On July 26, 2016 3:08:25 AM EDT, grarpamp <[email protected]> wrote: >http://9to5mac.com/2016/07/25/touch-id-fingerprint-fbi-law/ >http://9to5mac.com/2016/05/02/federal-court-touch-id-fingerprint/ >http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/feds-say-suspect-should-rot-in-prison-for-refusing-to-decrypt-drives/ >https://apple.slashdot.org/story/16/07/25/1559208/suspect-required-to-unlock-iphone-using-touch-id-in-second-federal-case > > A second federal judge has ruled that a suspect can be compelled to >unlock their iPhone using their fingerprint in order to give >investigators access to data which can be used as evidence against >them. The first time this ever happened in a federal case was back in >May, following a District Court ruling in 2014. The legal position of >forcing suspects to use their fingerprints to unlock devices won't be >known with certainty until a case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, but >lower court rulings so far appear to establish a precedent which is at >odds with that concerning passcodes. Most constitutional experts >appear to believe that the Fifth Amendment prevents a suspect from >being compelled to reveal a password or passcode, as this would amount >to forced self-incrimination -- though even this isn't certain. >Fingerprints, in contrast, have traditionally been viewed as 'real or >physical evidence,' meaning that police are entitled to take them >without permission.
Use a long PIN for your encrypted phone. I've abided by this, despite the extreme convenience of the fingerprint scanner, since I first read about the 2014 case you referenced.. John -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
