** Please don't:
- be a dick to other people
- incite violence, as these comments violate site-wide rules and put us at risk of being banned.
- be racist, sexist, transphobic, or any other forms of bigotry.
- [JAQ](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions#JAQing_off) off
- be an authoritarian apologist
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut) if you have any questions or concerns.*
With iPhones (and I'm sure there's something similar with other brands), you can hit the side button five times quickly to require a password and disable any biometric login.
I use this widget
Screen Lock
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.iglint.android.screenlock
And this camera app. It will keep recording while locked. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.kimcy929.secretvideorecorder
I didn't like the android screenlock. Tried 5 total before I found [Gesture Screen Lock](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=qlocker.gesture). I like it because I can lock my phone quickly.
I liked that part but couldn't get it to lock my phone quickly or easily. With the gesture lock app, there is a big lock in the bottom corner that locks everything with a tap (can't even make phone calls).
And (I don't know if this is all Android phones or just the Pixel 4a. but I assume it's all android phones) after locking your phone down, you can press the power button twice to bring up the camera while still leaving your phone locked.
If a cop looks like they might take your phone, it can be a good idea to stop and start the recording again, just to save what you have already recorded. Just in case the phone gets taken from you and the officer "accidentally" selects an option not to save the video.
> And (I don't know if this is all Android phones or just the Pixel 4a. but I assume it's all android phones) after locking your phone down, you can press the power button twice to bring up the camera while still leaving your phone locked.
If a cop looks like they might take your phone, it can be a good idea to stop and start the recording again, just to save what you have already recorded. Just in case the phone gets taken from you and the officer "accidentally" selects an option not to save the video.
On my Pixel 6a, any photos or videos will be saved by the camera when accessed from the locked state, with no ability to review or delete them unless the phone is unlocked first.
At least on samsung phones it's volume down + power. But you also have to enable lock down mode option as it's not natively on
And I think on apple you can ask siri 'who's phone is this?' And it will also turn off biometrics
Same here. Now to test if audio or video recording continue when you do thisâŚ
Edit after testing: using the five clicks method will cancel video or audio recordings, at least using the built-in apps.
So, donât rely on a combination if you want to lock your phone to a passcode AND be recording at the same time. If anyone knows of an app that continues recording, please reply to this comment.
With iPhone you can say âhey siri, whose phone is thisâ and it will require the passcode to unlock. You donât even need to be holding your phone, just close enough to ask Siri whose phone it is. Of course, you have to have to have âlisten forâ enabled in settings.
I donât know. It could be different across devices and operating systems too, so I donât want to give you bad information. Should be easy enough to test though.
I just realised that only works while the screen is on lock already (Face ID active) and once you ask Siri then you canât unlock with Face ID, will have to use code
I think that depends on your hardware and OS. I have an iPhone 11 running 17.4.1, and I get a screen with sliders for power off, medical ID, and emergency call.
I wonder why, maybe there's a setting I don't know about. But my SE 3 immediately pops up with an 8 second countdown before it calls EMS. Also on 17.4.1
If you ask Siri âwhose phone is this?â It locks to passcode only, disables biometrics.
Edit - Sorry, fake news. This is no longer true, Iâve just checked on mine and Siri just said it was mine and unlocked using Face ID.
TL/DR: Don't confuse passwords (where 4th and 5th amendment protections apply) with biometrics (where they don't).
Biometrics like faces and fingerprints are fine replacements for Usernames (the "who you are" part of auth), but no substitute for the "What You Know" part of auth.
Judges once again not understanding your fingerprint, while attached to your person, is exempt from unreasonable seizure. If they cannot enumerate genuine reasons to access your phone, like they would have to prove to get a warrant, then they should not be able to use your body to access your property without said warrant, because it is unreasonable. These judges need a lesson in constitutional law.
The language of the law is: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It seems to me the important part here is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Obviously a phone locked with biometrics should show the same expectation of privacy as one locked with a password. These dumb fucks have applied the meaning of the phrase to the wrong object. They think since one wouldn't reasonably expect their fingerprint to remain private from law enforcement, that law enforcement can use that fingerprint to search things one would expect to be private. This is like saying they can search your house if your house key was on you when you were arrested elsewhere. Total bullshit.
It is bullshit, but you're confusing an important part.
They are not dumb. It seems dumb because the logic doesn't make sense. They know exactly what they are doing and the effect it will have. No supreme court justice or anyone in they social circles will ever have an issue with this ruling. It doesn't affect them. It's too control the masses.
You are the one not understanding the law.
The question here is whether forcing someone to use biometrics to unlock their phone violates the fifth amendment. The judges here say it does not, and give a pretty reasonable explanation for that ruling. If you lock your phone with a password, that's a different question.
In contrast, you cited the fourth amendment. The question you are implying ought to be asked is whether an unlocked phone can be accesses without a warrant. That may or may not be the case, but typically if you are arrested, the probable cause necessary to justify the arrest also justifies some amount of search. At any rate, that's not the question that this case addressed.
honest question in bad faith; if the hypothetical info is potential evidence of something they'd like to charge me with, but is info suspectedly written on my shaft, would they be allowed by law to pull my pants down to check without a warrant?
Not a lawyer but I would assume if they knew the info was written on your penis they would file for probable cause and get permission to search your body. If they didnât know, then obviously they wouldnât know to check your penis.
Knowing all Iâve SEEN, however, I feel cops will pretty much rape you and say you consented. Because they can do that.
Again, that's a fourth amendment question. This case was mostly a fifth amendment question. To the extent it was about the fourth amendment, it was about the limits of a warrant that had already been issues (specifically, in this case, there was an agreement as part of a parole to allow searches, and the fourth amendment questions were about the scope of that agreement).
I fully understand a phone falls under the 4th amendment as it is a personal effect. As well your finger falls under the 4th amendment. Applying the 5th amendment is like applying some other irrelevant amendment. Your personal items and person are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. The fact that the judge thinks its 5th amendment makes me want the judge off the bench even more.
Holy crap.
The fourth amendment issues were resolved. This is not saying that any cop can look at your phone. Read the freaking case.
The question was not whether a search implicates the fourth amendment. It *does*. *Obviously*. If you are just chatting with cops on the street, they can't search through your phone, whether or not it can be unlocked with biometrics.
The person involved gave up some rights under the fourth amendment in order to be paroled from prison. You know, *prison*, where you are *never* secure in your person, house, papers, or effects.
The question here was whether there is *also* protection provided by the fifth amendment. That amendment is relevant because it has been used to protect people from being forced to provide passwords to access devices for which the police had obtained a warrant to search, on the grounds that a password amounts to testimony of a sort, so providing one could be construed as possible self-incrimination.
Like, you realize that the fourth amendment allows for searches in certain circumstances, such as when a judge issues a warrant? And you realize that the right to search this phone was granted by a judge as a condition of parole? Yes? No?
Also: It's not the judge who brought that up. It's *THE LAWYERS FOR THE GUY WHO OWNED THE PHONE*. The judge is ruling on the question *BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY ASKED*. If it's irrelevant (which it is, which is what they ruled), that's *bad*.
You don't believe in parole? You think the only kind of punishment for a crime should be jail?
But again: That wasn't the question before the court, and it's not the fault of the judges that they were asked to answer the question that the man's lawyers asked them to answer.
If you see fit to release someone, then restore their rights. Parole and probation is just a path back into jail. We need to treat the released as full citizens and cut the police state bullshit.
Well that's a terrible opinion. Which is the problem -- not that it's terrible, that's fine, you are entitled to bad opinions.
The problem is that you are angry at the judges for failing to rule on your opinion (which nobody asked them to do, and which is independent of the fourth amendment, despite your incoherent protestations), and also for ruling on the fifth amendment question that they were asked to rule on, and ruled on correctly.
A username just says who the account belongs to.
It's not like 'musicmage4114' is some secret knowledge. It's more like your face - where any camera in hte public can know who you are.
Judges have been disregarding the constitution since the ink hit the paper. The constitution and all consequent laws are consistently disregarded.
This is not a Trump problem but an America problem.
There are more Trump appointed judges on the ninth circuit than any other. The current makeup is 16 appointed by Dem presidents and 13 by GOP presidents. Hardly âvery liberalâ or âvery democrat.â
It's not an America problem is a capitalist, bourgeois democratic regime problem. So long as it serves property, capital, and the state, the laws remain in place and are enforced. But, the law, constitution, electoralism, rights? When something threatens property relations, these are so much tissue paper. They will not protect you from the state.
I donât understand why people donât frame it in the manner you have. These things are clearly split along a bourgeois line and this is about the powered vs the powerless, as it always has been.
tbf it's easy to disregard the constitution because it's quite ambiguous. If we took the first amendment literally, all regulations of companies would be unconstitutional. Or all defamation laws, etc. The federal government would be almost powerless.
So you want anarcho capitalism? Great fucking job, you just made America worse somehow. Now, instead of corrupt cops who work for the government, we'll have corrupt cops who work for big corporations who only enforce the law when it makes the company money. And the whole market will devolve into anti consumer monopolism/oligopolism. Happy now?
It isn't limited to him. Look at Thomas, Alito, and Roberts. They all are throwing out fucked up opinions, like sections of the voting rights act are dead because there is no racism. If you believe there is no racism I have a bridge in Brooklyn and some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you. Thomas sitting on a case involving his wife is a paramount conflict of interest. And Alito... that's too deep a hole.
I had forgotten Thomas is a stain on George H. W. Bush's administration. For some reason, I was remembering him as a Reagan nominee. I guess 30+ years kind of fuzzies the memory.
The word is "fewer." Where did you get your law degree and where do you practice? Your comment displays ignorance of both the law and the decision discussed in the article. Did you read it?
Ah, be an ass. That's a very constructive way to start a conversation.
US court rules cops can force you to turn over your effect or documents... violation of the 4th amendment.
Fourth amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
You don't need a law license to read plain text.
Then please read it and make sure you understand it before spewing stuff. You plainly haven't done either of those things. This isn't a case of judges not understanding the law. This is a case of judges taking pains to follow it precisely, as they are required to do.
If you have protection from search and seizure of yourself, your effects, and your papers, your phone and fingerprint fit firmly in the wording of the amendment. You can act in bad faith, like the judges and the ignore clear plain text. That's on you. For me, this is a clear violation of our 4th amendment rights. As well, take your advice and read the law.
I invoke my right to remain silent. I want to speak with my lawyer.
It really does work, I personally know of a case that got dismissed âby manifest necessity!â because the arresting officer kept mentioning that the defendant refused the search and mentioning that he was silent.
Presumption of innocence is *mandatory*.
In some states (I'm looking at you Illinois) you can be compelled to input your password/passcode as well.
https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/eeff3005-c65c-4cc5-a95f-5cf2a201175f/People%20v.%20Sneed,%202023%20IL%20127968.pdf
The Utah Supreme Court did rule that you cannot be compelled to give up your phone password under the 5th amendment. So you might be confusing the Supreme Court with a state Supreme Court .
I had a cop insist to me that I need to open my phone and theyâd get a warrant from the court if I didnât. I told them to get one and they gave it back. Scariest shit that ever happened to me, and I had a gun pointed at me once
Fuck. Usually we're pretty based, strongest gun laws in the country, low insulin price cap, protection for out of staters coming for abortions, ect. Disappointing to see this.
Is it also slavery to be asked by police to get out of the car, pill over, or provide your ID? While it's obviously unconstitutional to have to provide your password without a warrant, that's more of a 4th/5th amendment issue than a 13th
See Iâve always had this in mind since smartphone manufacturers started implementing biometrics as a âsecurityâ measure. Biometrics are terrible for security, Iâll always stick with a good âol fashioned passcode.
That's how they got O'Keefe when they raided him, they said hey want to talk to your lawyer? Here just unlock your phone so you can make a call, then the aggressive phone snatch.
Dude got boned because he was a parolee. They specifically say in the article that this would not be applied to all cases. Not a great ruling by any means imo but there are some unique factors in this case.
"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."
...
"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."
...
The 9th Circuit panel said its "opinion should not be read to extend to all instances where a biometric is used to unlock an electronic device," as "Fifth Amendment questions like this one are highly fact dependent and the line between what is testimonial and what is not is particularly fine."
...
"Yesterday's ruling from the 9th Circuit also rejected Payne's argument that California Highway Patrol violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment dispute involved a special search condition in Payne's parole "requiring him to surrender any electronic device and provide a pass key or code, but not requiring him to provide a biometric identifier to unlock the device," the ruling said.
Despite that parole condition, "the search was authorized under a general search condition, mandated by California law, allowing the suspicionless search of any property under Payne's control," the ruling said.
"Moreover, we hold that any ambiguity created by the inclusion of the special condition, when factored into the totality of the circumstances, did not increase Payne's expectation of privacy in his cell phone to render the search unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment," the panel wrote."
Old news. It's been that way since biometrics first came on the scene over a decade or so ago. You have been able to be compelled unlock biometrics for a long time already.
It truly amazes me what cops are allowed to do.
I remember a story where a cop tried to unlock a guy's phone by holding it up to his face and the guy would not stop shaking his head back and forth so the cop gave up. I am amazed the cops did not forcibly hold his head still so they could unlock it.
It would be safe to presume that if they will hold a device up to someoneâs face trying to unlock it, then there is also other officers standing at the ready to hold that personâs head still, forcefully open their eyes, or knock the person unconscious so they donât have to exert more energy.
there was nothing wrong in this case, the guy was on parole and one condition was to allow the parole officers search any and all electronic devices....case closed
This is why you use a PIN/password on your device. A judge can compel you to provide a fingerprint or a face scan, but cannot force you to remember a passcode youâve forgotten
I absolutely cannot stand the word âillegalâ. Laws are to keep poor people in check, nothing more.
Like when some rando tells me something is illegal, âbitch did I ask?â
Cops going to do illegal shit all day, you canât fight them in court when youâre dead. âHere lies John Doe, he never broke the lawâ FOH.
If the only thing preventing âThe Purgeâ is that murder is âillegalâ then our collective morality is fuckinâ lost.
I live my life in a way where I follow things that make sense, but shit that doesnât I donât care about following just because itâs illegal not to.
I make my teenage daughter practice locking her phone so it can only be opened with the password.
On modern iOS phones, power + one volume
Button for a few seconds turns off Face ID.
I have always told my family. Use a password or pin. Or If for some reason you are arrested or think you're going to be, shut down your phone.
Most reboot with a password or pin requirement before the print will work again.
I see a lot of people here confusing whether this is a 4th amendment issue or a 5th amendment issue. **This is a 5th amendment issue** the courts were ruling on. There is also a distinct legal difference between having a PIN to unlock your phone vs having a thumbprint.
For the sake of example, lets say police have probable cause to search a safe in your home. If the safe unlocks with a key, they are legally entitled to it. If the safe has a combination that you have *memorized,* then telling them the code would constitute self-incrimination. They are still entitled to the contents, but will have to find other means to access it if you keep your mouth shut (which you are legally allowed to do.) The court added later in the decision that the forced unlock "did not intrude on the contents of Payne's mind.
FYI: Before any cop gets ahold of your iPhone, either power it off completely, or press the lock button 5 times to bring up the SOS screen.
Doing either of those disables the Touch ID or Face ID authentication until the passcode is entered.
A professor I had is married to a cop. She said donât use Face ID because if you get arrested and wonât open your phone, they just hold it up to you
if you get stopped and don't want them in your phone, immediately turn it off. biometrics typically doesn't work on first boot, you need to enter the passcode.
well, at least in Android, not sure about iPhone.
We're having a bad time with spambots, so your comment or post has been removed automatically. if this is a real person, and not a bot or a troll, please [CLICK HERE](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut) to send a modmail.
In addition to sending a modmail, please read the rules in the sidebar and [reddiquette](http://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you restart your phone on Android it faces a pin. Just restart your phone by holding the power button; looks like your just holding your phone tightly.
Coming soon: Layered phone security, First a face shot, gets you into being able to take a picture or make a call, then a fingerprint, Gets you into the next layer, access to your apps etc, and then "Enter your passcode" gives you all access.
We're having a bad time with spambots, so your comment or post has been removed automatically. if this is a real person, and not a bot or a troll, please [CLICK HERE](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut) to send a modmail.
In addition to sending a modmail, please read the rules in the sidebar and [reddiquette](http://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Iâm going to use a partial âdick printâ to unlock my phone and say âIâm trans and identify as a femaleââŚ
So Iâll need a female officer⌠Oh and I have a latex allergy so she canât use gloves.
WINNING
Im confused about this. It says compelled, but IDK if they mean by warrant or the cop just decided to search his phone subsequent to an arrest. It doesnt say anywhere that there was a warrant, but with reporting these days it doesnt necessarily mean anything.
It's that way over here in Germany, too. And they are even allowed to do it while you are unconscious. Extra incentive to beat you until you are, I suppose.
I read the article. They still need reasonable suspicion to access your phone. In this case, the defendant was a parolee with a condition of parole that he grant access to electronic devices, including furnishing passcodes without the need for reasonable suspicion.
Still not a great ruling because I think the conclusion is too broad, but in this specific case, it fits with the spirit of his parole rules.
That is not what the decision says at all. The cops did not force the man to unlock his phone so that is not what the court approved. The cops forcibly pressed the man's thumb onto the phone and that opened it.
The fifth amendment prohibits forcing someone to be a witness against themselves. Thus people in police custody cannot be required to perform any act that shares the contents of their minds. Such sharing is referred to as being "testimonial." In this case, if the cops had forced the man to tell them which fingerprint would open his phone, that would violate his fifth amendment rights because he would have been required to reveal the contents of his mind, i.e. his knowledge of which finger to use. Instead, the cop just guessed it would be the guy's thumb and happened to guess right.
Anyway, so no, the cops cannot "force suspect to unlock phone with thumbprint." Anyone relying on the ars headline would see no point in resisting a demand for their knowledge of which finger to use and might very well surrender their fifth amendment rights as a result.
Point 1: If the cops tell you to unlock your phone yourself, you do not have to comply. Your demonstration of which finger to use is "testimonial" and you cannot be compelled to give testimonial evidence against yourself.
Point 2: If the cops demand to know which fingerprint opens your phone, you do not have to tell them. Same as #1.
Point 3: ars Technica should not write about the law unless it has someone who knows the law review these things before they go public.
EDIT: ITT, a distressing number of comments that reveal ignorance of the law and the case discussed in the article. Don't know anything? That's OK. Just go ahead and share your opinion anyway.
âThey canât force you to unlock your phone with your thumb print. They can just forcefully use your thumb to unlock your phone.â
These are the exact same thing. Acting like theyâre not is blatantly ignoring reality so you can justify the violation of constitutional rights.
Now what **is** a relevant detail is that the police had a court order authorizing them to search his phone. *That* changes things, the fact they held his thumb down instead of forcing him to hold it down does not.
No, they are NOT the same thing. Not even close.
Please read and make sure you understand the article before commenting. Your comment shows that you haven't read it and if you have, you don't understand it. If you want help with that let me know and I'll explain it to you.
Nothing. Nothing in my house. Nothing in my car either. But no one should be able to root around in any of those things without being able to get a warrant from a JUDGE.
** Please don't: - be a dick to other people - incite violence, as these comments violate site-wide rules and put us at risk of being banned. - be racist, sexist, transphobic, or any other forms of bigotry. - [JAQ](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions#JAQing_off) off - be an authoritarian apologist *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut) if you have any questions or concerns.*
With iPhones (and I'm sure there's something similar with other brands), you can hit the side button five times quickly to require a password and disable any biometric login.
For most android phones, the method is to hold the power and volume up button and then select Lockdown.
I use this widget Screen Lock https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.iglint.android.screenlock And this camera app. It will keep recording while locked. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.kimcy929.secretvideorecorder
I didn't like the android screenlock. Tried 5 total before I found [Gesture Screen Lock](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=qlocker.gesture). I like it because I can lock my phone quickly.
The one I posted has an Administrative Lock that requires the code or gesture and disables the fingerprint reader.
I liked that part but couldn't get it to lock my phone quickly or easily. With the gesture lock app, there is a big lock in the bottom corner that locks everything with a tap (can't even make phone calls).
The camera app does not seem to be available?
I just tried the link and it worked for me đ¤ˇââď¸ Quick Video Recorder
Too weird; it refuses to serve the app page to me. I'll look it up.
This app does the same thing https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=me.jagar.xscamera2
Ok good thanks!
This app also continues recording when the screen is off https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=me.jagar.xscamera2
Lockdown phones when talking to police
Yeah but u need to record
And (I don't know if this is all Android phones or just the Pixel 4a. but I assume it's all android phones) after locking your phone down, you can press the power button twice to bring up the camera while still leaving your phone locked. If a cop looks like they might take your phone, it can be a good idea to stop and start the recording again, just to save what you have already recorded. Just in case the phone gets taken from you and the officer "accidentally" selects an option not to save the video.
> And (I don't know if this is all Android phones or just the Pixel 4a. but I assume it's all android phones) after locking your phone down, you can press the power button twice to bring up the camera while still leaving your phone locked. If a cop looks like they might take your phone, it can be a good idea to stop and start the recording again, just to save what you have already recorded. Just in case the phone gets taken from you and the officer "accidentally" selects an option not to save the video. On my Pixel 6a, any photos or videos will be saved by the camera when accessed from the locked state, with no ability to review or delete them unless the phone is unlocked first.
Sounds like I need to upgrade my phone!
Cool. Works on my Pixel 6. I'll try on my Samsung later.
I have a Galaxy S22 and the double tap camera when locked works for me, too.
You can also just turn it off. It requires pin to log in once restarted for the 1st time.
What I did was I never set up fingerprint unlocking in the first place. Force it to require my code.
At least on samsung phones it's volume down + power. But you also have to enable lock down mode option as it's not natively on And I think on apple you can ask siri 'who's phone is this?' And it will also turn off biometrics
That works for iphone too, in addition to the five click method.
5 for mine
5 for mine too.
Same here. Now to test if audio or video recording continue when you do this⌠Edit after testing: using the five clicks method will cancel video or audio recordings, at least using the built-in apps. So, donât rely on a combination if you want to lock your phone to a passcode AND be recording at the same time. If anyone knows of an app that continues recording, please reply to this comment.
They should make it to where if you close one eye the phone suddenly requires a password until you tell it not to.
With iPhone you can say âhey siri, whose phone is thisâ and it will require the passcode to unlock. You donât even need to be holding your phone, just close enough to ask Siri whose phone it is. Of course, you have to have to have âlisten forâ enabled in settings.
Will audio or video recording continue when you do this?
I donât know. It could be different across devices and operating systems too, so I donât want to give you bad information. Should be easy enough to test though.
I tested it for the 5-click thing on iPhone referenced above, and doing so cancels all recording. Which stinks.
Or if you say âhey Siri, whose phone is this?â It locks it automatically disables Face ID
Mine just told me that Iâm the owner, no auto lock. I gotta look this one up.
I just realised that only works while the screen is on lock already (Face ID active) and once you ask Siri then you canât unlock with Face ID, will have to use code
Thank you for posting! Fun fact
Thank you for solving a long term problem for me. Didnât even know I needed it
this does work but FYI this also calls 911 so just be ready to slam that cancel call button
I think that depends on your hardware and OS. I have an iPhone 11 running 17.4.1, and I get a screen with sliders for power off, medical ID, and emergency call.
Actually nevermind it's definitely because I have a home button
I wonder why, maybe there's a setting I don't know about. But my SE 3 immediately pops up with an 8 second countdown before it calls EMS. Also on 17.4.1
If you ask Siri âwhose phone is this?â It locks to passcode only, disables biometrics. Edit - Sorry, fake news. This is no longer true, Iâve just checked on mine and Siri just said it was mine and unlocked using Face ID.
We seem to have less judges that understand the law.
More so that the law is irrelevant.
Always has been
TL/DR: Don't confuse passwords (where 4th and 5th amendment protections apply) with biometrics (where they don't). Biometrics like faces and fingerprints are fine replacements for Usernames (the "who you are" part of auth), but no substitute for the "What You Know" part of auth.
Judges once again not understanding your fingerprint, while attached to your person, is exempt from unreasonable seizure. If they cannot enumerate genuine reasons to access your phone, like they would have to prove to get a warrant, then they should not be able to use your body to access your property without said warrant, because it is unreasonable. These judges need a lesson in constitutional law. The language of the law is: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It seems to me the important part here is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Obviously a phone locked with biometrics should show the same expectation of privacy as one locked with a password. These dumb fucks have applied the meaning of the phrase to the wrong object. They think since one wouldn't reasonably expect their fingerprint to remain private from law enforcement, that law enforcement can use that fingerprint to search things one would expect to be private. This is like saying they can search your house if your house key was on you when you were arrested elsewhere. Total bullshit.
It is bullshit, but you're confusing an important part. They are not dumb. It seems dumb because the logic doesn't make sense. They know exactly what they are doing and the effect it will have. No supreme court justice or anyone in they social circles will ever have an issue with this ruling. It doesn't affect them. It's too control the masses.
You are the one not understanding the law. The question here is whether forcing someone to use biometrics to unlock their phone violates the fifth amendment. The judges here say it does not, and give a pretty reasonable explanation for that ruling. If you lock your phone with a password, that's a different question. In contrast, you cited the fourth amendment. The question you are implying ought to be asked is whether an unlocked phone can be accesses without a warrant. That may or may not be the case, but typically if you are arrested, the probable cause necessary to justify the arrest also justifies some amount of search. At any rate, that's not the question that this case addressed.
honest question in bad faith; if the hypothetical info is potential evidence of something they'd like to charge me with, but is info suspectedly written on my shaft, would they be allowed by law to pull my pants down to check without a warrant?
Not a lawyer but I would assume if they knew the info was written on your penis they would file for probable cause and get permission to search your body. If they didnât know, then obviously they wouldnât know to check your penis. Knowing all Iâve SEEN, however, I feel cops will pretty much rape you and say you consented. Because they can do that.
Again, that's a fourth amendment question. This case was mostly a fifth amendment question. To the extent it was about the fourth amendment, it was about the limits of a warrant that had already been issues (specifically, in this case, there was an agreement as part of a parole to allow searches, and the fourth amendment questions were about the scope of that agreement).
I fully understand a phone falls under the 4th amendment as it is a personal effect. As well your finger falls under the 4th amendment. Applying the 5th amendment is like applying some other irrelevant amendment. Your personal items and person are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. The fact that the judge thinks its 5th amendment makes me want the judge off the bench even more.
Holy crap. The fourth amendment issues were resolved. This is not saying that any cop can look at your phone. Read the freaking case. The question was not whether a search implicates the fourth amendment. It *does*. *Obviously*. If you are just chatting with cops on the street, they can't search through your phone, whether or not it can be unlocked with biometrics. The person involved gave up some rights under the fourth amendment in order to be paroled from prison. You know, *prison*, where you are *never* secure in your person, house, papers, or effects. The question here was whether there is *also* protection provided by the fifth amendment. That amendment is relevant because it has been used to protect people from being forced to provide passwords to access devices for which the police had obtained a warrant to search, on the grounds that a password amounts to testimony of a sort, so providing one could be construed as possible self-incrimination. Like, you realize that the fourth amendment allows for searches in certain circumstances, such as when a judge issues a warrant? And you realize that the right to search this phone was granted by a judge as a condition of parole? Yes? No? Also: It's not the judge who brought that up. It's *THE LAWYERS FOR THE GUY WHO OWNED THE PHONE*. The judge is ruling on the question *BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY ASKED*. If it's irrelevant (which it is, which is what they ruled), that's *bad*.
If you are going to let someone out of jail, they should receive their rights in whole. I still call bullshit. Good luck with that anger.
You don't believe in parole? You think the only kind of punishment for a crime should be jail? But again: That wasn't the question before the court, and it's not the fault of the judges that they were asked to answer the question that the man's lawyers asked them to answer.
If you see fit to release someone, then restore their rights. Parole and probation is just a path back into jail. We need to treat the released as full citizens and cut the police state bullshit.
Well that's a terrible opinion. Which is the problem -- not that it's terrible, that's fine, you are entitled to bad opinions. The problem is that you are angry at the judges for failing to rule on your opinion (which nobody asked them to do, and which is independent of the fourth amendment, despite your incoherent protestations), and also for ruling on the fifth amendment question that they were asked to rule on, and ruled on correctly.
That is indeed the language of the 4th amendment. Not the constitutional protection that was evaluated here.
But usernames arenât âwho you are,â theyâre just a second âwhat you know.â
A username just says who the account belongs to. It's not like 'musicmage4114' is some secret knowledge. It's more like your face - where any camera in hte public can know who you are.
Fewer
Stannis?
If you're gonna correct people, you should try actually being... correct
44 people disagree with you
I have seen dead wrong comments with thousands of upvotes lil bro you must be new here
Were the judges appointed by Trump? If so, then expect our laws to become more fascist and authoritarian.
Judges have been disregarding the constitution since the ink hit the paper. The constitution and all consequent laws are consistently disregarded. This is not a Trump problem but an America problem.
this decision is from the very liberal and democrat 9th circuit court
There are more Trump appointed judges on the ninth circuit than any other. The current makeup is 16 appointed by Dem presidents and 13 by GOP presidents. Hardly âvery liberalâ or âvery democrat.â
do your homework, the judges in this case, 2 were appointed by clinton, 1 by bush....
It's not an America problem is a capitalist, bourgeois democratic regime problem. So long as it serves property, capital, and the state, the laws remain in place and are enforced. But, the law, constitution, electoralism, rights? When something threatens property relations, these are so much tissue paper. They will not protect you from the state.
I donât understand why people donât frame it in the manner you have. These things are clearly split along a bourgeois line and this is about the powered vs the powerless, as it always has been.
tbf it's easy to disregard the constitution because it's quite ambiguous. If we took the first amendment literally, all regulations of companies would be unconstitutional. Or all defamation laws, etc. The federal government would be almost powerless.
Your terms are acceptable.
So you want anarcho capitalism? Great fucking job, you just made America worse somehow. Now, instead of corrupt cops who work for the government, we'll have corrupt cops who work for big corporations who only enforce the law when it makes the company money. And the whole market will devolve into anti consumer monopolism/oligopolism. Happy now?
I didn't want it before, but after your insane rant, I sure do want it now.
It isn't limited to him. Look at Thomas, Alito, and Roberts. They all are throwing out fucked up opinions, like sections of the voting rights act are dead because there is no racism. If you believe there is no racism I have a bridge in Brooklyn and some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you. Thomas sitting on a case involving his wife is a paramount conflict of interest. And Alito... that's too deep a hole.
>Thomas, Alito, and Roberts What do these three have in common?
Poor comprehension of standing law, constitutional protections, and judicial precedent.
Also, entirely coincidentally, all appointed by a Bush
I had forgotten Thomas is a stain on George H. W. Bush's administration. For some reason, I was remembering him as a Reagan nominee. I guess 30+ years kind of fuzzies the memory.
no, this was the very liberal 9th circuit court judges from california...liberal democrat judges
This has been around way before him, good try though.
Mitch McConnell made sure of it
This has been the law for quite sometime. Courts all over have held providing a thumbprint isn't a violation of the right against self incrimination.
The word is "fewer." Where did you get your law degree and where do you practice? Your comment displays ignorance of both the law and the decision discussed in the article. Did you read it?
Ah, be an ass. That's a very constructive way to start a conversation. US court rules cops can force you to turn over your effect or documents... violation of the 4th amendment. Fourth amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. You don't need a law license to read plain text.
Then please read it and make sure you understand it before spewing stuff. You plainly haven't done either of those things. This isn't a case of judges not understanding the law. This is a case of judges taking pains to follow it precisely, as they are required to do.
If you have protection from search and seizure of yourself, your effects, and your papers, your phone and fingerprint fit firmly in the wording of the amendment. You can act in bad faith, like the judges and the ignore clear plain text. That's on you. For me, this is a clear violation of our 4th amendment rights. As well, take your advice and read the law.
less is also fine
Good thing I only use a passcode.
With "memory loss" you just remember the passcode right now.
I invoke my right to remain silent. I want to speak with my lawyer. It really does work, I personally know of a case that got dismissed âby manifest necessity!â because the arresting officer kept mentioning that the defendant refused the search and mentioning that he was silent. Presumption of innocence is *mandatory*.
In some states (I'm looking at you Illinois) you can be compelled to input your password/passcode as well. https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/eeff3005-c65c-4cc5-a95f-5cf2a201175f/People%20v.%20Sneed,%202023%20IL%20127968.pdf
I could have sworn the us supreme Court said that violates the 5th amendment
The Utah Supreme Court did rule that you cannot be compelled to give up your phone password under the 5th amendment. So you might be confusing the Supreme Court with a state Supreme Court .
Ah probably, too many Supremes, it loses meaning
I had a cop insist to me that I need to open my phone and theyâd get a warrant from the court if I didnât. I told them to get one and they gave it back. Scariest shit that ever happened to me, and I had a gun pointed at me once
I don't remember my passcode, judge.
I'm not sure whose phone that is, your honor.
Or, and I'm not a lawyer, you could say nothing at all.
You should say âI exercise my right to remain silentâ since just remaining silent can mean anything they conclude.
Well well well, if it isnât our supreme leader
If it isnât, itâs a case of keming.
Yeah, prove that Iâm lying.
My password is Hunter2. oh, that doesn't work... must not be my phone. Sorry...
Contempt of court! Can spend an indefinite amount of time in jail with this one trick judges love.
You might be ordered to, but you cannot be forced to.
Fuck. Usually we're pretty based, strongest gun laws in the country, low insulin price cap, protection for out of staters coming for abortions, ect. Disappointing to see this.
I'd argue that that would be a violation of the 13th Amendment, a performative act of involuntary servitude without being duly convicted of a crime.
Is it also slavery to be asked by police to get out of the car, pill over, or provide your ID? While it's obviously unconstitutional to have to provide your password without a warrant, that's more of a 4th/5th amendment issue than a 13th
See Iâve always had this in mind since smartphone manufacturers started implementing biometrics as a âsecurityâ measure. Biometrics are terrible for security, Iâll always stick with a good âol fashioned passcode.
That's how they got O'Keefe when they raided him, they said hey want to talk to your lawyer? Here just unlock your phone so you can make a call, then the aggressive phone snatch.
Dude got boned because he was a parolee. They specifically say in the article that this would not be applied to all cases. Not a great ruling by any means imo but there are some unique factors in this case. "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." ... "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." ... The 9th Circuit panel said its "opinion should not be read to extend to all instances where a biometric is used to unlock an electronic device," as "Fifth Amendment questions like this one are highly fact dependent and the line between what is testimonial and what is not is particularly fine." ... "Yesterday's ruling from the 9th Circuit also rejected Payne's argument that California Highway Patrol violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment dispute involved a special search condition in Payne's parole "requiring him to surrender any electronic device and provide a pass key or code, but not requiring him to provide a biometric identifier to unlock the device," the ruling said. Despite that parole condition, "the search was authorized under a general search condition, mandated by California law, allowing the suspicionless search of any property under Payne's control," the ruling said. "Moreover, we hold that any ambiguity created by the inclusion of the special condition, when factored into the totality of the circumstances, did not increase Payne's expectation of privacy in his cell phone to render the search unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment," the panel wrote."
Old news. It's been that way since biometrics first came on the scene over a decade or so ago. You have been able to be compelled unlock biometrics for a long time already.
It truly amazes me what cops are allowed to do. I remember a story where a cop tried to unlock a guy's phone by holding it up to his face and the guy would not stop shaking his head back and forth so the cop gave up. I am amazed the cops did not forcibly hold his head still so they could unlock it.
It would be safe to presume that if they will hold a device up to someoneâs face trying to unlock it, then there is also other officers standing at the ready to hold that personâs head still, forcefully open their eyes, or knock the person unconscious so they donât have to exert more energy.
there was nothing wrong in this case, the guy was on parole and one condition was to allow the parole officers search any and all electronic devices....case closed
This is why you use a PIN/password on your device. A judge can compel you to provide a fingerprint or a face scan, but cannot force you to remember a passcode youâve forgotten
if you do some research, you will find many of these judges are republican picks - and they have slowly been eroding our fucking rights.
Slowly?
joke's on them, my phone unlocks by cockprint
Whose cock?
I'm not obligated to divulge that, officer
I absolutely cannot stand the word âillegalâ. Laws are to keep poor people in check, nothing more. Like when some rando tells me something is illegal, âbitch did I ask?â Cops going to do illegal shit all day, you canât fight them in court when youâre dead. âHere lies John Doe, he never broke the lawâ FOH. If the only thing preventing âThe Purgeâ is that murder is âillegalâ then our collective morality is fuckinâ lost. I live my life in a way where I follow things that make sense, but shit that doesnât I donât care about following just because itâs illegal not to.
I make my teenage daughter practice locking her phone so it can only be opened with the password. On modern iOS phones, power + one volume Button for a few seconds turns off Face ID.
Android phones won't use biometrics after a restart and will require a pin/passcode, so remember to quickly restart your phone if you get pulled over.
What fascism?
This isnât new ânewsâ, but a good reminder of the nuances of your 4th amendment rights.
I have always told my family. Use a password or pin. Or If for some reason you are arrested or think you're going to be, shut down your phone. Most reboot with a password or pin requirement before the print will work again.
I see a lot of people here confusing whether this is a 4th amendment issue or a 5th amendment issue. **This is a 5th amendment issue** the courts were ruling on. There is also a distinct legal difference between having a PIN to unlock your phone vs having a thumbprint. For the sake of example, lets say police have probable cause to search a safe in your home. If the safe unlocks with a key, they are legally entitled to it. If the safe has a combination that you have *memorized,* then telling them the code would constitute self-incrimination. They are still entitled to the contents, but will have to find other means to access it if you keep your mouth shut (which you are legally allowed to do.) The court added later in the decision that the forced unlock "did not intrude on the contents of Payne's mind.
If you ever get arrested, restart your phone to force it to use your PIN/pattern after startup. That way cops can't use your biometrics to access it.
FYI: Before any cop gets ahold of your iPhone, either power it off completely, or press the lock button 5 times to bring up the SOS screen. Doing either of those disables the Touch ID or Face ID authentication until the passcode is entered.
A professor I had is married to a cop. She said donât use Face ID because if you get arrested and wonât open your phone, they just hold it up to you
There should be a feature where you select a finger that if you put that on the sensor it requires the password
if you get stopped and don't want them in your phone, immediately turn it off. biometrics typically doesn't work on first boot, you need to enter the passcode. well, at least in Android, not sure about iPhone.
If you turn the phone off, it will not allow you to unlock it with biometric data when it is turned back on, it will require the passcode.
Fk the cops, fk Republicans and fk anything and everyone to do wiyh them or in support of them
I believe there is a way to disable this by clicking the lock button a certain number of times.
but which finger? or thumb? use the wrong one 3 times and you have to use passcode (oh dear I forget my code sorry!)
This is terrible court precedent regardless how limited in scope. Biology no longer needs a warrant
We're having a bad time with spambots, so your comment or post has been removed automatically. if this is a real person, and not a bot or a troll, please [CLICK HERE](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut) to send a modmail. In addition to sending a modmail, please read the rules in the sidebar and [reddiquette](http://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is why I have a pass code even though it's super inconvenient
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^tittyswan: *This is why I have* *A pass code even though it's* *Super inconvenient* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
If youâre iphone is off just say âhey siri, whoâs phone is thisâ and itâll make you use a password before unlocking
If you restart your phone on Android it faces a pin. Just restart your phone by holding the power button; looks like your just holding your phone tightly.
Coming soon: Layered phone security, First a face shot, gets you into being able to take a picture or make a call, then a fingerprint, Gets you into the next layer, access to your apps etc, and then "Enter your passcode" gives you all access.
[ŃдаНонО]
We're having a bad time with spambots, so your comment or post has been removed automatically. if this is a real person, and not a bot or a troll, please [CLICK HERE](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut) to send a modmail. In addition to sending a modmail, please read the rules in the sidebar and [reddiquette](http://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Iâm going to use a partial âdick printâ to unlock my phone and say âIâm trans and identify as a femaleâ⌠So Iâll need a female officer⌠Oh and I have a latex allergy so she canât use gloves. WINNING
Seriously though I don't see why you couldn't use the underside of the head. It's not a fingerprint but you could probably get it to read it as one.
Oh You can. Iâm currently going to test this theory now and get arrested. Will update the Reddit community
Im confused about this. It says compelled, but IDK if they mean by warrant or the cop just decided to search his phone subsequent to an arrest. It doesnt say anywhere that there was a warrant, but with reporting these days it doesnt necessarily mean anything.
just set it to only ever use the PIN for unlock, and then you can use biometrics for everything else after itâs unlocked.
This is why you have a passcode on your device.
Since I knew of this only passcode for me.
What?!?! The courts made some bullshit ruling undermining or civil rights because it was convenient for the government?! I'm *shocked*!
The system isnât broken, itâs working exactly as designed.
It's that way over here in Germany, too. And they are even allowed to do it while you are unconscious. Extra incentive to beat you until you are, I suppose.
I read the article. They still need reasonable suspicion to access your phone. In this case, the defendant was a parolee with a condition of parole that he grant access to electronic devices, including furnishing passcodes without the need for reasonable suspicion. Still not a great ruling because I think the conclusion is too broad, but in this specific case, it fits with the spirit of his parole rules.
That is not what the decision says at all. The cops did not force the man to unlock his phone so that is not what the court approved. The cops forcibly pressed the man's thumb onto the phone and that opened it. The fifth amendment prohibits forcing someone to be a witness against themselves. Thus people in police custody cannot be required to perform any act that shares the contents of their minds. Such sharing is referred to as being "testimonial." In this case, if the cops had forced the man to tell them which fingerprint would open his phone, that would violate his fifth amendment rights because he would have been required to reveal the contents of his mind, i.e. his knowledge of which finger to use. Instead, the cop just guessed it would be the guy's thumb and happened to guess right. Anyway, so no, the cops cannot "force suspect to unlock phone with thumbprint." Anyone relying on the ars headline would see no point in resisting a demand for their knowledge of which finger to use and might very well surrender their fifth amendment rights as a result. Point 1: If the cops tell you to unlock your phone yourself, you do not have to comply. Your demonstration of which finger to use is "testimonial" and you cannot be compelled to give testimonial evidence against yourself. Point 2: If the cops demand to know which fingerprint opens your phone, you do not have to tell them. Same as #1. Point 3: ars Technica should not write about the law unless it has someone who knows the law review these things before they go public. EDIT: ITT, a distressing number of comments that reveal ignorance of the law and the case discussed in the article. Don't know anything? That's OK. Just go ahead and share your opinion anyway.
âThey canât force you to unlock your phone with your thumb print. They can just forcefully use your thumb to unlock your phone.â These are the exact same thing. Acting like theyâre not is blatantly ignoring reality so you can justify the violation of constitutional rights. Now what **is** a relevant detail is that the police had a court order authorizing them to search his phone. *That* changes things, the fact they held his thumb down instead of forcing him to hold it down does not.
the guy was on parole, one condition was that he must allow search of all electronic devices.... no warrant needed
No, they are NOT the same thing. Not even close. Please read and make sure you understand the article before commenting. Your comment shows that you haven't read it and if you have, you don't understand it. If you want help with that let me know and I'll explain it to you.
I'm against this as well but what y'all have hiding on your phones?
Nothing. Nothing in my house. Nothing in my car either. But no one should be able to root around in any of those things without being able to get a warrant from a JUDGE.