to secure the device and therefore admitting that the device is yours and that you can access it is no different than someone forcing you to mark an X on a confession.
Anyone with a reasonably deep inner life will agree that the thoughts and battles fought there are nobody's business, regardless of the fact of where these thoughts are stored: the brain, a paper diary (with or without lock) or an electronic device: all of these gadgets work in this context as a brain extension or brain prosthetic (just as scuba gear extends our bodies for temporary life under water)
Real criminal activity has real life consequences, and that means it leaves traces, and it's the cops jobs to find and document them and build a case. But that requires real and hard work! (As it should be)
Also, in our increasingly "Minority Report" mindset: the law isn't there to prevent crimes from happening, merely to punish crimes that did happen (crime prevention is merely a side effect by hopefully catching and convicting potential repeat offenders, and by deterrence when potential criminals see what fate awaits them when they get caught).
You have to understand: there is no good and evil without the liberty to be both; in a free country you are free enough to commit a crime, and the law is strong enough to punish you for it as appropriate.
So don't buy into the crime prevention red herring: it only sounds good until you realize what it really means: thought control, because the mere existence of a negative thought means you might possibly act on it which would make you commit a crime, and since that is to be prevented, your negative thought ought to be enough to arrest you and equip you at the very least with ankle bracelets. And thus within short order the entire nation would be wearing them...
Have you run into a limit on the length of the alpha-numeric passcode for ios9? I currently use one with over 40 characters and have been wondering what is the max length possible on ios9. I have asked multiple people and Apple employees but nobody has be able to give me an answer as to the max length possible.
Good grief, no need for that long. Beyond say 10, you're looking at decrypt in the billions of years, i think it's enough...
She should put liquid on her finger. 5 tries and it will ask for password.
And then she goes to jail for not following the legal order compelling her to unlock it. Maybe easy for you. I wouldn't call it that nor would I go to jail "on principle". I had that choice back in the early 70's and didn't choose to go to jail then either.
Spam has it right IMHO. If it's really all that big a deal to you, for whatever reason I can't personally imagine outside of doing something I'm going to jail for if they see it, then use a passcode rather than TouchID to secure your phone.
The trouble begins when you allow access to something and law enforcement finds something illegal that you didn't know existed, or that you thought wasn't illegal. For example, say you have a bunch of photos of a vacation and one of them shows you holding up a fish you bought at a local market. Nothing wrong so far, but what if the government can prove that particular species is protected by the laws of another country?
16 U.S. Code § 3372 states: "It is unlawful for any person—
(1) to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any fish or wildlife or plant taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of the United States or in violation of any Indian tribal law;
(2) to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce—
(A) any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State or in violation of any foreign law"
Merely "acquiring" that fish, in violation of a foreign law, is a crime in THIS country. Didn't know that, did ya? Of course not. No one does. Even the federal government doesn't know all the laws it's supposed to enforce, but you can bet that by willfully giving up your right to freedom from self-incrimination, the government will find some means of making you sorry for it. NEVER give up your rights in the pursuit of expediency.
Comments
If arrested, self mutilate your fingerprint.
Why haven't they implemented this into TouchID?
Soon the FBI will be using diseased people's fingers to unlock their phones or just chop yours off.
With pulse/temperature detection TouchID can check if it's actually a living humans finger not some mold of it etc.
Without guns, the GOA is just whining and paper. Like it or not, it's threat of violence that keeps both predators, and dictators in line. If you look at history, the first thing every dictator did before the real bloodshed began, was disarm the population. May I offer Dictators Adolf Hilter, Mao Tze Tung, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin as just a few examples.
I believe you misunderstand the term "forced to testify against yourself" or "self-indightment". If you are an illegal bookkeeper for the mob, I may not force you to divulge your knowledge of the accounts, the embezzlements, the payoffs, nor the money made by prostitution and drugs. I may not coerce your wife to testify against you. However, if I use a search warrant and discover your "second" set of books where you kept track of such things, those are admissible. That's all we are doing, instead of cracking a safe under a search warrant, we are using your fingerprints with the Search Warrant. Your fingerprints are not private, you leave them on everything you touch. Instead of a combination safe, you simply store the media under a different method.
And Roberts should be sent home without pay for his Obamacare decision.
I would think the whole purpose of the fifth amendment is a very simple one: information controlled by the investigated individual can only be used if that individual volunteers it; otherwise, if the government wants to prove that person guilty, it has to commit the heavy resources of an old school investigation, but law enforcement got lazy ever since a technological flaw in analog telephony allowed an "easy fix" through wiretapping.
The fifth amendment has a higher purpose than just protecting suspects: it is to make investigations expensive and hard, thus forcing the hand of the government to go only after cases with true merit: violent crimes, massive fraud schemes, etc.
The founders clearly did not envision a police state with the world's highest incarceration rate (higher than totalitarian states like China, Russia, Turkey, North Korea (unless you consider the last country to simply be a prison)) where people are routinely locked up for petty crimes like minor offenses, lifestyle choices, simply because investigations have become too easy and cheap, which is exactly where encryption can restore the balance of power back to where it should be, forcing the government once more to focus on the big fish.
Today, sophisticated criminal minds walk free, because they are "too hard" to catch, while police rather show high conviction rates by going after easy targets nobody really cares about.
Only once every suspect is "too hard" to catch will the government be forced to focus again on the big fish, and start employing good old humint: undercover agents, stake outs, digging through trash piles, tailing people, GET WARRANTS to do specific telco and internet metadata analysis, etc.
The government has plenty of investigative tools, but they want to be lazy and lock everyone up through what amounts to self incrimination. And that's got to stop, even if at some point computers can decode everyone of our thoughts.
only boring people have nothing to hide!
Anyone with a reasonably deep inner life will agree that the thoughts and battles fought there are nobody's business, regardless of the fact of where these thoughts are stored: the brain, a paper diary (with or without lock) or an electronic device: all of these gadgets work in this context as a brain extension or brain prosthetic (just as scuba gear extends our bodies for temporary life under water)
Real criminal activity has real life consequences, and that means it leaves traces, and it's the cops jobs to find and document them and build a case.
But that requires real and hard work! (As it should be)
Also, in our increasingly "Minority Report" mindset: the law isn't there to prevent crimes from happening, merely to punish crimes that did happen (crime prevention is merely a side effect by hopefully catching and convicting potential repeat offenders, and by deterrence when potential criminals see what fate awaits them when they get caught).
You have to understand: there is no good and evil without the liberty to be both; in a free country you are free enough to commit a crime, and the law is strong enough to punish you for it as appropriate.
So don't buy into the crime prevention red herring: it only sounds good until you realize what it really means: thought control, because the mere existence of a negative thought means you might possibly act on it which would make you commit a crime, and since that is to be prevented, your negative thought ought to be enough to arrest you and equip you at the very least with ankle bracelets. And thus within short order the entire nation would be wearing them...