Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: 5th Amendment Still Works

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,421
    Device(s)
    iPhone8
    Carrier(s)
    Koodo, Freedom, Public
    Feedback Score
    0

    5th Amendment Still Works

    Cops told: No, you can't have a warrant to force a big bunch of people to unlock their phones by fingerprint, face scans
    Judge rules compelled use of biometrics runs into Fifth Amendment protections

    A US judge last week denied police a warrant to unlock a number of devices using biometrics identifiers like fingerprints and faces, extending more privacy to device owners than previous recent cases.

    The order comes from Northern California Federal District Judge Kandis Westmore in response to a request by the government to search and seize the devices found at a premises in Oakland, California, connected to two suspects.

    The suspects are believed to be involved an attempt to extort payment from a victim through Facebook Messenger by threatening to release an embarrassing video.

    Judge Westmore in her order found authorities did have probable cause to apply for search warrant but denied the request because it was overly broad for not being restricted to the two individuals under investigation.

    Instead, the warrant would have allowed authorities to seize and search any device found at the location in question, and to force the unlocking of said devices – no matter who they belonged to – by compelled use of biometric controls. In this case applying the owner's finger to a fingerprint sensor if present or holding the device up to owner's face if it relies on a system like Apple's Face ID or Samsung's iris scanner.
    No more dragnets

    The government, the judge said, is free to submit a more narrow search warrant application, but she made clear that she believes device owners should not have to testify against themselves, in accordance with US Fifth Amendment protection.

    "Even if probable cause exists to seize devices located during a lawful search based on a reasonable belief that they belong to a suspect, probable cause does not permit the Government to compel a suspect to waive rights otherwise afforded by the Constitution, including the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination," she wrote in her order.

    Last June, the US Supreme Court ruled in Carpenter v. US that the government violated the Fourth Amendment – which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures – by collecting cell phone location records without a warrant. It was an major privacy victory and a sign that the Supreme Court is willing to address issues raised by changing technology.

    Privacy advocates have also argued that authorities should not be able to force people to unlock their devices because compelled production of passwords is testimonial.

    Courts have accepted that where the evidence being sought was not already known to authorities and other exceptions don't apply. But they've not extended protection to biometric identifiers; authorities have been allowed, for example, to apply people's fingerprints to device fingerprint sensors to open seized devices.

    Where in the past judges have drawn a distinction between forcing a person to reveal a known password and the act of applying a person's finger to a sensor, Judge Westmore sees no difference in this instance. "In this context, biometric features serve the same purpose of a passcode, which is to secure the owner's content, pragmatically rendering them functionally equivalent," she wrote.
    It's going to take the Supreme Court to sort this

    In a phone interview with The Register, Greg Nojeim, director of the Freedom, Security and Technology Project at the Center for Democracy & Technology, said the courts disagree about whether faceprints and fingerprints can be considered testimonial.

    "It is a significant ruling because the other cases in which judges held that fingerprints or faceprints were not testimonial came before the Supreme Court's decision in Carpenter case," he said. "Now you've got a magistrate judge relying in the reasoning of the Supreme Court that digital is different."

    Legal scholars have suggested the ruling could be challenged. Last year, when an Ohio man was forced to provide access to his Face ID-protected iPhone (US v. Grant Michalski), USC Gould law professor Orin Kerr, said at the time via Twitter that he saw no Fifth Amendment issues. He showed similar skepticism in a tweet on Monday by questioning the judge's Fifth Amendment reasoning.

    Nojeim suggests the Supreme Court may have to clarify the situation.

    "Nowadays most everybody is protecting the contents of their cell phones and other devices with passwords," he said. "It's therefore likely this issue will be of growing importance to law enforcement and that makes the chance of Supreme Court review higher than it has ever been."
    Koodo $40 Canada Wide + 8GB + 1000 Intl LD
    Public $120 Province Wide + 12GB - $6 Autopay - $12 Loyalty - $45 Refer = $19 per Month
    Freedom $35 ($37-BTS) North America Wide + 8GB + 1GB Roaming

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Gulf Coast
    Posts
    15,686
    Device(s)
    Moto G7 Power, Nexus 5X
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile, PagePlus
    Feedback Score
    0
    This is two issues and just one judge. The first issue is that the search warrant was two broad. That one can be dealt with by submitting a more specific warrant. The second issue is that courts have ruled that police can use what you are (biometics) to unlock your devices but can not force you to divulge a secret to do the same thing (PINs & passwords). This is a rapidly evolving field of law. ITMT, if you're up to no good, best to not use biometric locking on your electronic devices but rather rely on strong passwords.
    Donald Newcomb

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    4,316
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Peppermint View Post
    ...Nojeim suggests the Supreme Court may have to clarify the situation.

    "Nowadays most everybody is protecting the contents of their cell phones and other devices with passwords,"...
    Really? I don't know anyone who uses a password to unlock their cellphone.

    I expect this ruling to be overturned. It is conceptually the same as the police finding the key to your lockbox in your pocket. They can use the key.

    Should biometrics be defined to be in a different category? Maybe.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    862
    Feedback Score
    0
    They can take a finger print by force but they cannot force you to give a password because they would have to torture you to get it.

    I don't lock my phone. It seems like a hassle to have to unlock the phone every time you want to use it. I also worry if I use a password I might forget the password and get locked out.

    My new phone has a finger print reader but I never tried it.

    I don't want anyone looking at my phone but I have no sensitive data on it like passwords. I keep my passwords encrypted in a password manager on my phone. So if someone got the data on my phone it does not make a big difference. Anything I think is important I would just keep it encrypted.

    If a criminal does have illegal info on a phone all they have to do is keep just that info encrypted then it does not matter if anyone sees their phone.

    If the police are looking for things like who they called I think they can get that from the carrier.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 11-20-2002, 09:08 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-19-2002, 09:46 PM
  3. Bell cell phones still work at pearson
    By cellmam in forum Bell/Virgin/Lucky/Solo
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-13-2002, 01:37 PM
  4. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-09-2002, 04:17 PM
  5. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-26-2002, 07:36 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks