Posted on Nov 29, 2017
With iPhone's New FaceID, Cops Can Unlock Your Phone by Pointing at Your Face—While You're Cuffed...
1.29K
13
19
5
4
1
iPhone
Privacy
Police
Technology
Security
Responses: 5
1
1
0
Here's a clue for people concerned about both privacy AND legal rights:
BIOMETRICS OF ANY KIND IS NOT A LEGALLY SECURE METHOD OF LOCKING YOUR DEVICES WITH RESPECT TO THE STATE!
The police can, and have, forced people to unlock their phones which were biometrically locked by fingerprint, for example.
The Fifth Amendment has NOT been deemed applicable to biometrically protected data sources (so far), at least with common biometrics like fingerprints, retina scans, etc.
If you REALLY want to protect your devices, then use good password protection and encryption. Stay away from biometrics for anything other than convenient use.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/05/iphone-fingerprint-search-warrant/480861/
BIOMETRICS OF ANY KIND IS NOT A LEGALLY SECURE METHOD OF LOCKING YOUR DEVICES WITH RESPECT TO THE STATE!
The police can, and have, forced people to unlock their phones which were biometrically locked by fingerprint, for example.
The Fifth Amendment has NOT been deemed applicable to biometrically protected data sources (so far), at least with common biometrics like fingerprints, retina scans, etc.
If you REALLY want to protect your devices, then use good password protection and encryption. Stay away from biometrics for anything other than convenient use.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/05/iphone-fingerprint-search-warrant/480861/
(1)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
Biometrics requires a warrant. Full stop. If a cop forces your thumbprint at a traffic stop without a warrant, everything is inadmissible.
(0)
(0)
CPO Glenn Moss
SN Greg Wright - "Biometrics requires a warrant." Not true. Do a little google-fu on this one.
Remember...what the laws and courts SAY may very well be different than what we THINK they ought to say.
Remember...what the laws and courts SAY may very well be different than what we THINK they ought to say.
(0)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
CPO Glenn Moss - Well since a lawyer already weighed in telling you that it IS true, Chief, I don't know what else to say. Understand, I'm talking about good cops doing their jobs normally. Not the tiny percentage of bad ones.
(0)
(0)
CPO Glenn Moss
SN Greg Wright - The answer, even from the lawyer, is not that simple.
If the police haven't arrested you, for example, then a warrant may indeed be required. If you have been arrested, then that may be another matter.
https://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/arrests_and_searches/can-police-look-at-cell-phone.htm
The answer to the question, “can a police officer look at my cell phone?” is, it depends. The question of whether police officers can seize and search a cell phone typically arises after a search has already occurred. You can challenge the legality of the search and the admissibility of evidence resulting from the search. You can address the issue of the search and seizure in a civil case based on invasion of privacy at the hands of law enforcement officers. You can also do so during a criminal case against you initiated by the State.
Do the Police Have a Warrant or an Exception to a Warrant to Search?
For the most part, an item on a cell phone is like an item in your pocket. The police need a warrant to conduct a search for it. If the police have an exception to the warrant requirement, they can search your cell phone without a warrant. Nationwide, some of the most widely recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement are:
◾Consent (the cell phone owner gave consent to the search)
◾Plain view (the cell phone, or what was on it, was in plain view)
◾The automobile exception (the cell phone was in an automobile, which has a reduced amount of privacy)
◾Public school (the search occurred on public school property)
◾Search incident to arrest (the search occurred after the cell phone owner was arrested)
◾Stop & frisk (police can stop a person they have reasonable suspicion to believe committed, is committing, or will commit a criminal act, and can frisk the person if they believe the person is armed and dangerous)
◾Hot pursuit/emergency (the chase for the suspect is occurring, and the police believe the suspect can easily destroy evidence related to the reason for the chase)
If the police haven't arrested you, for example, then a warrant may indeed be required. If you have been arrested, then that may be another matter.
https://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/arrests_and_searches/can-police-look-at-cell-phone.htm
The answer to the question, “can a police officer look at my cell phone?” is, it depends. The question of whether police officers can seize and search a cell phone typically arises after a search has already occurred. You can challenge the legality of the search and the admissibility of evidence resulting from the search. You can address the issue of the search and seizure in a civil case based on invasion of privacy at the hands of law enforcement officers. You can also do so during a criminal case against you initiated by the State.
Do the Police Have a Warrant or an Exception to a Warrant to Search?
For the most part, an item on a cell phone is like an item in your pocket. The police need a warrant to conduct a search for it. If the police have an exception to the warrant requirement, they can search your cell phone without a warrant. Nationwide, some of the most widely recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement are:
◾Consent (the cell phone owner gave consent to the search)
◾Plain view (the cell phone, or what was on it, was in plain view)
◾The automobile exception (the cell phone was in an automobile, which has a reduced amount of privacy)
◾Public school (the search occurred on public school property)
◾Search incident to arrest (the search occurred after the cell phone owner was arrested)
◾Stop & frisk (police can stop a person they have reasonable suspicion to believe committed, is committing, or will commit a criminal act, and can frisk the person if they believe the person is armed and dangerous)
◾Hot pursuit/emergency (the chase for the suspect is occurring, and the police believe the suspect can easily destroy evidence related to the reason for the chase)
The question of whether police officers can seize and search a cell phone typically comes up after a search has occurred. You can challenge the legality of the search and the admissibility of evidence resulting from the search. You can address the issue of the search and seizure in a civil case for invasion of privacy by the police. You can also do so in a criminal case against you initiated by the State.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I'll hope Capt Gregory Prickett weighs in, but your face is still biometrics, and they still need a warrant for that. They can't force your thumbprint without a warrant, so anything they learned after doing faceID without one would be inadmissible. That said, this makes it insanely easy for bad actors to get up to no good. Just another reason to avoid Apple IMO.
(1)
(0)
CPO Glenn Moss
None of what you said here is true. The state CAN and HAS forced the issue with respect to fingerprints and the like for biometrically secured devices. And it's been upheld in courts.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/05/iphone-fingerprint-search-warrant/480861/
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/05/iphone-fingerprint-search-warrant/480861/
(0)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
CPO Glenn Moss - Didn't say they couldn't get the warrant, Chief. Only said they had to. The author of this article was being overly dramatic, at least about abuse by the 99% of good cops.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Well that's a LOT of paranoia in one OpEd.
And of COURSE, the cops are the bad guys.
And of COURSE, the cops are the bad guys.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SSG (Join to see), I believe what MSgt (Join to see) and SN Greg Wright are alluding to is you haven't well supported your reason for downvoting. It's not just about the police. There's personal privacy, laws, tech, and ultimately lives affected by information in this post.
If you find something here incorrect or not sharing enough of a particular point of view, share it - here, to the author, somewhere. Many of us are here to grow, learn, and share information.
Adding to Greg's comment, how does your initial post add to the thread?
If you find something here incorrect or not sharing enough of a particular point of view, share it - here, to the author, somewhere. Many of us are here to grow, learn, and share information.
Adding to Greg's comment, how does your initial post add to the thread?
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SGT (Join to see) - Well....lets look at the replies I've had. IE: Adding to the thread. The comment was making a point, directly involving the article. Also, there is NO requirement to state why you did it. 5 seconds of reading will show that it's "considered common courtesy" but not required. So...yeah.
Regardless, the reasoning behind the downvote, is that the "article" is nothing more than the ravings of an anti police loony. It's full of false narratives and plain old foolish statements.
I expect more from a person who is ostensibly a military member than to see them spreading silliness like this.
So I downvoted. If I could do so more than once, I would.
Regardless, the reasoning behind the downvote, is that the "article" is nothing more than the ravings of an anti police loony. It's full of false narratives and plain old foolish statements.
I expect more from a person who is ostensibly a military member than to see them spreading silliness like this.
So I downvoted. If I could do so more than once, I would.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SSG (Join to see) - Got some links to enforce your POV? Also, you can downvote every comment here if you'd like. But be careful. If you do so without giving any further explanation you may be classified as a snowflake.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SGT (Join to see) - Uhhhh...Gee; thanks for permission that I don't need.
Links to enforce my POV? No. I don't need links to enforce my point of view. That's why it's called a point of view. And with this absolute gutter scraps of an article, I REALLY don't need to.
Next you'll tell me that I have to post links to prove that the sun comes up in the morning. Or that fire is hot.
Links to enforce my POV? No. I don't need links to enforce my point of view. That's why it's called a point of view. And with this absolute gutter scraps of an article, I REALLY don't need to.
Next you'll tell me that I have to post links to prove that the sun comes up in the morning. Or that fire is hot.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google