Judge Rules Suspect Can Be Required to Unlock Phone with Fingerprint

<a href="http://www.tomsguide.com/us/iphone-fingerprint-scanner-test,news-17587.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.tomsguide.com&#x2F;us&#x2F;iphone-fingerprint-scanner-test,...</a><p>&quot;One of the contest&#x27;s organizers, Washington D.C.-based security researcher Nick de Petrillo, scanned his penis with TouchID and then used it to unlock his phone. He announced his success on Twitter on Saturday (Sept. 21) and fellow security researcher Andrew Ruef replied &quot;Now no one will ever, ever steal your phone. [Is this] the secret to the correct use of TouchID?&quot; &quot;<p>Future HN headline: &quot;Judge Rules Suspect Can Be Required to Unlock Phone with Penis&quot;

If he still wants to ensure that the Cops should actually have to do more work despite this decision, then there are four possible outs:<p>- If Touch ID hasn&#x27;t been used in 48 hours, you&#x27;ll need to enter your passcode or password to re-enable it.<p>- If your iPhone has been rebooted or reset, you&#x27;ll need to enter your passcode or password to re-enable it.<p>- If a fingerprint isn&#x27;t recognized 5 times in a row, you&#x27;ll need to enter your passcode or password to re-enable it.<p>- If a remote lock has been sent via Find my iPhone, you&#x27;ll need to enter your passcode or password to re-enable it.<p>Remote lock - or delay for 48 hours - or - give the wrong finger 5 times in a row - or get the phone reset&#x2F;Rebooted<p>(careful of contempt of court - there few things more unstoppable than a pissed-off Judge with contempt powers)

It was bound to happen. You can view the fingerprint reader on the iPhone and other phones like the Samsung Galaxy S5 which feature fingerprint readers as having made it easier for law enforcement to get into your phone.<p>I would not be surprised if the fingerprint scans the police take from you down at the station or the ones you give up when entering a US airport when travelling from another country could be used to open up a fingerprint protected phone in the near future.<p>No matter what anyone says, the fingerprint reader is convenience, not extra security.

Not surprising if you think about the law. The historical bent of the Anglo-American legal system is that courts have very expansive powers to facilitate the collection of evidence. The 5th amendment is a specific limitation to this power, which prohibits compelling a person to serve as witness against himself. Taken literally this is a very specific limit, but has been construed expansively. But a physical action like unlocking a phone with a fingerprint is not testimonial at all.

One thing that nobody has mentioned yet is that generally speaking, when you are booked, your possessions are confiscated (including your phone) and your fingerprints are taken. It is very trivial to transform even a latent fingerprint and fool even high-end devices (using play-dough, for example) into authenticating.<p>Therefore, cops would technically not even need you to be physically present to unlock your phone. Chances are, your thumbs or index fingers are the ones used to unlock your device, so if I were a cop, that&#x27;s what I&#x27;d try first.<p>I&#x27;m not sure though how this would stand up on legal grounds. Anyone?

Fingerprints are usernames, not passwords<p><a href="http://blog.dustinkirkland.com/2013/10/fingerprints-are-user-names-not.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.dustinkirkland.com&#x2F;2013&#x2F;10&#x2F;fingerprints-are-user...</a>

&gt; Baust will head to the police station on Monday morning [to comply with the ruling], but [his lawyer] believes police still may be unable to unlock the phone because it should require a password [demanding which is unconstitutional], in addition to a fingerprint, once it has been shut off.<p>Am I naive for thinking these technicalities are really silly? Is not the goal here to establish whether accessing and searching one&#x27;s phone is fair game at some point in an investigation &#x2F; trial?

&quot;providing fingerprints and other biometric information is considered outside the protection&quot;<p>Is it just me, or is there a contradiction here? I&#x27;m happy to provide you with a finger print (in ink), but that in itself is not enough to unlock the phone. You need my live hand attached to my live finger.<p>I think the problem here is that it is an oversimplification to call it a &quot;finger print&quot;.

Anyone find a link to the actual ruling? I&#x27;m sort of tired of seeing these ad hoc write ups. I need to see what the judge actually wrote.

Having your fingerprint as the key is no different than having a physical key. Which the police can steal and use. It&#x27;s not in your head, so there is no 5th amendment protection for self-incrimination. I only see it being useful as an additional factor in multi-factor auth.

&quot;But providing fingerprints and other biometric information is considered outside the protection of the Fifth Amendment, the judge said.&quot;<p>Which is why 2 factor authentication is so important.

&quot;Broccoletti believes police still may be unable to unlock the phone because it should require a password, in addition to a fingerprint, once it has been shut off.&quot;<p>What a great ending to the story.

I suspect that future idealologies of what is considered to being an extension of ones personal being will be challenged.

So now having eczema qualifies you to be in contempt of court?

I&#x27;m surprised it took this long to come to a legal decision.<p>A fingerprint is a means to identify someone, not a security mechanism (like a password).

Just use the wrong finger.