Face ID, Touch ID unlocks can't be compelled by law enforcement, rules federal judge

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 34
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,007member
    jcs2305 said:
    hentaiboy said:
    gatorguy said:
    That's an excellent outcome. Hopefully it will stand after all the appeals are exhausted. 
    Nice. Hopefully this this ruling has reach and touches other jurisdictions.
    You guys got something to hide?
    Wanting law enforcement to have the legal ok to open private property means there is something to hide?  Have a warrant and there is no reason to not comply. Forcing someone by any means on the spot to open a phone is not ok in my book.  An officer can get a warrant almost instantly with technology today if it is necessary.

    I think you are mixed up.. Law enforcement are to protect and serve we the people. We aren't their subordinates to do their bidding when told. Respect them yes, let them do whatever they want.. no way! 
    Agreed.  Law enforcement officers are human beings too and can sometimes be driven by the same self-serving desires as everyone else.  Who watches the watchers?
    baconstang
  • Reply 22 of 34
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,658member
    This is not done yet, we all know where this is heading. 

    This is like the police knowing you hid the evidence they are looking for in the woods and requiring you by a search warrant to compel you to provide its locations so they can dig it up and use it against you. Usually the only way the compel someone to tell the location is to convince they it will go a lot better for them if person helps the police convict themselves.

    It could be argues your face, finger print or iris is like the key to safe in your basement and they can compel you to turn it over to them so they can convict you.

    What has never been very clear to me, at what point are you hindering prosecution or destroying evidence verse exercising your right not to incriminate yourself. you do not havt to tell them anything, but you're also not allow to keep evidence from the police.
  • Reply 23 of 34
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,658member
    hentaiboy said:
    gatorguy said:
    That's an excellent outcome. Hopefully it will stand after all the appeals are exhausted. 
    Nice. Hopefully this this ruling has reach and touches other jurisdictions.
    You guys got something to hide?

    Yes my face,

    If you do not care, how about you turn over all your UID and PW so I can go looking for the possibility of you breaking any one of 10,000 laws that current exist just at the federal level let lone at state or local levels.
  • Reply 24 of 34
    Seems like a good first step.
  • Reply 25 of 34
    hentaiboy said:
    gatorguy said:
    That's an excellent outcome. Hopefully it will stand after all the appeals are exhausted. 
    Nice. Hopefully this this ruling has reach and touches other jurisdictions.
    You guys got something to hide?
    What a ridiculous comment.
  • Reply 26 of 34
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 1,669member
    hentaiboy said:
    gatorguy said:
    That's an excellent outcome. Hopefully it will stand after all the appeals are exhausted. 
    Nice. Hopefully this this ruling has reach and touches other jurisdictions.
    You guys got something to hide?

    By your comment I take it you feel the government should be able to search anything and everything whenever it wants, like China or North Korea?

    tedz98 said:
    MplsP said:
    I thought there was a ruling a while back saying people could be compelled to unlock a device with FaceID?

    As a practical matter, faceID expires and requires a passcode after a set time limit, so the police act quickly your phone would require a passcode anyway. I can't say I agree with Gatorguy. I want privacy and I don't want the NSA snooping on everything I do, but as I've said before, the 4th amendment prevents "unreasonable search and seizure." It is not absolute, nor is the right to privacy. If law enforcement has adequate grounds for doing so, I see nothing wrong with compelling the use of FaceID to unlock a device.


    You are foolishly assuming law enforcement always has good intentions, the safety of others, and truely valid reasons to force people to unlock their private assets.  I personally don’t trust the government that much. I would like to think I can protect my privacy from the prying eyes of the government. 
    No. That is why there are checks and balances in the system. You seem to be foolishly assuming that the government should never have the right or need to search anything.  view this as no different than a search warrant for someone's home or apartment. Remember, there have also been plenty of convictions overturned because of improper search and seizure - essentially we have criminals who are guilty but the courts have upheld the fact that their 4th amendment rights supersede their guilt. 
  • Reply 27 of 34
    hentaiboy said:
    gatorguy said:
    That's an excellent outcome. Hopefully it will stand after all the appeals are exhausted. 
    Nice. Hopefully this this ruling has reach and touches other jurisdictions.
    You guys got something to hide?
    They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ... Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.

    lenn said:
    This is laughable. Law enforcement can get a warrant to enter your house and search every single inch of it but they aren't allowed to search a stupid phone????? That makes no sense at all.

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, 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.

    These two are closely related. Anyone foolish enough to believe that a state has their safety, security and liberty in mind needs to re-evaluate their belief system.
    beowulfschmidt
  • Reply 28 of 34
    My guess is that it will be overturned by the Ninth Circuit.  Not because I have any knowledge of the case, but because I have faith in the Ninth Circuit's dedication to doing the wrong thing as much as possible.
    MplsP
  • Reply 29 of 34
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 1,669member
    ZooMigo said:
    hentaiboy said:
    gatorguy said:
    That's an excellent outcome. Hopefully it will stand after all the appeals are exhausted. 
    Nice. Hopefully this this ruling has reach and touches other jurisdictions.
    You guys got something to hide?
    They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ... Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.

    lenn said:
    This is laughable. Law enforcement can get a warrant to enter your house and search every single inch of it but they aren't allowed to search a stupid phone????? That makes no sense at all.

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, 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.

    These two are closely related. Anyone foolish enough to believe that a state has their safety, security and liberty in mind needs to re-evaluate their belief system.
    Interesting that you quote the 4th amendment which states that the State has a right to search people’s effects if a warrant is issued. 
  • Reply 30 of 34
    MplsP said:
    ZooMigo said:
    hentaiboy said:
    gatorguy said:
    That's an excellent outcome. Hopefully it will stand after all the appeals are exhausted. 
    Nice. Hopefully this this ruling has reach and touches other jurisdictions.
    You guys got something to hide?
    They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ... Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.

    lenn said:
    This is laughable. Law enforcement can get a warrant to enter your house and search every single inch of it but they aren't allowed to search a stupid phone????? That makes no sense at all.

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, 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.

    These two are closely related. Anyone foolish enough to believe that a state has their safety, security and liberty in mind needs to re-evaluate their belief system.
    Interesting that you quote the 4th amendment which states that the State has a right to search people’s effects if a warrant is issued. 
    No.  The State has no "rights", only people have rights.  What the State has is some limited power and authority, which is restricted by the Constitution.

    And before someone utters that inane "it's just semantics" refrain with regard to the difference between rights and authority, it's true that it's "semantics", but there's nothing "just" about it.  The meanings of words, i.e. "semantics", is important, and while there might not be much practical difference between them to observers, there's a huge philosophical gulf between the "semantics" of the two words.  Rights are inherent in our being and cannot be taken away, only violated, while limited authority is given to, not taken by, the State to do certain things at certain times, and under certain conditions.  What the Court has said in this ruling is that the State's power and/or authority does not extend to doing the things the warrant requested.  The Constitutional authority to do those things doesn't exist, therefore, the State is prohibited from doing them.
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 31 of 34
    My guess is that it will be overturned by the Ninth Circuit.  Not because I have any knowledge of the case, but because I have faith in the Ninth Circuit's dedication to doing the wrong thing as much as possible.
    The Ninth Circuit is reversed by the Supreme Court more than any other circuit, but that's mostly because it handles - by far - more cases than any other circuit. Its reversal rate among cases reviewed by the Supreme Court is usually toward the higher end (among all circuits), but it isn't the worst circuit on that front. The reality is that a majority of cases reviewed by the Supreme Court are reversed. But considering all of the cases the Ninth Circuit decides, only a tiny portion - about one in a thousand - get reversed.

    That said, on this issue I think a randomly selected panel from the Ninth Circuit would be more likely to substantively uphold this ruling than the current Supreme Court would.
  • Reply 32 of 34

    MplsP said:
    ZooMigo said:
    hentaiboy said:
    gatorguy said:
    That's an excellent outcome. Hopefully it will stand after all the appeals are exhausted. 
    Nice. Hopefully this this ruling has reach and touches other jurisdictions.
    You guys got something to hide?
    They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ... Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.

    lenn said:
    This is laughable. Law enforcement can get a warrant to enter your house and search every single inch of it but they aren't allowed to search a stupid phone????? That makes no sense at all.

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, 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.

    These two are closely related. Anyone foolish enough to believe that a state has their safety, security and liberty in mind needs to re-evaluate their belief system.
    Interesting that you quote the 4th amendment which states that the State has a right to search people’s effects if a warrant is issued. 
    The government's authority to search someone's effects isn't what's at issue. What's at issue is the government's authority to compel someone to do something, e.g. use biometrics to decrypt a digital device. In some circumstances the government has the authority to compel a person to, e.g., turn over evidence in their possession. In other circumstances it doesn't. At any rate, the authority to search isn't the same as the authority to force people (to include suspects) to assist in a search.
    beowulfschmidt
  • Reply 33 of 34
    MplsP said:
    ZooMigo said:
    hentaiboy said:
    gatorguy said:
    That's an excellent outcome. Hopefully it will stand after all the appeals are exhausted. 
    Nice. Hopefully this this ruling has reach and touches other jurisdictions.
    You guys got something to hide?
    They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ... Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.

    lenn said:
    This is laughable. Law enforcement can get a warrant to enter your house and search every single inch of it but they aren't allowed to search a stupid phone????? That makes no sense at all.

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, 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.

    These two are closely related. Anyone foolish enough to believe that a state has their safety, security and liberty in mind needs to re-evaluate their belief system.
    Interesting that you quote the 4th amendment which states that the State has a right to search people’s effects if a warrant is issued. 
    No.  The State has no "rights", only people have rights.  What the State has is some limited power and authority, which is restricted by the Constitution.

    And before someone utters that inane "it's just semantics" refrain with regard to the difference between rights and authority, it's true that it's "semantics", but there's nothing "just" about it.  The meanings of words, i.e. "semantics", is important, and while there might not be much practical difference between them to observers, there's a huge philosophical gulf between the "semantics" of the two words.  Rights are inherent in our being and cannot be taken away, only violated, while limited authority is given to, not taken by, the State to do certain things at certain times, and under certain conditions.  What the Court has said in this ruling is that the State's power and/or authority does not extend to doing the things the warrant requested.  The Constitutional authority to do those things doesn't exist, therefore, the State is prohibited from doing them.
    Well put!
  • Reply 34 of 34
    I'm confused. If the police *can* take fingerprints with your fingers but *cannot* use the same fingers to unlock a device, could they create a fake finger with your fingerprints, which they have? That would seem more like guessing a suspect's password, which *is* perfectly legal.
Sign In or Register to comment.