Feds Can't Force You To Unlock Your iPhone With Finger Or Face, Judge Rules (forbes.com) 172
A California judge has ruled that American cops can't force people to unlock a mobile phone with their face or finger. The ruling goes further to protect people's private lives from government searches than any before and is being hailed as a potentially landmark decision. From a report: Previously, U.S. judges had ruled that police were allowed to force unlock devices like Apple's iPhone with biometrics, such as fingerprints, faces or irises. That was despite the fact feds weren't permitted to force a suspect to divulge a passcode. But according to a ruling uncovered by Forbes, all logins are equal. The order came from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in the denial of a search warrant for an unspecified property in Oakland. The warrant was filed as part of an investigation into a Facebook extortion crime, in which a victim was asked to pay up or have an "embarassing" video of them publicly released. The cops had some suspects in mind and wanted to raid their property. In doing so, the feds also wanted to open up any phone on the premises via facial recognition, a fingerprint or an iris.
I can't imagine... (Score:3, Insightful)
I know, most people don't seem to value privacy, but if you have any at all, doing biometric should be a no go from the start.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
...why anyone would want to use biometric passcodes to unlock anything so private as a cell phone is today. I know, most people don't seem to value privacy, but if you have any at all, doing biometric should be a no go from the start.
Because I don't want to type in a password every time I look at my phone. I don't keep anything in the general storage that I don't want someone else to see. That "stuff" gets relegated an encrypted actual password protected "storage locker".
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Because I don't want to type in a password every time I look at my phone. I don't keep anything in the general storage that I don't want someone else to see.
If you don't care about the data behind the biometric lock, and the data you do care about is behind a different lock, why use biometrics at all? I am seriously asking here and genuinely am curious why.
Re: (Score:2)
I do that too, and it's just to keep people honest. It also makes it impossible for someone to successfully claim that they had no idea they weren't supposed to access the phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I admit that at first, I did not see a need for 2 systems.
But it has bothered me for a while now that they continue to insist on just one access system, both for initial access to the phone, and for the lock screen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I can't imagine... (Score:5, Funny)
he will get ... my grocery list.
I keep that in the secure locker. I don't want my health insurer to know how much crappy food I eat.
Re: (Score:2)
>"is refusing the passphrase a form of destruction of evidence?"
I can't imagine how. It might be contempt of court, or even obstruction of justice, but unless you've got a script set up to securely wipe all data if you haven't logged in within a certain amount of time, nothing is destroyed. Except possibly by incompetent forensic hacking attempts hitting a built-in self-destruct limit, but I would think that that's on them, you had nothing to do with it.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I haven't destroyed anything - I've just denied you access to it. The moment I change my mind, you can have access - the data will still be there. No different than locking it in an uncrackable/self-desctucting safe.
If you have enough other evidence to convince a judge to order me to do so, then he can hit me with contempt of court penalties until I comply.
Re: (Score:2)
You can use your finger to unlock something while you don't even look at it.
That's not all you can use it for.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're afraid that someone may get access to your fingerprint and uses it without your authorization, know that a finger print is easy to obtain if someone intended to do so. Whenever you touch a smooth surface with your finger, it leaves a good enough print that someone can take using something as simple as scotch tape. It is so easy that a digitalized fingerprint it is not suited for anything that is supposed to be secure.
It only makes sense to use your finger as a lock
Re: (Score:2)
That's not all you can use it for
What else can you use it for?
If you're afraid that someone may get access to your fingerprint and uses it without your authorization ...
Think of a chain link fence some people put around their gardens or whatever.... For that you may have a locker/safe.
I can't be the only one that read "that's not all you can use it for." as a sex innuendo... Can I?
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't asking why they use biometrics instead of a passcode, I was asking why they use biometrics instead of NOTHING for the data that they have ALREADY STATED they do not care if other people see. Why is that so difficult to understand?
Maybe they want to deny usable access to the hardware to someone who found it or stole it, simply out of spite (hey, that's mine! So you can't use it even though I'll never get it back).
Maybe they want to keep someone from using up their data plan.
Maybe they want to keep someone from using it to frame them for some crime.
Who the fuck knows?
Who the fuck wants to know?
Do you know where his phone as been?
Neither do I.
And I don't want to.
Re: (Score:2)
My company requires me to have a PIN code or other password on the device because my work e-mail is on there and it may contain sensitive information. (It doesn't, but that's not the point.) Biometrics allow me to follow company policy while maintaining easy access to my phone. I have a corporate duty to protect the "sensitive data" that's on my phone, but since I'm authorized to use the phone for "personal use" I wanted the extra layer of security of the secure storage locker that my company doesn't hav
Re: (Score:2)
Black and white think and nirvana fallacy is so much more convenient.
Re: (Score:2)
I would prefer a dual-OS system, so that I may use my thumbprint as usual for regular phone tasks, but also if I choose to enter into a sort of root access [to my life, not the OS] then I would indicate that via an on-screen slider, button, or even a physical button combo, which would prompt me for my password.
Congratulation: you just re-invented sudo.
Re:I can't imagine... (Score:4)
Using a biometric system allows me to keep a 15+ character passcode on my phone without meaningfully impacting my day. It means my phone is immune to casual (or even some non-casual) break-ins, but is still very useful and accessible to me. (Particularly now that I have an iPhone XR; it never FEELS locked to me because the transition is so seamless.)
If someone swipes my phone or I lose it, I have no fear that my data will be taken. If someone has kidnapped me and threatens me, they'll have my data whether it's protected by a password or biometrics.
I'm FAR more worried about persistent data tracking around the web and the amount of data that filters through google and facebook than my biometrics being the weak point in my security.
Ultimately, all security is a tradeoff between security and convenience. My phone is a device that I want to be convenient, and that means I trade a tiny bit of security for it.
Re: (Score:2)
This. The most likely case that a normal person will need their phone secure is if they lose it or have it stolen by a pickpocket. Security in this case requires a decently strong passcode. The problem biometrics solves is that a passcode strong enough to resist an attack on a lost or stolen phone is inconvenient to enter and is easily shoulder-surfed. If you are the target of a motivated attack, it would be be far easier to just observe you putting in a passcode than to lift your fingerprint in suffici
Re: (Score:2)
> That still could be taken at gunpoint, but I would argue that is actually an advantage, since I certainly don't have access to any data that is comparable in worth to my life.
Or even comparable in worth to my eye, thumb, etc. While many biometric scanners claim not to work with amputated body parts, I suspect they'd work just fine so long as the part was was kept alive with synthetic blood of the right color and temperature. Plus, I don't trust all thieves to know how difficult the procedure actually
Re: (Score:2)
We're sorry for the inconvenience, can we get you something to drink while you wait?
(Takes the cup or can/bottle from you later, lifts the print(s), uses them to unlock your phone)
Or just plain old intimidation to coerce you into complying. The average person is enough of a wimp, doesn't know their rights, and crumbles in the face of stern-speaking authority figures, that just 'demanding' it is enough for most, just to get the angry guy with a gun and a badge to stop yelling at them.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering how many people are beaten or killed by cops on the flimsiest of pretenses, sometimes even while officially in custody, without any consequences for the cop, that I'm not completely certain that "knowing your rights" is actually adequate defense against an "angry guy with a gun and a badge"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering how many people are beaten or killed by cops on the flimsiest of pretenses, sometimes even while officially in custody, without any consequences for the cop, that I'm not completely certain that "knowing your rights" is actually adequate defense against an "angry guy with a gun and a badge"
Since your chances of that are much lower than winning the lottery (unless you purposely do something to attract their attention), it's not worth your time and effort to even think about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you in the U.S.? I am, and I guess I'd be a martyr for civil rights, then, because I would refuse to be bullied into ANYTHING, and just keep repeating "LAWYER" and "PHONE CALL" until I got one, the other, or both, because I'm not a pussy and I won't be bullied, even if you wave a gun in my face. Be my guest, though, officer, and rough me up, intimidate me, and otherwise violate my civil
Re: (Score:2)
BLAH BLAH BLAH scare tactics from the internet troll BLAH BLAH BLAH
Oh shut the fuck up. I don't even own a goddamned smartphone or anything that can even be 'locked' in the first place, or that can even access the internet (I specifically disable it's limited ability to do so as a matter of course), there's not even anything of value on it that cops couldn't get from the phone company. However I also know my RIGHTS under the LAW so all your trolling is just more noise to me. Go back to 4chan and lurk more you're not impressing anyone. Better yet get a different hobby, pref
Re: I can't imagine... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Because passwords are inconvenient. You unlock your phone dozens or hundreds of times a day. It was discovered a PIN (a simple 4 digit PIN) made it so inconvenient that people wouldn't bother. Sure they set it up, but after a few days of constant entry, they disable it. This lea
Re: (Score:3)
...why anyone would want to use biometric passcodes to unlock anything so private as a cell phone is today. I know, most people don't seem to value privacy, but if you have any at all, doing biometric should be a no go from the start.
It's good enough if it's simply lost. It's a lot easier to shoulder surf a PIN than to create a convincing enough replica of my fingerprint. If you really want access to my phone just rob me, I'll tell you the PIN as it's not worth dying over. There's no need for shears and gory scenarios and it'll unlock the phone forever and after reboots too so it's better than my finger. I suppose I could be dead or incapacitated, but why go to drugs, battery or murder if a simple threat will get you all you want? So t
Re: (Score:2)
That being the case, one also has to ask if it is worth killing over if one isn't going to get it in the first place?
If not, then it still makes no sense to divulge the PIN.
If so, then it gets a bit dicier. although I still wouldn't, personally
While I have no death wish specifically, if I'm dead, I don't have to live with the consequences of that, by definition, while conversely, a person who kills
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in general it's a bad practice to make threats you don't intend to follow though on. And vanishingly few people consistently behave rationally.
And while a person facing imminent *certain* death should anticipate no particular problems at all (and in fact it seems common for such people to experience preternatural calm and often life-changing clarity - at least according to those whose lives were spared by chance) Facing imminent *potential* death on the other hand leaves you facing the very large pr
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, if they kill me I won't care that they didn't profit, so what exactly is the motive to invite that?
Re: (Score:2)
Not really... your choice in the matter is wholly illusionary. The choice to kill or not is theirs, and any impression that you have an influence on their decision simply by doing what they ask is nothing but a coincidence. I will not pretend to be responsible for a decision that someone else has imposed upon themselves just because they've somehow put themselves in a corner of feeling like th
Re: (Score:2)
You never have control over anything but your own actions, but those actions influence the probable actions of the people around you. You could be hit at any moment by a careless driver - but that doesn't mean you just ignore your own part and go wandering in traffic at night wearing black clothes. Heck, that's the entire point of wearing bright orange hiking gear during hunting season.
Or, you know, maybe they don't actually kill you. There's a pretty good chance a bullet wound just causes serious pain o
Re: I can't imagine... (Score:2)
For the people who check their phone 300 times a day, biometry saves them over half an hour a day. That seems a very reasonable tradeoff.
Re: (Score:2)
...why anyone would want to use biometric passcodes to unlock anything so private as a cell phone is today.
Because for nearly everyone in the world the biggest security risk is losing their phone and hoping that whoever finds it doesn't have automatic access to your Facebook account.
If you work for the CIA then you may have a differing opinion on that. Personally if you want my phone you can have it. Just don't delete any of the dickpicks. I'll even give you my passcode: 000000
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Biometrics are trash from every angle.
They're incredibly fuzzy, which leads them to being easy to fool. Users can't reset their biometrics when they're compromised. And the biometrics can be used to identify an individual. You can either use a shitty biometric device that records the data directly, or compromise a trusted one to do so, thus letting you go from the "secure" element to the user. OR you can identify a suspected user (or as they tried to do in this case, a swath of them) and then force them
Re:I can't imagine... (Score:5, Informative)
True security requires two of the following..
1. Something that I am (biometrics)
2. Something that I know (password)
3. Something that I have (A physical login token)
You can do three and be a bit more secure if you like.
Re: (Score:2)
And if your biometic get corrupted like your fingerprints, faces, etc.? :P
Re: (Score:2)
That only happens when crossing the international date line on a leap year, so you're good to go.
Re: (Score:2)
Biometrics on phones are good enough. They can be fooled, but what is the threat model here? An attacker who goes to all the trouble of cloning your fingerprints or making a 3D model of your head?
Biometrics are perfectly adequate against the threats most people face - thieves and "friends"/family. Even against abusive law enforcement they aren't terrible, as most generally lock and require a password after a certain amount of time, and offer a "panic button" (press the power button several times quickly, or
Re: (Score:2)
Having just upgraded my iPhone to one with facial recognition, I've wondered if someone could potentially hold it up to my face to unlock it. Thinking TSA, a traffic stop, or even a nosey spouse or grandkid while I'm sleeping on the couch. I haven't checked yet, but I'm hoping I can at least change it to require the code as well.
Re: (Score:2)
It needs a duress code.
Wink left then right, and it silently erases the phone, except for the decoy profile.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, they've just got their own unique qualities.
There are essentially three kinds of security:
- "Something you know" : like a passcode
- "Something you have" : like a key
- "Something you are" : biometrics
The BEST security combines all three of these aspects. That's when you see the general in the movie walk up to the big door, swipe his card (something he has), type a code into the pin pad (somthing he knows), and then scan his iris or face (something he is).
Eac
Re: (Score:2)
However, they're considerably more difficult to mimic than password entry - which means that the asshole who stole your phone at the club is unlikely to be able to bypass it.
It's like having a password on your home computer - it (mostly) keeps the kids out, especially if they have their own account, and serves as a declaration of intent to anyone who happens to sit down at it. But unless you've gone a whole lot further than just adding a password, the real security against a dedicated attacker is minimal,
Re: (Score:2)
However, they're considerably more difficult to mimic than password entry - which means that the asshole who stole your phone at the club is unlikely to be able to bypass it.
I have an eight digit alphanumeric passcode on my phone. That asshole is unlikely to bypass it.
Re: (Score:2)
Are they actually less likely to bypass that, than a much-lower-(time)cost-to-you biometric scanner though? Assuming they weren't specifically targeting you at least - in which case recording you entering your passcode is probably only a bit more difficult that getting your fingerprints (unless of course your phone had a nice
I think such generally low-criticality security is exactly where biometrics make sense. They'll probably never be secure enough for places where security is truly important, except pe
Re: (Score:2)
I, too, watch Cinemassacre Rental Reviews.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't imagine why anyone would want to use biometric anything after watching Demolition Man.
Long ago when Back to the Future 2 came out, the newspaper headlines were "Thumb Bandit Strikes Again". The flaws in biometrics were recognized in popular media before there even were cheap biometric sensors.
Tony Soprano could (Score:4, Funny)
Can't force but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Or use the finger prints that they had no choice but to have taken when they booked you.
Re:Can't force but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep and then in both of these cases the evidence will be thrown out of court.
Cops will just say you gave it up voluntarily. Then it's your word against theirs (unless the phone recorded it). Happy hunting for your lost rights.
civil counter-suit quickly filed by the person
Uh huh, Yeah, we all got plenty of money for that.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Cops will just lie. Best case they force you to unlock it, find out what you're doing, then get at that from some other angle, such as an "anonymous tip". Parallel construction.
If you're not lucky, they'll beat you and force you to unlock it, then it's your word against 3 seasoned cops saying you unlocked the device voluntarily then reached for one of the cops's gun.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, there is literally no good way to secure your phone. If the police are going to beat you, they'll beat you until you give them your password, too. At least your phone was a more convenient object to have the whole time that you weren't under arrest for something so heinous that the police decided you were worth the risks of depriving you of your rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Who said the cops lives were in danger? Other than them, to justify the fact that they beat the shit out of you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except not really if the evidence that they see on your phone merely sends them in the direction to obtain it through other means. Take your address book or snap contact list for instance. It's not evidence on it's own, but now they have a list of people to go to to obtain evidence.
If they can't unlock and use it anyway there's no reason not to go through it.
Re: (Score:2)
All it takes is a cop threatening to arrest you until they can get a warrant from a judge to look into your phone. That's enough for most of us to give in unless we know we are guilty. Who wants to waste all the time and money on even a book and release.
Does it really matter in the long run? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, that still won't do them any good, if you do NOT use a biometric passcode, such as a fingerprint.
They can try your prints all day long if you set a nice, complex passcode you have to type in.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure in a few years they could easily have a device to quickly 3d print the fingerprints onto some form of glove or something.
The Mythbusters did this a few years ago using a photocopy of a fingerprint stuck to their finger as well as using other methods. Perhaps the scanner technology is more sophisticated now, but I'm sure it can be still bypassed by less than casual attempts.
Re: (Score:2)
Make the user click a link to push malware down.
Once the police have the smartphone other products can be used to extract data.
Re: (Score:3)
If I'm not misunderstanding, the police can still search the phone, if they can find a way in.
From the second link above to the document by the judge, it seems the issue is the police requested a warrant for the phones of the two suspects, and it was both granted and forcing them to unlock the phones is fine.
But the cops also requested a warrant to force every person also found in those homes that had nothing to do with the case nor were suspects, and the judge said no to both the warrant and said the cops can't force the unrelated people to do anything.
Which to anyone with common sense this is how
what if you had an I want my lawyer = auto wipe se (Score:2)
what if you had an I want my lawyer = auto wipe setup on your phone?
Re: (Score:2)
I like to play survival video games. And I like to put traps in and around my bases.
9 times out of 10, the person who ends up getting killed by my traps is me.
This would not be a good solution for me.
destruction of evidence for asking for an lawyer?? (Score:2)
destruction of evidence for asking for an lawyer?? will be hard to prove in court with out the Constitution issues killing the case and it can set a bad precedent.
Like the cops can say talk now or we burn the evidence and you get hard time for destruction of evidence.
Homerun! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How to crack a password w/o a $5 hammer (Score:3, Informative)
If the police put you under surveillance, it's likely they will see you unlock your phone at least a few times.
If they can catch you doing it from different angles, they can probably figure out what the passcode is.
Once they do that, execute the warrant, seize the phone, unlock the phone, then declare victory.
Re: (Score:2)
$5 hammer is a lot cheaper and easier though. What, you want the enforcers to have to actually work for their results?
Now (Score:4, Interesting)
Now let's find a sane judge who will stand with the constitution and declare Civil Asset Forfeiture to be unconstitutional as it most certainly is.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't read the news ever, do you?
American cops can't (Score:2)
You are just asking for extraordinary rendition, aren't you?
I disagree... (Score:2)
I am very much in favor of privacy and protecting your data, but I cannot see how a finger print, iris, facial, or other bio-metric unlocking method can be considered protected by the 4th Amendment. How is this different than a physical key you've been ordered to surrender? Only passwords / keys in your mind should be protected. I really don't expect this decision to withstand appeal. Never thought I'd be arguing *for* the cops, but really, this should be obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
How is this different than a physical key you've been ordered to surrender?
It's not, if the order comes from a judge through due process.
Police are not judges, and a police demand is not due process.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because it isn't. It's protected by the Fifth Amendment.
Not likely to make its way through appeals (Score:5, Insightful)
I seriously doubt this is going to survive appeal. Providing your fingers and face, for fingerprints and lineups respectively, is already considered non-testimonial and well accepted. That providing these to unlock a phone is objectively the same as a passcode is irrelevant, a physical key such as a dongle would have the same purpose and it seems to be established that you could be compelled to hand it over to the police. In fact it seems in this case that the law is specifically unconcerned with the objective, and only concerned about the means.
This does invalidate an earlier comment I made concerning using 3D sculpting to fool face recognition, I guess the government might need to look into it now. If this leads to a ridiculous chain where you cannot be compelled to look at your phone to unlock it, but you can be compelled to have your face 3D scanned so that a copy can be made and used to unlock your phone, then I will be disappointed but not surprised.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't follow your line of thinking AT ALL.
being fingerprinted and photo'd for booking is NOT the same as invading your whole life, which tends to be stored on your phone, these days.
Re: (Score:2)
If the redcoats want my cell (Score:2)
they can pry it from my cold dead hands.
Why not do both ? (Score:3)
Instead of the either / or aspect, why not the option to require both a biometric AND a passcode / pin ?
If the biometric AND the pin / passcode match you get access. If either fail, you don't.
What problems would arise from such a setup ?
Odd ruling (Score:2)
That created a paradox: How could a passcode be treated differently to a finger or face, when any of the three could be used to unlock a device and expose a user’s private life?
Paradox? That's an asinine statement. They are treated differently BECAUSE they are in fact different.
A word/phrase passcode is something that you have to say. Between that and the possibility that you don't know or don't remember the password, it made perfect sense to deny jailing people for not giving out their password.
You fingerprint and face are just... there. Cops take mug shots. Cops take fingerprints. Hell, cops can take DNA samples. Because they are just there and don't require you to in
Re: (Score:2)
Completely agree. I have no idea what the basis for this ruling is.
From what the article says, the judge is suggesting that because both a passcode and biometric key can be used to the same ends, they should both be treated the same, which is utterly nonsensical. That's no different than saying that if you have a combination lock with a backup key, the cops can't compel you to turn over the backup key because they can't compel you to turn over the combination number. But a number is nothing like a physical
Cops lie too... (Score:2)
The feds/police will still do it but if you complain they will say you were asked and complied. No force needed. Your word against theirs. Judge probably knows the cops on a first name basis. Who do you think he believes?
I use biometrics... (Score:2)
...because typing my 14 character pin every time I want to unlock is pretty excessive, since I lock my phone every time I turn it away from me.
If I ever need to turn my phone over to the police, I'll simply reboot it. Biometrics are disabled until you log in normally, so they can force mo to stick my finger on it all they like, it won't help.
they don't need it (Score:2)
They don't really need your biometric passport to unlock your phone, they have other ways to get to the data.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At least let me arm myself then... :)
IF you expect me to defend myself, don't take away the best tools I have to do the job. Thank you!
Re: (Score:2)
no body is denying you an education.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea... Think 2nd amendment... Let me carry concealed in public w/o a license, after all, you admit to tying the hands of law enforcement, untie mine to compensate.
And I'm well educated already, but I'm working on my Master's degree now. None of that will reduce the risk from terrorists though. Nobody survived on 9/11 based on having a better education. In fact, some really well educated folks died that day.
Re: (Score:2)
and having a handgun would have protected you how?
Re: (Score:2)
On 9/11? Oh I don't know... Stopping a high jacking, or at least ending it? Even if the crew is dead, I at least would have a chance of surviving being a private pilot. Or more to the place it would matter, when someone starts shooting up some place I happen to be, say a public school or a movie theater?
But I'm just asking for some consideration if you are going to take power from the police. You understand the trade right? Not that I should have to ask...
Re: (Score:2)
it has never been about a question of police power, if you stand behind the 2nd amendment, then you should also realize why it was there in the first place, as in to curb the power of the government by a militia.
having the weapons available to you (assuming you are mentally stable) means they are also available to a wider audience which inevitably leads to more gun violence. Case in point, USA.
that really even is not the point. the real point is that you are equating civil liberties that a government may vi
Re: (Score:2)
So, you need a gun to take out a few assholes with box-cutters?
The only reason the early hijackers were able to get away with anything was that it was official policy to let hijackers have the plane, so that everybody could walk away safely when it eventually landed. Once the result of the early hijackings hit the news, the later attempts were foiled by the passengers. And shortly thereafter the only necessary increase in security was made - locks on the cockpit door. Everything else has been security t
Re: (Score:2)
So, you need a gun to take out a few assholes with box-cutters?
Yes. I'm not looking for a fair fight in this case, just a quick one.
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't hold my breath, probably won't last long, Will get overturned soon.
This was my first thought. The judge in question has limited authority and until this decision survives appeal it's only impacting a limited area.
Re: (Score:2)
"Is it really true that cops could force you to do this before? "
Force? No. They just asked: "Is this your phone?" And it unlocked as if by magic.
Re: (Score:2)
That the police can still somehow alter the legal options.
Keep the smartphone secure and that's more years the state/federal system can add to crimes.
Become an informant and everything is ok again.
The person now nit a criminal is back out in their community having to support police work and bring in a lot of criminals.
Putting in work for the police everyday for many, many years.