• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Apple’s Fingerprint ID May Mean You Can’t ‘Take the Fifth’

sangha said:
You're missing the point
The point is that because the Fifth prevents the govt from compelling people from testifying about that they know, people can refuse to give up their passwords. However, because a fingerprint is not something that is known (it is something that is), the govt can compel you to give them your fingerprint, which they can then use to access your email, phone msgs, etc
Click to expand...

They can already get your email and phone messages.
 
sangha said:
True, but in the future there may be other things that will be secured with a fingerprint.
Click to expand...

The implication here is that Apple is effectively changing a Constitutional Amendment through technology. I don't know necessarily buy that.
 
I was thinking about this from a different angle than even the article suggests.

If the government already has your fingerprints on file... from prior arrests, military service, whatever... then they may not even need to ask. They'll just access your phone without your approval (depending on the circumstances of the investigation).

I don't know if the technology exists to use that to access a phone (and the data stored therein), but if it doesn't exist it seems like it wouldn't be too hard to figure out.
 
I didn't notice it mentioned here, but a simple solution to the problem would be not to commit a crime with or without the assistance of your phone.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I didn't notice it mentioned here, but a simple solution to the problem would be not to commit a crime with or without the assistance of your phone.
Click to expand...
One would think it should be so simple... yet innocent people are wrongly accused all the time. Not to mention LE casting wider nets and going on fishing expeditions in difficult investigations. And innocent people have been caught up and convicted based on circumstantial evidence simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
 
radcen said:
If the government already has your fingerprints on file... from prior arrests, military service, whatever... then they may not even need to ask. They'll just access your phone without your approval (depending on the circumstances of the investigation).
Click to expand...
I'm not sure it's quite that simple. It'd be not unlike saying you could open a lock with a photograph of the key. I know it's possible to trick fingerprint scanners from the starting point of a traditional fingerprint but it's not necessarily quick or easy. Real life isn't like the cops shows on TV.
 
HonestJoe said:
I'm not sure it's quite that simple. It'd be not unlike saying you could open a lock with a photograph of the key. I know it's possible to trick fingerprint scanners from the starting point of a traditional fingerprint but it's not necessarily quick or easy. Real life isn't like the cops shows on TV.
Click to expand...
Right, that's why I included (the part you cut out) that I wasn't sure how practical it was at the moment.
 
radcen said:
One would think it should be so simple... yet innocent people are wrongly accused all the time. Not to mention LE casting wider nets and going on fishing expeditions in difficult investigations. And innocent people have been caught up and convicted based on circumstantial evidence simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Click to expand...

You may be right - hasn't been my experience, however. I don't run with the fast crowd, but I don't know anyone, family/friends/coworkers, who's ever been falsely accused of a crime, been the subject of a fishing expedition by the police, or been in the wrong place at the wrong time and been caught up in a criminal act they were not party to. I did have a coworker whose daughter was killed in the crossfire of two groups of gang members shooting at each other in the middle of Christmas shopping crowds on Toronto's main and busiest street, but that is easily an exceptional occurrence.

Then again, I'm not a big techie and I still have my first generation Blackberry which is working just fine and suits my needs. Nor to I belong to any social media sites/applications where people expose their private lives to the world. That's just not the type of person I am. So I'm not all that concerned about how this issue may affect me. Besides, nobody is forcing people to buy Apple's new product nor are they forcing them to use the fingerprint application, so if law enforcement authorities decide this is a good way to get access to criminal's "information" that they foolish make electronically available, more power to them. To me it's the same as police picking up a discarded coffee cup that a suspect left on a coffee shop table in order to get a DNA sample - good on them for thinking outside the box.
 
radcen said:
Right, that's why I included (the part you cut out) that I wasn't sure how practical it was at the moment.
Click to expand...
Ah, sorry. I thought the bit I snipped was a more general comment about "hacking" in to a secured device rather than specifically tricking a fingerprint scanner.

The answer is that it's possible and not especially technical though probably tricky and inconsistent. Probably not worth the hassle, for normal day-to-day law enforcement at least.
 
HonestJoe said:
Ah, sorry. I thought the bit I snipped was a more general comment about "hacking" in to a secured device rather than specifically tricking a fingerprint scanner.

The answer is that it's possible and not especially technical though probably tricky and inconsistent. Probably not worth the hassle, for normal day-to-day law enforcement at least.
Click to expand...
If biometric data becomes more common I could see LE deeming it more necessary. And if it's not now perfected, I'm sure they'll be working on it.
 
sangha said:
That is not the implication
Click to expand...

Sure, the implication is that the implemention of this technology could allow law enforcement to circumvent the protection of the 5th.
 
American said:
Sure, the implication is that the implemention of this technology could allow law enforcement to circumvent the protection of the 5th.
Click to expand...

No, the article says that a person who uses this technology is not protected by the Fifth. That is true now, in the future, and in the past.

IOW, there is no implication that it changes anything about the law.
 
sangha said:
No, the article says that a person who uses this technology is not protected by the Fifth. That is true now, in the future, and in the past.

IOW, there is no implication that it changes anything about the law.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion, the article makes a different claim. If the premise was as you say, there would be no need for an article at all.
 
sangha said:
No, the article says that a person who uses this technology is not protected by the Fifth. That is true now, in the future, and in the past.

IOW, there is no implication that it changes anything about the law.
Click to expand...

No, the problem is that the 5th isn't the issue when it comes to not allowing LE to look at electronic records or media of yours to begin with. It is the 4th, Unreasonable Searches and Seizures, which would be where warrants come in. LE cannot compel you to open your phone locks, whether it is something written, said, or using biometrics. Any such "search" (and it would be a search), would be unconstitutional and not admissible in court to begin with, regardless of whether the LEO got the information, as long as it was coerced in some way. If the phone is already unlocked, they can look at it to a point. But if it is locked, they cannot look at any info on it without a warrant, the type of lock on it makes no difference. Any defense attorney worth anything could easily get any info got off electronic media using someone's biometrics without their permission thrown out.
 
Thankfully, my long time disdain for Apple the company has kept me completely free from Apple the products.
 
tererun said:
My thought is if you are putting your plans for crimes on a cell phone you deserve to be busted for stupidity alone.
Click to expand...

In an age where people freely post videos of themselves committing various crimes, while offering up their identity, this shouldn't be in short supply
 
Surtr said:
I disagree. It's very easy to forge a fingerprint ID if you know how.
Click to expand...

Its very easy to break into the White House and make it to the Oval Office and hide under the President's desk if you know how.
 
Surtr said:
I disagree. It's very easy to forge a fingerprint ID if you know how.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how easy or not it might be to forge a fingerprint in relation to the claim of the article. If the police have your phone available to them, they don't need to get your password from you or use your fingerprint to open your phone or other files. They could simply hack into it, or at least most could, because most decent sized departments have some computer tech working for them whose job involves this.

But if they do this without a warrant, or even if they did coerce someone into opening their phone when they refused to do so, that would still be an illegal search and/or seizure and anything garnered from it would be thrown out of court. That is the true protection of those parts of the Constitution. This 5th Amendment claim is definitely from someone who has no clue about how either the 4th or 5th Amendment work within the practice of our laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom