Federal court rules police can't force building-wide iPhone fingerprint unlocks
Possibly reversing recent trends in law enforcement, a U.S. federal court in Illinois has ruled that warrants can't be used to demand broad fingerprint unlocks for all of the devices in a building, such as Apple iPhones.
Although taking fingerprints doesn't automatically violate Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure, the context in which they're obtained can, magistrate Judge M. David Weisman wrote in his opinion, according to Forbes. Police were asking for access to multiple devices on a property involved in a child pornography investigation.
"In the instant case, the government is seeking the authority to seize any individual at the subject premises and force the application of their fingerprints as directed by government agents," Weisman noted. "Based on the facts presented in the application, the Court does not believe such Fourth Amendment intrusions are justified based on the facts articulated."
The judge noted that the warrant was missing specifics about people living on property, other than the name of one person thought to live there, and was vague about what electronics might be found -- saying only that it was "likely that Apple brand devices" were around.
Weisman also differed with past courts in suggesting that using fingerprint systems like Apple's Touch ID can constitute a form of testimony protected by the Fifth Amendment. By unlocking a phone a person is admitting that they've at least used it before, he said, and possibly that they have a connection to it and its contents.
American police forces have previously managed to secure a number of warrants for unlocking fingerprint-protected phones, whether targeting individual devices or whole properties. The matter has been controversial however, in part because courts have said the Fifth Amendment protects people against supplying a numerical passcode.
Even so, there can be ways around passcode locks -- the FBI infamously managed to use outside tools to crack the iPhone 5c of San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook, despite initially claiming it needed Apple's help. Currently, three press outlets are trying to discover the cost of the tools and their source.
Although taking fingerprints doesn't automatically violate Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure, the context in which they're obtained can, magistrate Judge M. David Weisman wrote in his opinion, according to Forbes. Police were asking for access to multiple devices on a property involved in a child pornography investigation.
"In the instant case, the government is seeking the authority to seize any individual at the subject premises and force the application of their fingerprints as directed by government agents," Weisman noted. "Based on the facts presented in the application, the Court does not believe such Fourth Amendment intrusions are justified based on the facts articulated."
The judge noted that the warrant was missing specifics about people living on property, other than the name of one person thought to live there, and was vague about what electronics might be found -- saying only that it was "likely that Apple brand devices" were around.
Weisman also differed with past courts in suggesting that using fingerprint systems like Apple's Touch ID can constitute a form of testimony protected by the Fifth Amendment. By unlocking a phone a person is admitting that they've at least used it before, he said, and possibly that they have a connection to it and its contents.
American police forces have previously managed to secure a number of warrants for unlocking fingerprint-protected phones, whether targeting individual devices or whole properties. The matter has been controversial however, in part because courts have said the Fifth Amendment protects people against supplying a numerical passcode.
Even so, there can be ways around passcode locks -- the FBI infamously managed to use outside tools to crack the iPhone 5c of San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook, despite initially claiming it needed Apple's help. Currently, three press outlets are trying to discover the cost of the tools and their source.
Comments
Lets' face it, while TouchID is great and convenient, the law as it stands gives the TLA's easy and lawful access to your device via your fingerprint.
Sign of the times. Soon it will be 'off to Room 101 [1]for you' if you use a phone without an entry point for the TLA's.
[1]located on an island in the Carribean perhaps?
I do agree with your statement about law enforcement. As for carrying my iPhone into a foreign country, I took a chance and crossed the border to Canada via the Victoria Clipper. To my surprise, and I shouldn't be saying this, I had no problem going in either direction. Coming back into Seattle, I was surprised all they asked was whether I had any food. I had a fresh bake loaf of bread from a restaurant and they said no problem. Of course, if I cross the border by car they would probably search everything including my phone but the ferry was different. Maybe it was because I only had a backpack.
Next, they'll be under pressure from the MPAA/RIAA to look for pirated content.
When that produces almost nil results, they'd turn to something else.
The biometric scan is just the tip of the iceberg... this really needs to be kicked up to the Supreme Court.
The cops are obviously trying to find a friendly court to create precedence, but there is enough dissent that this needs to go higher. There is no reason for the law (in this case) to be ambiguous.
The obvious next question, is Apple changing their authentication method as a result of lack of clarity in the law? No idea...
----
It also seems like providing a passcode would fall under the law against self incrimination... The cops obviously need the tools to do their job, but it seems like they are left intentionally pissing in the wind. The security agency cops have been doing mental gymnastics to get around Congressional rulings, but the cops on the street (and everyday people) need to know what the LAW is.
Here's the NSA's amazing mental gymnastics on mass spying (in the bullets in the article below). It seems everything falls under, 'if no one asks, don't tell' but no one can ask because it's treated as a black op. Then Snowden bit them in the ass and started the discussion.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/15/section_702_mass_surveillance/
Personally, I favor 'Court warrants needed' for surveillance and no mass surveillance. But, what does a warrant cover? Does it cover a person, a house, a country, the planet, the solar system? Somewhere in there it's an unreasonable search.
The only 'body' that can answer the questions is the Supreme Court.
Good point. If you're paranoid and still want to use TouchID, register only one finger and not your thumb or index finger.
I'm really getting to the point of putting all my production work in VMs, and just leaving the base OS bare. The problem with this approach is it's a lot of work to set up, and I get so excited when I have new computer, I never get around to do it.
Also, shutting down your devices before going through Customs at least forces you to use your PIN/Passcode rather than fingerprint. And if you see the police coming, I'd turn my phone and/or computer off. Which is a massive pain, and shouldn't be necessary, but until they resolve this properly (by which I mean we get a final judgement that says this isn't allowed - which is the only reasonable outcome), it's probably the best course of action.
They should also implement alternative passcodes in the same way, since apparently border control can hold you until you to give up your passcode.
Pressing the Home + Sleep/Wake buttons forcibly SHUTS DOWN your iOS device in a few seconds. After which the alphanumeric passcode is required. TouchID will not be accepted. This ensures that your device is secure against unwarranted access.
Some states have allowed compelled use of the sensor, but so far (to the best of my knowledge) none have allowed compelled disclosure of an alphanumeric passcode.
RESISTANCE IS NOT FUTILE!
There is also Darren_mtchell's point above but like you point out - invoke suspicion and who knows where you'll end up or on what list.