Judge Rules Against Forced Fingerprinting (thestack.com) 126
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Stack: A federal judge in Chicago has ruled against a government request which would require forced fingerprinting of private citizens in order to open a secure, personal phone or tablet. In the ruling, the judge stated that while fingerprints in and of themselves are not protected, the government's method of obtaining the fingerprints would violate the Fourth and Fifth amendments. The government's request was given as part of a search warrant related to a child pornography ring. The court ruled that the government could seize devices, but that it could not compel people physically present at the time of seizure to provide their fingerprints "onto the Touch ID sensor of any Apple iPhone, iPad, or other Apple brand device in order to gain access to the contents of any such device." The report mentions that the ruling was based on three separate arguments. "The first was that the boilerplate language used in the request was dated, and did not, for example, address vulnerabilities associated with wireless services. Second, the court said that the context in which the fingerprints were intended to be gathered may violate the Fourth Amendment search and seizure rights of the building residents and their visitors, all of whom would have been compelled to provide their fingerprints to open their secure devices. Finally, the court noted that historically the Fifth Amendment, which protects against self-incrimination, does not allow a person to circumvent the fingerprinting process." You can read more about the ruling via Ars Technica.
Incriminating evidence (Score:1)
Also, doesn't this amount to forcing people to provide evidence that can potentially incriminate them?
Re: (Score:2)
If I were going to use a fingerprint I would use it as the equivalent of the username, or as an alternate means of ent
Re:Incriminating evidence (Score:5, Informative)
A fingerprint is a fact. And normally facts are not protected.
The Manner of protecting a fact can be protected. For example, police may not arrest someone merely in order to get their fingerprint.
Similarly, the right against self-incrimination can protect you against having to disclose facts which tend to incriminate you.
These don't mean you'll always win an argument, but there is no simple rule that facts are not protected.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Incriminating evidence (Score:3)
A fingerprint is also a real-world structure that the courts have allowed to be sampled by law enforcement from those arrested.
You've also described a key. Would law enforcement be able to take your keys and search your house, car, attaché case, etc. without the proper warrant?
Re: (Score:2)
They had a warrant, so ... yes, they would be allowed to use any keys on site to open locked areas. They can also force physical locks open.
Re: Incriminating evidence (Score:2)
In that case, I side with the cops, as unpopular as that may be.
If there is a warrant issued for the contents of your phone, and you carry the keys around with you at all times, law enforcement should be allowed to use those keys, biometric or otherwise.
That said, I've got a few of caveats: This is by warrant only. Not at a routine traffic stop, border crossing, or similar. This shouldn't include any rubber-stamp FISA warrants, but that's a separate issue. It also shouldn't include warrants that broadly say
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it seems that the analogy would be the cops grabbing everyone's keys in the office, and then using the keys to go snoop through their homes. I don't believe that such a warrant would be granted or, if granted, would be constitutional, just like I don't think that this was constitutional, simply because of the broadness...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah that pesky 5th amendment (along with the 4th) and the limits it puts on law enforcement. Finally a judge that seems to understand the constitution.
I'm guessing though that if law enforcement wants to log into your device, there are other ways in. Didn't we just have a story about that today?
However, be it known that the 5th and 4th amendments don't keep you from being compelled to provide evidence in some circumstances. Best you consult a criminal lawyer before providing or refusing to provide informa
Re:Incriminating evidence (Score:5, Funny)
Best you consult a criminal lawyer before providing or refusing to provide information you are asked. There are times you cannot refuse.
That may be rather difficult to do if you're detained and they're not willing to release you. I suppose that you could use your phone to make a call...
Re: (Score:2)
Ah come on, you've seen this in all the crime investigation process dramas in the past decade. When the police ask you a question, YOU ask to consult your lawyer and according to your Miranda rights, you must be given access to your lawyer, end of questioning for the time being...
Now, I normally don't recommend you obtain legal knowledge watching TV shows, but in this case, there is enough truth here to be relevant.
I DO however recommend you shut up and consult your lawyer at any point you are not total
Re: Incriminating evidence (Score:1)
Unless you are at the US border.
Re: (Score:3)
or they feel like using the word "terrorist"
or they just don't feel like following the constitution today
or....
There's a reason I have no desire to visit your backwards country. I'll stick to countries with a somewhat reasonable human rights record thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
That may be rather difficult to do if you're detained and they're not willing to release you. I suppose that you could use your phone to make a call...
I love dry humor. Let's hope this gets modded up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure if the problem was reading comprehension or unclear writing.... But that's what I thought I said... Consult an attorney before answering (or refusing to answer) questions, when being questioned by law enforcement as part of an investigation...Take your lawyer's advice.
You say something along the lines of "I'd like to answer your questions, but I must consult my lawyer first." Which is not refusing to answer, nor answering.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really.
The issue is similar to using a Stingray or IMSI catcher - besides getting "the crook", you're getting a bunch of innocent people who are simply bycatch.
The judge simply knows you cannot force a bunch of innocent people to become suspects simply because they were present near the location. So whether it's unlocking their phones with fingerprints, or
Yes, poorly worded summary (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, I read the judgement and the court wrote that there is a fifth amendment concern. Specifically, the judge pointed to another major ruling recently that by unlocking a phone via a password (or fingerprint), the person is effectively testifying that it is their phone, under their control, and they can decrypt and encrypt it.
Also, the application for the warrant was deficient on traditional fourth amendment grounds, specificity of what and who would be searched, and what the police expected to find where.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, but they "must not abridge" that right you know...
Interesting how we have justified away our constitutional rights in the last few decades isn't it? For the "good of all" we now give up more and more freedom and the courts seem willing to help it happen in the name of social justice, political correctness or even the judge's personal feelings...
(Yes, I'm pointing at the 9th Circuit.... You folks need to swallow a huge does of "what does the law say" and stop with this "but it's mean if you do that"
Re: (Score:2)
"give up more and more freedom and the courts seem willing to help it happen in the name of social justice, political correctness or even the judge's personal feelings... "
I think the judgment in the article refutes your opinion. Nobody has giving up or lost any of their constitutional rights. Even child pornographers still have their rights. If the suspects in this case are guilty the law enforcement agencies will just have to find and rely on other evidence to prosecute the offenders. If that isn't possib
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you get what I'm saying. Which is OK because it really was off topic.
I believe our courts have, in some cases, invented rights where none really exist and have ignored rights that ARE enumerated in our constitution. The 10th amendment is the most trampled with the 2nd, 4th and 5th often abridged as well. This should NOT be. Courts should be limited to interpreting the law, not MAKING law though their decisions. They will sometimes be called on to resolve conflicts in existing law and pro
Ninth Amendment (Score:2)
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Seems like the founder already took care of this one. Many rights exist that are not specifically enumerated in the constitution and the courts are free to find those right violated. Unfortunately strict originalists like Scalia forget about the Ninth Amendment when they want to go back to what "The drafters of the Constitution wrote down" as their primary source for rulings.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh boy.. Really? Like originalists don't know that. We fully understand that the constitution is intended to limit government, not enumerate all our human rights.
What I think is sadly forgotten is that the bill of rights sets out a framework of what government must NOT do, what they cannot regulate. Specifically what the federal government cannot do. The rest was left to the states and the people. So, for instance, Same Sex marriage. How's that a federally protected right from the constitution? Access
Re: (Score:2)
Again no rights are being created, they already exist. Yes it should beup to the states to recognize the rights and but when the states fail to protect the rights of citizens, for example equal schools, then the federal government has the obligation to step in an protect the citizens rights when the state fails or refuses to do so.
Same Sex Marriage was always a right, whether or not it was enumerated in the constitution. The only problem was a failure of the state to protect the rights of ALL its citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
Same Sex marriage was always a right and a reality, long before the courts took up the case... What was at issue was government recognition of the union... It was about the legal institution of marriage, not the right to call yourself married, everybody had that already. You could go out and hire a hall, get a minister, send out invitations and have a wedding and nobody would stop you, nor would anybody stop you from believing your relationship was a marriage. Before the ruling, nobody's rights where infri
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately strict originalists like Scalia forget about the Ninth Amendment when they want to go back to what "The drafters of the Constitution wrote down" as their primary source for rulings.
Fuck yes. I suppose this is one of the big reasons why I loathed Scalia. I WANTED to like him. I like some of his writing. I like the idea of hewing clearly to what the law actually says. But I felt so many times he refused to do that and just went with his personal conservative biases instead and then used personal insults when called on it. Disappointing.
Re: (Score:2)
In what way is giving away some "freedoms" you never really needed anyway for the good of the community a bad thing? Society is more important than individuals, we Europeans know that.
A society that doesn't protect "unnecessary" individual freedom is not one worth living in. There are two things to note here. First, it's easy to define any sort of freedom as unnecessary. North Korea has done so, for example. Similarly, the idea of primacy of society has justified all sorts of abuses against people by powerful parties who can convenient align the interests of society to fulfill their own interests.
Second, it is better to black list proven harmful action and behavior (I would go for a m
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you assume the legal system is supposed to be consistent?
Re: (Score:2)
Disney and Universal collect your fingerprints and no one ever objects to it.
Yes, but they're not saved. They're used to create a hash number to tie that hash to a ticket so you can't share the ticket. The hashes are deleted after 30 days, according to their privacy policy.
don't get confused (Score:5, Informative)
This story is that the wholesale screening of individuals that the police have no otherwise suspicion of a crime, shotgun style, is being ruled against. Just like the case several years ago when police sought to have an entire small town's male population give DNA samples to match some evidence they had of a sex crime. The judge in this case tossed out the willy nilly use of police power to compel people wholly unrelated to the issue, not under suspicion at all, from having to give evidence.
When you're suspected of something specifically, you can definitely still be compelled. Just like being compelled to give a breathalyzer, or DNA when a court orders you to.
But as a more practical matter anyway, 10 tries of different people's fingerprints, and the phone will be wiped regardless... so there's a limit to how useful the technique would've been to begin with.
Re: (Score:1)
Hardly seems to matter [slashdot.org]
It's just a power grab (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
They're already forming a new court to get around the more liberal ones that run out of California...
Bwahaha, you mean the fucking Ninth Circuit? The one that, on appeal to the Supreme Court, gets overturned a whopping 80 percent of the time? Yeah, I think any court with that kind of failure rate should be disbanded, as well.
There's some supreme nuttery going on out in California these days...
Re:It's just a power grab (Score:5, Informative)
You're conveniently forgetting that less than 0.2% of the Ninth Circuit's cases are ever referred to the USSC. And those that are, are by definition the ones where the losing party feels they have the best shot.
So by "80% failure rate", you actually mean "less than 0.16% failure rate".
But please, don't let mere math stand in the way of your mindless partisan hackery. After all, it's only facts.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oooh, beat me with a clue stick oh wise one! How kinky.
All that bullshit aside, the Supreme Court takes so few cases per year that EVERY court's number of cases appealed up is so small as to almost be negligible. The fact remains that when the Ninth Circuit's cases get to the Supremes, they're overruled in 8 out of 10 cases.
That should scare you, because how many people just plain don't have the resources to appeal a case to the Supreme Court, or how many cases are just unable to be heard by them because of
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
God, it must be exhausting to be a braindead liberal puke.
Sounds like you lost.
Re: (Score:2)
If the numbers are small, of course.
What's with the numerology instead of mathematics? Is astrology next?
Police don't do "reasonable doubt" (Score:2)
Besides, here's what I was actually replying to:
If only a very small number of arrested suspects plead not guilty and have their case go the a jury trial then the cop is doing quite well are they not?
Also plenty of people are arrested on suspicion and released without ever going to
Re: (Score:2)
So you would trust a cop who made 5 arrests and wrongfully imprisoned 4 of them? That is simply mind blowing.
That would be a terrible record, but what about a cop who made 2500 arrests and wrongfully imprisoned 4 of them? Would that be more reasonable?
Re: (Score:3)
And if that one employee were carrying one fifth of the entire company's workload [wikipedia.org], and he made the right decision 99.84% of the time, you'd be a moron for firing him. That's especially true when your least overruled employee is wrong 44.7% of the time [americanbar.org] and the average overrule rate is 74.3%.
In other words, you're full of shit and ignorant on this subject. Read up before getting involved in adult conversations.
They're getting over turned because SCOTUS (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh yes, it's the right-wingers setting up sanctuary cities to harbor illegals against the rule of law. Do you think people are supposed to believe you just because you decide to let some of your verbal diarrhea out of your mouth?
Try again, asswipe.
Re: (Score:3)
But don't let facts get in the way of your opinions.
Re:It's just a power grab (Score:5, Informative)
I often see this repeated by people who don't know shit.
First of all, when the Supreme Court takes a case, it overturns the Appeals Court decision in over 70% of the cases. They only grant a writ of certiorari in cases where they see an issue and it usually means they will be overturned. And despite what you read on Breitbart, the 9th Circuit is not the most overturned Appeals circuit. Kentucky/Ohio/Michigan's 6th Circuit has that distinction with an 87 percent rate of being overturned. Then comes Alabama/Florida/Georgia's 11th Circuit with a record of 85 percent. But the fact is, if your case goes to the Supreme Court, it's odds-on that it will be overturned.
Re: (Score:1)
Wait, do, do you think that an 80% failure rate is good just because there are courts with HIGHER rates?
I see you use the classic communist tactics of building up a strawman (highest rate, Breitbart, etc. none of which I mentioned) and somehow proving how smart you are by knocking it down.
Obviously, many of the courts are fucked. And the Ninth is by far and away one of the most batshit-insane groups of assholes in the nation. The fact that you stick up for them speaks volumes.
Re:It's just a power grab (Score:5, Informative)
Let me slow it down for you:
Only about 1.01% of the circuit court's rulings go to Supreme Court. By definition, these are cases that SCOTUS has looked at and seen enough of a problem that they granted a writ of certiorari. If they didn't see a problem, they'd just bounce it back.
So, of the 1% that goes to SCOTUS, 80% of those are overturned and 20% are affirmed. That means the true rate of 9th Circuit cases being overturned is closer to 0.8%, not 80%.
I mentioned Breitbart, because you will only find this spurious claim of "The 9th Circuit gets overturned 80% of the time" will only be found in websites that cater to alt-Right jackoffs. And they will never mention that the courts with the highest rates of being overturned are in solid red states.
Now, do we have some clarity on this issue?
You're still looking bemused. Let me put it more simply: 80% of the 9th Circuit's rulings are not overturned, you stupid sonofabitch.
Re: (Score:2)
Your comment here is proof that you quit coming to Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
You've always been a dick, but lately, you've become a super-mega-fucktard dick. You're one of the reasons I quit coming to Slashdot anymore.
Get a massage, get laid... grow up. Life's too short to be a prick all the time.
You sound like a class act. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Re: (Score:2)
It might be. I've not looked into it so just throwing out a theory, but I would assume that most people don't bother putting the time and money into appeals that they're guaranteed to lose, so you'll drop a significant number of cases that flat out wouldn't be overturned right off the bat, thus increasing the relative fraction of those that will be overturned.
If there's also some sort of pre-review to further knock off ones that the appealer thinks might have a chance but the court doesn't, again the ratio
Re: (Score:2)
It might be. I've not looked into it so just throwing out a theory, but I would assume that most people don't bother putting the time and money into appeals that they're guaranteed to lose...
If there's also some sort of pre-review to further knock off ones that the appealer thinks might have a chance but the court doesn't, again the ratio pushes in favor of cases that get overturned.
Your theory is correct. There's a good discussion of the issue here [stackexchange.com].
From the link:
This would give an approximate breakdown of 84.7% of cases weren't even considered by the Supreme Court, 15.1% of cases were declined by the Supreme Court, 0.12% of cases were overturned, and 0.03% of cases were confirmed."
Re: (Score:2)
Your link is the source of my numbers. No "cherry-picking" involved.
Re: (Score:2)
And yes there is talk (but no action yet) of breaking up the 9th circuit into two circuits. Which makes sense for more reasons than the fact that it is by far the most overturned court in the nation.(80% of rulings in 2015 were overturned, that's a pathetic performance. It's also the most overworked
Re:It's just a power grab (Score:4, Informative)
80% of rulings overturned in 2015? From the kindly folks at politifact [politifact.com]:
The 9th Circuit is by far the largest circuit. In the 12 months leading up to March, 31, 2015, just under 12,000 cases were filed in the 9th Circuit — more than 4,000 more than the next-largest circuit, the 5th Circuit. Despite that gigantic docket, the Supreme Court heard just 11 cases from the 9th Circuit in 2015, reversing eight.
So, if you look at the total numbers (which you have to to match the statement you made), the Supreme Court only overturned 8 out of about 12000 rulings. (or .066%)
I hope in real life you don't deal with math like "give someone 80% of a dosage of 5% solution" or anything else that relies on numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't change the underlying numbers, Anon. (and no, it isn't really an alternate to Breitbart. I don't recall Breitbart ever publishing retractions when they get it wrong, nor do they publish original sources for the material they are using when doing the weighing or the reasoning behind the conclusions that were reached which allow for discussions on methodology)
Re: (Score:2)
No.
On iOS, you get 3 tries to use the fingerprint reader. If you fail, it reverts to the backup security method (PIN, etc). You cannot use the fingerprint reader until the phone is successfully unlocked via this backup method.
Re: (Score:2)
But as a more practical matter anyway, 10 tries of different people's fingerprints, and the phone will be wiped regardless... so there's a limit to how useful the technique would've been to begin with.
It's worse than that: If I was to engage in illegal activities, I would make sure that the finger to open my phone is not my thumb. I would train a single other finger into all the trainable spots in the phone OS (I think it lets you train 4 or 5?). That way when the cop tries to open with my fingerprint and it doesn't work, the first thing he would do is try it again or try my other thumb. Not realizing that it takes my right ring finger to open the device.
Re: (Score:2)
If they take your fingerprint then they have to figure out how to turn that fingerprint into a finger again in order to then use it.
Re: (Score:2)
my iPhone does that at 10 failed attempts. Trust me, 3 is too low.
Re: (Score:2)
The Battleground (Score:2)
The rational and intelligent states of Illinois, California, and New York are doing what they can to limit the federal insanity. Please give them whatever support you can.
government demanding assistance (Score:2)
What this is really about: Can the government demand that you take some action? It doesn't matter whether this is a matter of seconds, hours, or months: Are you the government's slave, to command as it wishes?
If it were just about fingerprints, then the government could collect your fingerprint from something you touched, reproduce it on an artificial fingertip, and unlock the phone*. There is nothing at all stopping them from doing this, but that's not the precedent that they want to set.
*This isn't even p
Re: (Score:2)
Acetate tape and an acetone based solvent (as in diluted acetone) does it well enough to examine at high resolution with an optical microscope.
Look at me (Score:2)
Do you need a warrant to take my picture?
That can be incriminating. I just don't get it.
Sure, if you have my prints, you could plant them at a crime scene. (Difficulty level = High).
But if you have my photo, you can fabricate "witnesses" that say I did something. (Difficulty level = Low).