News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Judge Grants Search Warrant Forcing Woman to Unlock iPhone with Touch ID. Parent comment

Re:Judge Grants Search Warrant Forcing Woman to Unlock iPhon... by Arubis on Monday May 02, 2016 @01:21PM (#11613430)
This, and other comments to the effect of purposely messing up your fingerprint to force PIN/password entry, are all technically effective. However, if you perform any of these actions after an encounter with law enforcement or the legal system has already started, it strikes me that your actions could be interpreted as destruction of evidence. IANAL, though.

Even using a PIN over a fingerprint is enough to piss off the FBI by making it more difficult to get in. If you're unlocking your iDevice with Touch ID only, you should consider your device insecure against even undetermined law enforcement.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Judge Grants Search Warrant Forcing Woman to Unlock iPhon... by jdmichal on Monday May 02, 2016 @02:30PM (#11614104)
It would be obstruction, not destruction. The evidence still exists, but you took steps to prevent law enforcement access to it. Destruction would be some sort of kill signal to the phone when they ask you to unlock it.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Judge Grants Search Warrant Forcing Woman to Unlock iPhon... by Lawtonfogle on Monday May 02, 2016 @03:04PM (#11614454)
>It would be obstruction, not destruction.

It is obstruction in the same way that requesting a warrant before handing over evidence is obstruction.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Judge Grants Search Warrant Forcing Woman to Unlock iPhon... by jdmichal on Monday May 02, 2016 @03:20PM (#11614619)
Your comment is purposefully obtuse and meaningless. Obstruction via exercising your 4th amendment right in the US is legal, because that's what being a right means. Refusing to comply with a court order to unlock your phone is still illegal.
[ Parent | on HN ]