My iPhone forces password entry after 5 failed attempts at TouchID unlock. If you can quickly thumb the sensor a few times, you can render fingerprint unlock impossible.

Better to disable anyway, but it's an option.

Exactly this. If they can force you to give them a fingerprint, but not a password, just reset the phone. You haven't destroyed anything, the data is still there, it's just inaccessible without the password.

One possible threat here could be access being gained another way (court-order to provide text key), then with the device unlock key known being required to try each finger in sequence to identify if you provided a genuine try to unlock the device. Could be seen as obstruction (IANAL).

I immediately thought the same thing upon reading. One thing that comes to mind is: automatically triggered data destruction. If laptop or the phone detects non-owner access attempts and destroys data on its own, is it destruction of evidence? Owner did not do it, and it was there just to protect from the real bad guys: corporate spies, identity thieves.

The law often uses intention. Could you convince a jury of your peers you didn't do this just to hide your stuff from law enforcement?

The obvious rebuttal is that you did this to hide your stuff from EVERYONE. Criminal mens rea doesn't exist; you're just a citizen who likes his privacy.

Yes, if it was the default OS behavior. Which is the argument the article makes.

> is it destruction of evidence?

I'd say that depends on how much you pissed persecuting entities off.

The theory is that the cops would be the ones selecting the finger. This would be no different from LE trying to crack a password, and the system permanently locking them out. However, I am also Not A Lawyer.

Besides, it would not be useful to trigger reset or deletion because LEOs could take a backup before the procedure.

If you are a terrible person with really weird requirements you might prefer the charges related to destruction of evidence to the charges related to the evidence itself.

(if you are a terrible person without really weird requirements you avoid capturing or destroy the evidence on an ongoing basis, not after you are caught)

For instance, in New York at least, if you are suspected of DUI and refuse to submit to a breathalyzer test, it is an automatic civil suspension of of you drivers license for I believe two years. If you have prior convictions then and are looking at jail time and a license suspension, the smart play is to refuse to take the test.

I don't think being a "terrible person" (whatever the hell that means) has any bearing on whether or not you would want to protect your privacy.

Sure, but someone carrying around evidence of crimes with heavier punishments than destruction of evidence is considering a different scenario than someone simply concerned with their privacy.

In the case of journalist covering war crimes, the journalist is not necessarily a "terrible" person. There's a lot of countries where the laws are such that it is not necessarily unethical not to respect them.

Again, sure, I was pointing out an instance where a person might prefer the destruction of evidence charges, not trying to exhaustively list all such situations.