This isn't new. This can also be compelled by the courts. If you want your phone secure, don't have one. If you want it to be expensive to open, use a long passcode, do NOT use fingerprint or face unlock.
On iOS hold vol up (or down) and power at the same time. It starts SOS but you can cancel. At this point Face ID is disabled and you must enter your pin to reenable it.
So yeah. As soon as you see lights, hit that cop button.
Just make sure you have all your docs on paper so you don’t have to open your phone.
Completely agree. There are a surprising number of folks who should know better who will swear up and down how safe they are. If they like the convenience and the "cool factor" of using them....that's fine, whatever, none of my business. Just don't try to gaslight me that they are safe.
For people who don't want to do that: turn off your phone if there's the likelihood that your phone will be confiscated soon (crossing a state border or getting a perquisition). This will
And this only makes it more expensive and time consuming to unlock. So if you're small fry, they won't waste the resources. But if you are a "person of interest" don't be dumb, bring a burner phone.
I wonder though, if you had that set up and the cops ask you for the code to unlock and you told them the code to wipe and they end up wiping the phone. Would they be able to charge you with evidence tampering?
"Sorry, my distress pin is 1 digit off of my unlock pin, you probably fat fingered it by mistake. I guess we'll never know. You really need to be more careful."
I’d expect so. You have the right to remain silent. You do not have the right to destroy evidence. How is wiping your phone any different from running around your house flushing things?
if you press volume up, then volume down, then hold the power button until the power slider comes on, then it will disable biometrics until next unlock
I just tested it... it's the same combination for a fast shutdown. Up > Down > Hold Power (1 second hold), then you're introduced to the option of sliding to power off. If you exit from that prompt or just leave the screen idle for about 10-15 seconds (I didn't count it) you'll be forced to enter passcode.
For GrapheneOS (custom android), there is Lockdown button next to power off and restart which does the same thing. I think it may be on other Android phones as well but not sure.
Yes, and it may be a good idea to have it just in case. But the courts in the US so far mostly ruled that police forcing you to give biometrics to unlock is fine, as it is the same as fingerprinting you when you are arrested. But forcing you to give pin/password is the same as testifying against yourself, which is against the 5th amendment. So they usually can't make you to give them a pin/password. At least in theory. Still better to have it in practice.
Bending over backwards to find logic that lets cops ignore the Constitution.
If it's a search violation without biometrics then it's a search violation with biometrics. Next up they're going to rule that no matter how much you get recorded telling them you don't consent to a search, a search is legal as long as they can smash their way into your car.
That requires the freedom to do so. If it is a situation where the police interaction starts suddenly, there are many scenarios where this advice is not useful.
The statement is but an option, of course you couldn't handle your phone handcuffed, that would be extremely difficult.
It's merely a countermeasure prior to any altercations with officers, most phones automatically restarts if you press the power button for a few seconds.
I don't think having to resort to such things is cool, but I indeed had to do this once .
Where I live cops often unlawfully search you and check whatever they want. I was stopped at a traffic light, on the guise of a "drugs operation". Told the officer I'd pick my license and car register, picked those and restarted my phone in 5 seconds. Got out of the car, they searched and soon released me.
In this case nothing happend, but if you're somewhere where cops search unlawfully, and you were not stopped near an alleyway that cops can beat your password out of you with a wrench, I'd totally say you should restart your phone.
Wasn't there a court ruling that forcing someone to unlock their phone was unconstitutional? The fourth amendment seems to indicate a warrent at least is required to search someone's papers, in the modern era that should apply to phones, obviously the constitution is meaningless if they want to do whatever but still.
Edit: in Riley v. California (2014) the Supreme Court unanimously decided that warrentless search of a cellphone during an arrest was unconstitutional.
The laws vary from state to state, and I am not a lawyer. But in general, I think it works like this. Things like your fingerprints, face, retina, etc, identify you. In many states, if the cops ask for your identification you are required to give it to them, and they are allowed to force the issue. Things like passwords, access to the interior of your home or vehicle, access to your business files, and things like that are not your identity and normally require a judge to sign a warrant (unless there are "extenuating circumstances").
Personally, I think the forcing you to unlock your phone without a warrant is bullshit, especially since they have the upper hand anyway. And the phone isn't going anywhere and neither are you. In most cases they have plenty of time to get a warrant.
My house key identifies me almost as well as my license. Seems like if they can use my thumb to unlock and enter my phone they could use my house key to unlock and enter my house.
I guess the distinction might be: your fingerprints are physical attributes of your physical person. Your house & house key are objects / property owned by you.
There are two related but distinct issues, and I hope to keep them separate otherwise the conversation goes in circles:
1 - Can police under the circumstances look at the contents of the phone at all? This is to say, if the phone is completely unlocked, can they look through it?
2 - If the police are allowed to look at the contents, but the phone is locked, in what ways can the police unlock it?
Subject 1: This is by far the more important question, and the one that seems to get ignored in discussions of phone searches like this. I would argue that under most circumstances there is no probable cause to search a phone- the phone can not contain drugs or weapons or other contraband, so to me this is the larger hurdle for police. Police should have to justify what illegal thing they think is on the phone that gives them probable cause, and I don't think that pictures of illegal things are the same as the illegal things themselves. Lawyers would have to hash this out, because I do notice the suspect here was on parole so perhaps there is a clause of parole for this or something. But this is the bigger, much bigger issue- can police even look at the contents? There is an argument from the pro-search side that constants of an unlocked phone are in plain view, and so that right there is a big nexus for the issue.
Subject 2: If we assume yes, only then does subject 2 become an issue. How much can police compel? Well, they can't compel speech. A passcode would count as protected speech, so they can't compel that. Biometrics however, from what I have seen of court reasoning, tend to be viewed as something a person has rather than something they know. This would be analogue to a locked container with a combination lock compared to a key. The police can not compel the combo, but if they find they key in your pocket they can take it and use it.
If you are up in arms about privacy, my view is not to fall into the trap of focusing on 2 and the finer mechanics of where the line for what kinds of ways to lock a phone are, and focus on subject 1. Reduce the circumstances in which searching a phone is acceptable, even if the phone is unlocked to begin with.
Things like passwords, access to the interior of your home or vehicle, access to your business files, and things like that are not your identity and normally require a judge to sign a warrant
This is exactly it. If I get arrested and they confiscate my house keys as part of entering jail, they don't have automatic implicit permission to search my house.
And I don’t understand how this is not a better analogy for phones. Why doesn’t the contents of my phone have the same legal protection as the contents of my house? You may confiscate my key but I do not permit. If you have good reason and sufficient reason, do the damn paperwork and get a judge to sign off
This is why everyone should go into their phone settings and enable the lockdown mode option if it's avaialbe. When I get pulled over I hold the power button and choose lockdown mode and then the only thing that will unlock the phone is my password. But my camera still works.
If your phone doesn't have the option, just restart your phone. There's a reason phones require the password and not biometrics on startup.
The appeals courts are always willing to test SCOTUS decisions. Now it's up to SCOTUS to defend it or not. It was a unanimous decision, specifically based on data privacy rights. So there's actually hope for it.
This is really about how to ensure they can't unlock your phone even if they have a warrant. They can't physically force you to give them the right code. SO they have to buy expensive software to clone the phone and try various passwords on the clones.
can you set your phone to log into a different..desktop, for lack of a better term, if biometrics are used? while your main is hidden behind a passcode?
Section 49 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 gives the police the power to issue a notice which requires the suspect to disclose their PIN or password if necessary. You are not compelled to provide your password to the police in any instance.
However, section 53 of RIPA makes it a criminal offence not to comply with the terms of a s.49 notice which is punishable by up to two years imprisonment and up to 5 years imprisonment in cases involving national security and child indecency.
So you have to hand over your password if they claim you wont give over your password cause you are hiding CSM?
also the guy I am thinking of is American.. which I cant find, because there are too many stories about Americans being put in jail/prison for ridiculouslylong amounts of time for not giving over passwords
If the police and/or Crown Prosecution Service claim you're hiding Material behind a password, you can either hand over the password or get thrown in jail under RIPA §53.
I don't know what section of the US Code would apply for the same, but a generic "Obstructing Justice" wouldn't surprise me.
Hey, I'm from the other thread, and I'm using Thunder on mobile... seeing as I ended up blocking MindTraveller to keep my blood pressure at a reasonable level, thus preventing me from seeing that whole comment chain and replying to you in that thread... and ... I don't seem to be able to initiate a dm on Thunder? Maybe because your account is based in another instance?
Just wanted to reply to you here.
Thank you. I'm 35, queer autistic man, and I somehow seem to be the most left leaning person I know IRL at nearly all times of my life, and I actually put my... boots where my ideology is, worked at non profits, volunteered, actually do the mutual aid thing.
But somehow, online, theres always somebody who in their mind is the perfect embodiment of the progressive advocate, the perfect member of society who... fairly obviously is either extremely privileged, or terminally online to the point of delusion, and they will have no problem telling you that actually you're a pos because they have a whole fun world view that answers every question even though it bears little resemblance to reality, and your reality informed views do not align with this.
Cest la vie, thats just how things go.
Thanks again for your kind words, and I guess apologies to the mods, if someone could explain to me how to dm another user on Thunder, I'd appreciate it.
Odd, I can't either on Sync or Web, but was able to in Voyager(Whether you will receive it or not, remains to be seen). Gay guy, 37, probably queer but the definition changes so much I never know when it is OK to use it and when it is not, but I agree.
And I am not as hardcore as you are, I wish I could afford it though. Third world living in a capitalistic hellscape can be tough. And today I am dealing with mortality again as my oldest cat is very ill, so I haven't slept in a while.
I am very scientific, critical of everything, and try to fight for what I believe in, which is hard, especially when I have 3 cats who depend on me.
And from what I said earlier, you deserve every word. You are a beacon, my boy.
No matter how desperate companies want you to.... Apple , looking at you
Are you implying there is some ulterior motive in phone manufacturers including fingerprint scanners? That Apple has them because they secretly want to make it easier for police to conduct phone searches? Because that's a very bold claim, and "because customers like the convenience" seems to me like a much simpler explanation.
From experience, with facial scan or fingerprint scan available on Apple, 3rd party app require it. E.g. okta MFA login, for those with apple phones, using face scan can be forced. I know you are free to decline and free to quit the company requiring it, but just like any new data set, you soon won't be able to live without providing it.
Remember when a social security number was introduced, gov promised it wouldn't be used as a identification number for any other purpose . Forward 50 years and now you can't do anything without it.
I've said it before that I'll say it again: Biometrics are a convenience to allow you or anyone else to unlock your phone quickly. Biometrics are NOT security.
DO NOT use biometrics to secure your phone unless you want anyone who has you and your phone to be able to unlock your phone without your permission.
