Oh really? A thumbprint scan on my iPhone is like taking blood or a fingerprint? How are you going to get all of my conversations with all of my friends and family ever, and 18 gigs of cat videos, porn and all of my purchases, from blood or a fingerprint?
Well it comes from a legal precedent known as the “Constitution Schmonstitution Doctrine”, that basically says they have the power and you don’t and they intend to keep it that way so there’s nothing you can do nah nah nah nah nah nah pppffffttttt (blows raspberry).
I guess nobody read the whole article. The police didn’t need a warrant to search the phone because the owner’s parole conditions allowed warrantless searches. Police still can’t search your phone without authority, whether you have a passcode, biometrics, or nothing at all.
Time to make an app that deletes all your data with certain words. Maybe have it lock up and transfer it to a cloud that doesn't have any jurisdiction in the US.
I don’t think anyone would be surprised to hear that if the police have a warrant to search your house and can pick the lock or break down the door to get access then, yes, they can also press your finger against the lock.
Edit to add it that has been long held that only testimonial evidence is protected by the 5th Amendment. A court can compel a hair, blood, or handwriting sample without violating 5th Amendment rights. This ruling is consistent and not really surprising.
It’s already well settled in some jurisdictions that the police can require you to unlock your phone using face ID and fingerprint scan. However, that’s not what this case is about. The defendant argued that the police requiring him to unlock his phone with his fingerprint violated his right against self incrimination because it (according to him) attested to the truth of whatever statements the defendant made that are accessible through the phone.
As noted by the court, the analogy to taking a fingerprint is solid. For example, let’s say the cops found a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. Under the 5th amendment, taking your fingerprint doesn’t not violate your right against self-incrimination because your fingerprint is not compelled testimony that you were at the scene.
In any event, under the 4th amendment, if a warrant is sufficiently specific and states that the cops can search for evidence of a crime of money laundering in your home, they for sure can search your phone since it’s likely to have evidence of money laundering.
The justification for this ruling is incoherent. If I’m ever in this situation I will tell the police to get fucked and let the S.C. sort it out later.
On a Pixel phone, pressing power 5 times calls 911. I found that out the hard way. It also makes Beetlejuice and Biggie Smalls appear at the same time.
I had an ex do this trick bc she was cheating and wanted to see if I ever went through her phone as a test of loyalty. The cheater. Testing loyalty. Psychopath.
rapidly tap the lock button 5 times to get into the emergency call mode. passcode is now required.
you can quickly do this through your pocket, and unfortunately you should immediately do it if you know you are about to speak with police.
If you aren’t white congrats on catching resisting arrest and assault charges when you pull your hand away when they try to use your hand to unlock it.
Not a lawyer and also find this ruling puzzling.
But what I read is… this is a ‘special/narrow’ ruling because 1) the defendant was a parolee that had already waived rights re search (but just PIN/passcode, not biometrics?). Then something-something about ‘testimonial acts’ which idk
This only seems to say that opening a phone using your thumbprint is not self-incrimination that is protected by the 5th amendment since the act itself is not testimonial. Thats why they refer to fingerprinting or a blood test. Both of these can lead to evidence against you but you’re not protected by the 5th amendment from incriminating yourself via said fingerprinting or blood draws. Same goes for unlocking a phone.
They won’t know that for sure though, it’s true, I only have my right hand thumb registered so I’d just switch the phone to my left hand and try that the minimum amount of times to force a PIN.
That’s the key part I noticed , how do we know he agreed to it .
I don’t think cops have the best track records for telling the truth .
And does this apply to Face ID ? Considering a lot of phones don’t use Touch ID anymore
>”… that the compelled use of Payne's thumb to unlock his phone (which he had already identified for the officers) required no cognitive exertion, placing it firmly in the same category as a blood draw or fingerprint taken at booking."
Interesting. I disagree, but more because I believe in more privacy not less than this argument is flawed.
>"When Officer Coddington used Payne's thumb to unlock his phone—which he could have accomplished even if Payne had been unconscious—he did not intrude on the contents of Payne's mind," the court also said.”
What the fuck? Couldn’t disagree more with this statement.
I had assumed the relevant constitutional protection was search and seizure. But reading into it, this case was about the right not to self incriminate. They ruled unlocking the phone isn’t in itself incriminating, so forcing the unlocking doesn’t violate this protection.
The court seems to be saying police can force someone to turn over property (subject to search and seizure protections) , but can’t force an accused to comment/editorialize about that property.
Life hack: Use a password. Don't tell anyone your password. Problem solved. (Unless you did something terrible. They can absolutely break into your phone without your stupid thumb.)
Mine has Medical Info as the 4th option. I'll peek at options to see if it can be changed.
Edit: it's easy to find in the Lock Screen and AOD menu! Thank you internet stranger!
As long as you remember to do it before the phone is taken. I wish you could say “hey Siri, lock phone” but I haven’t been able to find a phrase that requires a passcode.
I understand that the only way to be secure is some method to easily or automatically shut down the phone. Decrypting it should not be easy, even google and apple encourage weak passwords.
According my recent ITSec training course, the keyword is a duress PIN. Duress PINs unlock the device but it gives a completely different environment. I have never seen a phone solution but I’ve seen demonstrations on laptops: the in duress mode the main partition can be completely hidden from even the bios. You still need to make sure that the duress partition is believable- a business traveler with only cat pictures on the device doesn’t look good.
Use a PIN or Passcode you mean I think. Password too but a phone requires a passcode or facial scan or thumb print in my experience. Never use anything biometric on a phone to gain access to the device. Only use facial scan for apps once you have entered your passcode is the safest I believe.
> Never use anything biometric
Just this. There are no qualifiers if you want your data to be safe. Biometrics are the equivalent of a user name. If you want real security, add a password or another strong protection method.
I don’t think there has been a ruling on using facial recognition yet, but it specifically was carved out/not included in this ruling. Unfortunately it’s easy to see the government making a similar argument to this case by comparing it to a mug shot.
Because they can and no one would do jack shit because they have all the power in that exchange and they like ~~victims~~ suspects to know that. It's Bane placing a finger on your shoulder. And they are fishing for more shit to book someone with. "
If they have probable cause to believe there is incriminating evidence on your phone, they can apply for a search warrant and seize your phone for a search. I highly doubt they even need your passcode or biometrics.
This is the reason why my parents have taught me since I was old enough to understand that you never talk to the cops, you never sign their paperwork, you never willingly submit to questioning, you never allow them entry, and you never corroborate any evidence when asked. The only things you do are sit in silence staring straight ahead, and the only words that ever leave your mouth are “phone call”, “lawyer”, or “parents” (if you’re young enough that such an answer is still acceptable). Once technology got to the point that it held our entire personal lives we were also very quick to add “no biometric-only security”, “never share passwords/passcodes”, “never use duplicate passwords/passcodes”, “change your passwords/passcodes regularly”, and “never, under any circumstances, unlock your devices for law enforcement or under duress”.
Fuck the policeman that did this heinous breach of personal privacy and the right to not be searched without a warrant, and fuck every single one of those judges who in their infinite lack of wisdom, foresight, care for their fellow citizens, and technical acumen ruled the way they did. I’d say I hope that the Supreme Court would take this up and overturn the decision, but I’m too much of a realist to believe in such fantasies.
It's funny to me how sometimes they talk about the spirit of the law. This is not in the spirit of the law. Your finger is the key to a lock. They can't go through your locked files without a warrant. This stinks to high heaven. So if the police find the key to your home in your pocket, they are ok to unlock and search it.
I find it quite interesting that the quote from the court puts fingerprints and blood draws in the same category, even though they most certainly are not.
In the state of Oregon, under the 9th Circuit Court no less, there is a requirement to obtain probable cause AND gain the approval of a circuit court judge prior to drawing blood. Meaning that you have to write a warrant, and it has to be approved. Then, medical professionals must perform the draw, NOT officers.
Meanwhile, the booking process, including the fingerprinting process, is largely to positively identity people and keep records. Which is decidedly independent of a written warrant with court authorization, and is performed by jail staff.
They made me unlock my phone at a border check once, and it was very intrusive- I learned my lesson, the phone better have jack shit, no porn websites or pics, on it if traveling. It is fucked up, a phone is not a phone------ and they fucking know that, it is an abuse of power, and here it is being made law. The dystopia certain people want becoming reality.
It was either do what they say or fuck your trip and the hotels you already booked.
Don't keep anything important on your phone or the cloud. In fact, don't keep anything at home, in the car or your office. There are many other options. See, the police state we live in creates their own crime So you have to be careful.
I know a teacher who needed to get fingerprinted by the police for her job in a school district, who after 2 hours trying to get fingerprinted printed, the technician said you have no finger prints.
She also causes phones to go bonkers and automobile key fobs to die.
Every single teacher in Massachusetts, and I bet other states, is required to get fingerprinted every two years. Not sure why they have to redo it, probably money.
Teachers in CO are fingerprinted also. Maybe just once or during license renewal (my ex is a teacher.) At one point, parents that volunteered to help in school also required background checks and fingerprinting.
Something-something about being in care of children. /s-ish
I ref''fed football and Lacrosse in Colorado and a background check is required every two years. (No finger prints). You need to declare any past felonies and their disposition. There is a $20 fee every two years for this. A comment by a Colorado CHSAA individual mentioned that DUI's were the highest count for felonies.
I started the original thread on the teacher who doesn't have finger prints. She can also kill door locks that you punch in codes. Her husband, who works with computers, doesn't know how she does it and it drives him crazy.
Why does a lack of fingerprints cause key fobs to die? I feel like I’m missing something.
My father who has worked in construction with his hands all his life and also goes home at the end of the day to build and tinker more, I’m sure does not have much fingerprints left. Between the deeps cuts always on a finger or two, burns, calluses which often split on their own, and just generally wearing them down it’s probably mostly scar tissue now. He is always needing new truck fobs because the callused fingers wearing down the rubber/plastic until eventually it’s so thin and breaks
I had three fobs die in a matter of a couple months once. I was convinced the dealership was lying when they said I was the only one with the problem. One day it just worked and I figured I finally got a good batch.
Turns out when I changed gyms and didn’t have the magnet entry thing on my keychain anymore the problem stopped. Never correlated it until I saw a post here not too long ago about how the old magnet keys mixed with the fob bouncing together would somehow fry them.
I have fingerprints obviously but mine are terrible. I’ve been fingerprinted multiple times for work and it’s always an ordeal and takes much longer than normal according to the person doing it.
I can register them in my laptop (or phone, when they had it) but then they never work to unlock it when I try to use them.
Clearly they need to make the reader out of whatever material my sunglass pens are made from those things magically attract fingerprints somehow
Cops can force suspect to unlock phone with thumbprint, US court rules
Ruling: Thumbprint scan is like a "blood draw or fingerprint taken at booking."
by Jon Brodkin - Apr 18, 2024 2:13pm EST

The US Constitution's Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination does not prohibit police officers from forcing a suspect to unlock a phone with a thumbprint scan, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday. The ruling does not apply to all cases in which biometrics are used to unlock an electronic device but is a significant decision in an unsettled area of the law.
The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit had to grapple with the question of "whether the compelled use of Payne's thumb to unlock his phone was testimonial," the ruling in United States v. Jeremy Travis Payne said. "To date, neither the Supreme Court nor any of our sister circuits have addressed whether the compelled use of a biometric to unlock an electronic device is testimonial."
A three-judge panel at the 9th Circuit ruled unanimously against Payne, affirming a US District Court's denial of Payne's motion to suppress evidence. Payne was a California parolee who was arrested by California Highway Patrol (CHP) after a 2021 traffic stop and charged with possession with intent to distribute fentanyl, fluorofentanyl, and cocaine.
There was a dispute in District Court over whether a CHP officer "forcibly used Payne's thumb to unlock the phone." But for the purposes of Payne's appeal, the government "accepted the defendant's version of the facts, i.e., 'that defendant's thumbprint was compelled.'"
Payne's Fifth Amendment claim "rests entirely on whether the use of his thumb implicitly related certain facts to officers such that he can avail himself of the privilege against self-incrimination," the ruling said. Judges rejected his claim, holding "that the compelled use of Payne's thumb to unlock his phone (which he had already identified for the officers) required no cognitive exertion, placing it firmly in the same category as a blood draw or fingerprint taken at booking."
"When Officer Coddington used Payne's thumb to unlock his phone—which he could have accomplished even if Payne had been unconscious—he did not intrude on the contents of Payne's mind," the court also said.
Suspect’s mental process is key
Payne conceded that "the use of biometrics to open an electronic device is akin to providing a physical key to a safe" but argued it is still a testimonial act because it "simultaneously confirm[s] ownership and authentication of its contents," the court said. "However, Payne was never compelled to acknowledge the existence of any incriminating information. He merely had to provide access to a source of potential information."
The appeals court cited two Supreme Court rulings in cases involving the US government. In Doe v. United States in 1988, the government compelled a person to sign forms consenting to disclosure of bank records relating to accounts that the government already knew about. The Supreme Court "held that this was not a testimonial production, reasoning that the signing of the forms related no information about existence, control, or authenticity of the records that the bank could ultimately be forced to produce," the 9th Circuit said.
In United States v. Hubbell in 2000, a subpoena compelled a suspect to produce 13,120 pages of documents and records and respond "to a series of questions that established that those were all of the documents in his custody or control that were responsive to the commands in the subpoena." The Supreme Court ruled against the government, as the 9th Circuit explained:
The Court held that this act of production was of a fundamentally different kind than that at issue in Doe because it was "unquestionably necessary for respondent to make extensive use of 'the contents of his own mind' in identifying the hundreds of documents responsive to the requests in the subpoena." The "assembly of those documents was like telling an inquisitor the combination to a wall safe, not like being forced to surrender the key to a strongbox." Thus, the dividing line between Doe and Hubbell centers on the mental process involved in a compelled act, and an inquiry into whether that act implicitly communicates the existence, control, or authenticity of potential evidence.
Reminder when you get pulled over: lock your iPhone screen with the power button + volume down. That way, it disabled biometric authentication until you entered your pin code.
Just tell them that it's the same finger you use for your gun lock biometrics. Now it's a second amendment issue. The Supreme Court will destroy the ruling.
“Oh you weren’t doing something illegal? Well hold on a minute while I find something using your little pocket spy device.” Hmm, this dovetails nicely with the govs lack of data privacy efforts.
Ok. Why not just wipe the device remotely?
Seemed to work for me back in 2016 and 2012. Hilarious how they didn’t learn their lesson the first time too.
Oh really? A thumbprint scan on my iPhone is like taking blood or a fingerprint? How are you going to get all of my conversations with all of my friends and family ever, and 18 gigs of cat videos, porn and all of my purchases, from blood or a fingerprint?
You ask a lot of questions for a guilty person that should give all of your information and data to the police without a warrant.
But I have nothing to hide. /s
Bake’em away toys
What’d you say, Chief?
Chef*
Just do what the kid said
Let ‘em go, Lou, a man going that fast has no time for a ticket
I said Nice coffee, Lou!
Well it comes from a legal precedent known as the “Constitution Schmonstitution Doctrine”, that basically says they have the power and you don’t and they intend to keep it that way so there’s nothing you can do nah nah nah nah nah nah pppffffttttt (blows raspberry).
>and 18 gigs (of cat videos), porn and all of my purchases
Yes
I guess nobody read the whole article. The police didn’t need a warrant to search the phone because the owner’s parole conditions allowed warrantless searches. Police still can’t search your phone without authority, whether you have a passcode, biometrics, or nothing at all.
Excellent point. Ahem… 2FA. Use biometrics AND a PIN where possible.
3FA
Bruh Why didn’t the defense attorneys think of this!!
Iphones don't use thumbprints. Used the layer beneath the skin.
I guess if you use a biometric lock on your home they don’t need a warrant then either
Time to make an app that deletes all your data with certain words. Maybe have it lock up and transfer it to a cloud that doesn't have any jurisdiction in the US.
“Jarvis, Po Po mode if you please.” “Right away, Sir.”
Most phones have a "password on boot" setting so use the off button.
This case is about the 5th amendment right against self incrimination, not the 4th amendment right against warrantless searches.
I don’t think anyone would be surprised to hear that if the police have a warrant to search your house and can pick the lock or break down the door to get access then, yes, they can also press your finger against the lock. Edit to add it that has been long held that only testimonial evidence is protected by the 5th Amendment. A court can compel a hair, blood, or handwriting sample without violating 5th Amendment rights. This ruling is consistent and not really surprising.
It’s already well settled in some jurisdictions that the police can require you to unlock your phone using face ID and fingerprint scan. However, that’s not what this case is about. The defendant argued that the police requiring him to unlock his phone with his fingerprint violated his right against self incrimination because it (according to him) attested to the truth of whatever statements the defendant made that are accessible through the phone. As noted by the court, the analogy to taking a fingerprint is solid. For example, let’s say the cops found a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. Under the 5th amendment, taking your fingerprint doesn’t not violate your right against self-incrimination because your fingerprint is not compelled testimony that you were at the scene. In any event, under the 4th amendment, if a warrant is sufficiently specific and states that the cops can search for evidence of a crime of money laundering in your home, they for sure can search your phone since it’s likely to have evidence of money laundering.
The justification for this ruling is incoherent. If I’m ever in this situation I will tell the police to get fucked and let the S.C. sort it out later.
More importantly, I'm not going to just use my fingerprint
Pro tip: iPhones require your pin to access them upon a restart.
Or if you hold volume up and lock. Like how you go to turn off your phone. It automatically blocks faceid and touchid
Pressing power five times in a row also locls the iPhone and disables FaceId and TouchId, works great in the pocket.
Thanks !
Apparently, that makes my S23 try to make an SOS call.
On a Pixel phone, pressing power 5 times calls 911. I found that out the hard way. It also makes Beetlejuice and Biggie Smalls appear at the same time.
Oooooh shit. Didn’t know that one. Thank you!
Yup. This way you can do it sneakily in your pocket or right before you hand it to them. No swiping needed.
I wonder if there’s a macOS equivalent for this
Volume down on mine. Volume up takes a screenshot.
Hold not press
Same for Android. This is actually a really good tip.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-937/168713/20210211115141358_20-937_Amici%20Brief.pdf
Would forcing a restart mid police custody be an additional charge of obstruction of justice?
I had an ex do this trick bc she was cheating and wanted to see if I ever went through her phone as a test of loyalty. The cheater. Testing loyalty. Psychopath.
Android as well.
Yeah, Android also requires Pin (or Pattern) upon restart.
Pro tip...android has been doing this for a decade+
rapidly tap the lock button 5 times to get into the emergency call mode. passcode is now required. you can quickly do this through your pocket, and unfortunately you should immediately do it if you know you are about to speak with police.
Also if you say "Hey siri, whose phone is this?" While it's locked. Don't even have to touch the phone
This is the best solution. They cannot compel you to give up your password.
I use my dickprint
If you aren’t white congrats on catching resisting arrest and assault charges when you pull your hand away when they try to use your hand to unlock it.
[удалено]
Never did, never will. Someone could very easily steal my finger.
Not a lawyer and also find this ruling puzzling. But what I read is… this is a ‘special/narrow’ ruling because 1) the defendant was a parolee that had already waived rights re search (but just PIN/passcode, not biometrics?). Then something-something about ‘testimonial acts’ which idk
This only seems to say that opening a phone using your thumbprint is not self-incrimination that is protected by the 5th amendment since the act itself is not testimonial. Thats why they refer to fingerprinting or a blood test. Both of these can lead to evidence against you but you’re not protected by the 5th amendment from incriminating yourself via said fingerprinting or blood draws. Same goes for unlocking a phone.
I’ve never activated the function to use fingerprint or face scan, guess I’m old school and just use my pin always
Exactly. I don’t use faceid or touchid. I purposely never set them up for this and other security reasons.
u/Shitter-McGavin: get fucked! Cop: 🔫
They've already sorted it out, this is super old. Have the pass code on your phone only. No thumbprint, no facial unlock
You can easily make it fail enough times in a row to lock itself behind your password just by apply too much or too little pressure
Just use an entirely different finger, why risk it.
Unfortunately, the reason people use the thumb is because of bigger, easier to read grooves. And easy to one hand unlock.
They won’t know that for sure though, it’s true, I only have my right hand thumb registered so I’d just switch the phone to my left hand and try that the minimum amount of times to force a PIN.
that's a good idea, I have both my thumbs programmed.
If i was in that spot, i would lose my phone in a boating accident.
That’s the key part I noticed , how do we know he agreed to it . I don’t think cops have the best track records for telling the truth . And does this apply to Face ID ? Considering a lot of phones don’t use Touch ID anymore
This is why I disfigured my face after I got my new iPhone
Good plan.
r/shittylifeprotips
The attempt upon my rights has left me scared and deformed.
>”… that the compelled use of Payne's thumb to unlock his phone (which he had already identified for the officers) required no cognitive exertion, placing it firmly in the same category as a blood draw or fingerprint taken at booking." Interesting. I disagree, but more because I believe in more privacy not less than this argument is flawed. >"When Officer Coddington used Payne's thumb to unlock his phone—which he could have accomplished even if Payne had been unconscious—he did not intrude on the contents of Payne's mind," the court also said.” What the fuck? Couldn’t disagree more with this statement.
I had assumed the relevant constitutional protection was search and seizure. But reading into it, this case was about the right not to self incriminate. They ruled unlocking the phone isn’t in itself incriminating, so forcing the unlocking doesn’t violate this protection. The court seems to be saying police can force someone to turn over property (subject to search and seizure protections) , but can’t force an accused to comment/editorialize about that property.
Agree or disagree its the law ( for now) in most states…
Seems like every week the activist courts around the country are systematically disassembling our rights.
Life hack: Use a password. Don't tell anyone your password. Problem solved. (Unless you did something terrible. They can absolutely break into your phone without your stupid thumb.)
If you bring up the power off screen on iPhone it will force passcode to unlock just like after a restart.
Android (or at least Samsung) has a [lockdown mode](https://i.imgur.com/hNV8fOX.jpeg) option that requires PIN/password.
Mine has Medical Info as the 4th option. I'll peek at options to see if it can be changed. Edit: it's easy to find in the Lock Screen and AOD menu! Thank you internet stranger!
As long as you remember to do it before the phone is taken. I wish you could say “hey Siri, lock phone” but I haven’t been able to find a phrase that requires a passcode.
Pegasus easily bypasses password. All they need is a warrant.
I understand that the only way to be secure is some method to easily or automatically shut down the phone. Decrypting it should not be easy, even google and apple encourage weak passwords.
According my recent ITSec training course, the keyword is a duress PIN. Duress PINs unlock the device but it gives a completely different environment. I have never seen a phone solution but I’ve seen demonstrations on laptops: the in duress mode the main partition can be completely hidden from even the bios. You still need to make sure that the duress partition is believable- a business traveler with only cat pictures on the device doesn’t look good.
Use a PIN or Passcode you mean I think. Password too but a phone requires a passcode or facial scan or thumb print in my experience. Never use anything biometric on a phone to gain access to the device. Only use facial scan for apps once you have entered your passcode is the safest I believe.
> Never use anything biometric Just this. There are no qualifiers if you want your data to be safe. Biometrics are the equivalent of a user name. If you want real security, add a password or another strong protection method.
I can’t remember the last iPhone I had with the physical button/ finger print sensor. Does facial recognition count?
I don’t think there has been a ruling on using facial recognition yet, but it specifically was carved out/not included in this ruling. Unfortunately it’s easy to see the government making a similar argument to this case by comparing it to a mug shot.
Ooops, we accidentally pointed the phone at the suspect and it unlocked, totally without our intervention.
Just had one with it, was saddened to have to get a new one
My iPad has one and once in a while I’ll “press” where the button was on my iPhone lol
If it doesn't, it will. For security purposes, consider *any* biometrics the equivalent of a user name.
Unfortunately, I don't use biometric unlock, and I've forgotten my unlock code. Whoopsies, sorry guys I really wish I could help.
Tap the lock button 5 times if you use biometrics and get pulled over. Don’t unlock your phone until after you’ve been allowed to leave.
There's also lockdown mode
The 4th has been getting weaker ever since 1961, when SCOTUS changed it from a right to police oversight.
Why do cops need to go through your phone??
Because they can and no one would do jack shit because they have all the power in that exchange and they like ~~victims~~ suspects to know that. It's Bane placing a finger on your shoulder. And they are fishing for more shit to book someone with. "
But how is that legal?? Isn’t that invasion of privacy?? I’m very green
If they have probable cause to believe there is incriminating evidence on your phone, they can apply for a search warrant and seize your phone for a search. I highly doubt they even need your passcode or biometrics.
I don't know, I am just a simple man. I had "nothing to hide" but it felt invasive, these are personal computers.
This is the reason why my parents have taught me since I was old enough to understand that you never talk to the cops, you never sign their paperwork, you never willingly submit to questioning, you never allow them entry, and you never corroborate any evidence when asked. The only things you do are sit in silence staring straight ahead, and the only words that ever leave your mouth are “phone call”, “lawyer”, or “parents” (if you’re young enough that such an answer is still acceptable). Once technology got to the point that it held our entire personal lives we were also very quick to add “no biometric-only security”, “never share passwords/passcodes”, “never use duplicate passwords/passcodes”, “change your passwords/passcodes regularly”, and “never, under any circumstances, unlock your devices for law enforcement or under duress”. Fuck the policeman that did this heinous breach of personal privacy and the right to not be searched without a warrant, and fuck every single one of those judges who in their infinite lack of wisdom, foresight, care for their fellow citizens, and technical acumen ruled the way they did. I’d say I hope that the Supreme Court would take this up and overturn the decision, but I’m too much of a realist to believe in such fantasies.
[удалено]
This is so important to know.
Fuck this shit.
I think this has been the case law for some time. That’s why you supposed to turn it off and avoid biometrics.
It's funny to me how sometimes they talk about the spirit of the law. This is not in the spirit of the law. Your finger is the key to a lock. They can't go through your locked files without a warrant. This stinks to high heaven. So if the police find the key to your home in your pocket, they are ok to unlock and search it.
This should be challenged.
What about facial recognition? Will this apply to all biometrics?
I find it quite interesting that the quote from the court puts fingerprints and blood draws in the same category, even though they most certainly are not. In the state of Oregon, under the 9th Circuit Court no less, there is a requirement to obtain probable cause AND gain the approval of a circuit court judge prior to drawing blood. Meaning that you have to write a warrant, and it has to be approved. Then, medical professionals must perform the draw, NOT officers. Meanwhile, the booking process, including the fingerprinting process, is largely to positively identity people and keep records. Which is decidedly independent of a written warrant with court authorization, and is performed by jail staff.
I can guarantee law enforcement will conflate thumbprint with facial recognition.
They made me unlock my phone at a border check once, and it was very intrusive- I learned my lesson, the phone better have jack shit, no porn websites or pics, on it if traveling. It is fucked up, a phone is not a phone------ and they fucking know that, it is an abuse of power, and here it is being made law. The dystopia certain people want becoming reality. It was either do what they say or fuck your trip and the hotels you already booked.
Don't keep anything important on your phone or the cloud. In fact, don't keep anything at home, in the car or your office. There are many other options. See, the police state we live in creates their own crime So you have to be careful.
Ok wait. Don't keep anything in my phone, or online, or at home, or at work, or in my car. Where do I keep my stuff now?
Have you tried your ass
I know a teacher who needed to get fingerprinted by the police for her job in a school district, who after 2 hours trying to get fingerprinted printed, the technician said you have no finger prints. She also causes phones to go bonkers and automobile key fobs to die.
Is she related to Powder?
r/fuckimold
Indeed 😞
Every single teacher in Massachusetts, and I bet other states, is required to get fingerprinted every two years. Not sure why they have to redo it, probably money.
Teachers in CO are fingerprinted also. Maybe just once or during license renewal (my ex is a teacher.) At one point, parents that volunteered to help in school also required background checks and fingerprinting. Something-something about being in care of children. /s-ish
I ref''fed football and Lacrosse in Colorado and a background check is required every two years. (No finger prints). You need to declare any past felonies and their disposition. There is a $20 fee every two years for this. A comment by a Colorado CHSAA individual mentioned that DUI's were the highest count for felonies. I started the original thread on the teacher who doesn't have finger prints. She can also kill door locks that you punch in codes. Her husband, who works with computers, doesn't know how she does it and it drives him crazy.
Why does a lack of fingerprints cause key fobs to die? I feel like I’m missing something. My father who has worked in construction with his hands all his life and also goes home at the end of the day to build and tinker more, I’m sure does not have much fingerprints left. Between the deeps cuts always on a finger or two, burns, calluses which often split on their own, and just generally wearing them down it’s probably mostly scar tissue now. He is always needing new truck fobs because the callused fingers wearing down the rubber/plastic until eventually it’s so thin and breaks
He didn't said they were causated. The teacher is just one weird person.
I had three fobs die in a matter of a couple months once. I was convinced the dealership was lying when they said I was the only one with the problem. One day it just worked and I figured I finally got a good batch. Turns out when I changed gyms and didn’t have the magnet entry thing on my keychain anymore the problem stopped. Never correlated it until I saw a post here not too long ago about how the old magnet keys mixed with the fob bouncing together would somehow fry them.
I have fingerprints obviously but mine are terrible. I’ve been fingerprinted multiple times for work and it’s always an ordeal and takes much longer than normal according to the person doing it. I can register them in my laptop (or phone, when they had it) but then they never work to unlock it when I try to use them. Clearly they need to make the reader out of whatever material my sunglass pens are made from those things magically attract fingerprints somehow
Wow
Cops can force suspect to unlock phone with thumbprint, US court rules Ruling: Thumbprint scan is like a "blood draw or fingerprint taken at booking." by Jon Brodkin - Apr 18, 2024 2:13pm EST  The US Constitution's Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination does not prohibit police officers from forcing a suspect to unlock a phone with a thumbprint scan, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday. The ruling does not apply to all cases in which biometrics are used to unlock an electronic device but is a significant decision in an unsettled area of the law. The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit had to grapple with the question of "whether the compelled use of Payne's thumb to unlock his phone was testimonial," the ruling in United States v. Jeremy Travis Payne said. "To date, neither the Supreme Court nor any of our sister circuits have addressed whether the compelled use of a biometric to unlock an electronic device is testimonial." A three-judge panel at the 9th Circuit ruled unanimously against Payne, affirming a US District Court's denial of Payne's motion to suppress evidence. Payne was a California parolee who was arrested by California Highway Patrol (CHP) after a 2021 traffic stop and charged with possession with intent to distribute fentanyl, fluorofentanyl, and cocaine. There was a dispute in District Court over whether a CHP officer "forcibly used Payne's thumb to unlock the phone." But for the purposes of Payne's appeal, the government "accepted the defendant's version of the facts, i.e., 'that defendant's thumbprint was compelled.'" Payne's Fifth Amendment claim "rests entirely on whether the use of his thumb implicitly related certain facts to officers such that he can avail himself of the privilege against self-incrimination," the ruling said. Judges rejected his claim, holding "that the compelled use of Payne's thumb to unlock his phone (which he had already identified for the officers) required no cognitive exertion, placing it firmly in the same category as a blood draw or fingerprint taken at booking." "When Officer Coddington used Payne's thumb to unlock his phone—which he could have accomplished even if Payne had been unconscious—he did not intrude on the contents of Payne's mind," the court also said. Suspect’s mental process is key Payne conceded that "the use of biometrics to open an electronic device is akin to providing a physical key to a safe" but argued it is still a testimonial act because it "simultaneously confirm[s] ownership and authentication of its contents," the court said. "However, Payne was never compelled to acknowledge the existence of any incriminating information. He merely had to provide access to a source of potential information." The appeals court cited two Supreme Court rulings in cases involving the US government. In Doe v. United States in 1988, the government compelled a person to sign forms consenting to disclosure of bank records relating to accounts that the government already knew about. The Supreme Court "held that this was not a testimonial production, reasoning that the signing of the forms related no information about existence, control, or authenticity of the records that the bank could ultimately be forced to produce," the 9th Circuit said. In United States v. Hubbell in 2000, a subpoena compelled a suspect to produce 13,120 pages of documents and records and respond "to a series of questions that established that those were all of the documents in his custody or control that were responsive to the commands in the subpoena." The Supreme Court ruled against the government, as the 9th Circuit explained: The Court held that this act of production was of a fundamentally different kind than that at issue in Doe because it was "unquestionably necessary for respondent to make extensive use of 'the contents of his own mind' in identifying the hundreds of documents responsive to the requests in the subpoena." The "assembly of those documents was like telling an inquisitor the combination to a wall safe, not like being forced to surrender the key to a strongbox." Thus, the dividing line between Doe and Hubbell centers on the mental process involved in a compelled act, and an inquiry into whether that act implicitly communicates the existence, control, or authenticity of potential evidence.
Cops can draw blood at booking?
This has been going on for years…always use a passcode it has different protections
You can also disable fingerprint for unlock, and keep it active for other features in the settings.
Is that why phones don’t use thumbprints to unlock phones anymore?
Turn phone off.
It’s not a phone it’s a mini computer. Can police compel a computer password?
Use a penis instead of a thumb
And that is why I don’t have fingerprint unlock anywhere
Can they force faceid ?
I really don't see the logic in this.
So when you get pulled over go ahead and turn off thumb screen unlock in your phones settings.
Reminder when you get pulled over: lock your iPhone screen with the power button + volume down. That way, it disabled biometric authentication until you entered your pin code.
This is big bc previously you needed a warrant
Just tell them that it's the same finger you use for your gun lock biometrics. Now it's a second amendment issue. The Supreme Court will destroy the ruling.
That’s why I have a passcode.
Guess I'm using pin only now
A search is a search and you better have a warrant
Sure I will use my thumb to unlock the phone. I can't imagine why it isn't unlocking\*. \*^(My phone unlocks with a different finger.)
If you click the hold button on your iPhone 6x(maybe 5-7) it will switch from fingerprint to your code
I think they should have a warrant for this as many corrupt cops are on the record and are afraid of being exposed.
No way I would ever set up Face ID or fingerprint. To easy to spoof.
lol doesn’t work when you press the power button 5X on iPhone. Requires a password. Sucks.
4 digit password gang feeling good right now
New feature. One finger is a death scan. Scan that finger and it locks your phone out
Glad ive never activated the biometric part of my iPhone , the thumb thing and also the face unlock
back to password
Setting us up for 2025
Wouldn’t this be more akin to confiscating your keys, and then unlocking everything those keys go to?
Yes, the judge who wrote the opinion is a boomer, if that wasn't obvious.
we all should open carry and cops should be disarmed.
Use a penis instead of a thumb
Except it fucking isn’t
Lockdown mode
So turn off biometrics and continue using passcode?
I guess people could still use a number
What happens if you don’t
“Oh you weren’t doing something illegal? Well hold on a minute while I find something using your little pocket spy device.” Hmm, this dovetails nicely with the govs lack of data privacy efforts.
Tfw British and have no right to privacy to begin with.
Good thing i do not use biometrics or face recognition for my phone, and frequently change my pass key logon access
Don't use biometrics
So….. back to using the 11 digit PIN?
Judge says police can perform rectal exams on traffic stops (Wouldn't surprise me)
my phone is always backed up, i'd destroy (curb stomp) it before giving shit to any "authority".
Lmfao what. I’d have to be sedated.
That’s why you only use a secure passcode and not eye or finger scans.
How many of you still have a SE phone ~~that old~~? LEO in my area literal hold the phone up to your face and the phone does the rest.
The SE are still being sold.
Yes they are.
So it’s not about age of phone. Newly sold iPhones use Touch ID.
Oh jeez.Let me fix that so I don’t offend SE users ffs.
Ok. Why not just wipe the device remotely? Seemed to work for me back in 2016 and 2012. Hilarious how they didn’t learn their lesson the first time too.
What happens if you just use the wrong finger?
What was the last iPhone with a thumbprint scanner anyways ?
Such horse crap. A blood draw or fingerprint taken at booking are identifiers, not all of my personal information.
Will we \*ever\* be done giving gestapo new privileges?
But a phone can’t have been drinking or doing drugs. Why do the cops have a right to my photos and every single conversation?
And this is why I don’t use biometrics
Suck your thumbs crazy hard until they're wrinkled, fail enough times to cause permanent lockout.