FBI unlocked an iPhone X by forcing suspect to use Face ID

[Sauron]

4 hours ago, Jurrunio said:

Conclusion: If you are going to commit crimes value your privacy, make sure you use things generated by your consciousness (password, code, shape etc) as password than physically present stuff (face, fingerprints, pupil etc).

FTFY

[GoldenLag]

9 minutes ago, Niksa said:

I never enabled biometric unlock on my iPhone. And even if someone unlocks it, they would find many cat, coffee and food pictures.

What if google steals your phone to use for Targeted adds!!

 

Oh god the horror

[Technous285]

25 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

And what if someone do not have any? (Like me .)

They will likely call bullshit and try to bullshit you into "confessing" your social media identities.

At least for paranoid 'Murrican border patrol wanks.

[jagdtigger]

Just now, Technous285 said:

They will likely call bullshit and try to bullshit you into "confessing" your social media identities.

At least for paranoid 'Murrican border patrol wanks.

Well good luck with that....

[asus killer]

Biometrics are the least secure way to go about securing your phone. They would have a harder time getting him to enter some sort of code.

But hey it looks cool. The rgb of security.

[Trik'Stari]

4 hours ago, Rohith_Kumar_Sp said:

Apple probably faced a huge deal of pressure last time when they refused to I mean there was no backdoor to open users phone without thier password being encrypted on the device

Actually there was a way to unlock that phone. John McAfee explained in an on air news segment with an FBI agent on how to unlock that phone.

 

Another note, the FBI managed to eventually unlock that phone with the help of a third party, and eventually withdrew their demand that Apple build in a back door for them.

 

That entire case was never about getting access to the phone. It was about getting precedent for the government forcing a company to modify its software to give the government a back door. Nothing more, nothing less.

[asus killer]

The best security is a code, enter the wrong code and lock it for god. Simple if you really need security really bad.

Am i wrong?

[TetraSky]

"Forced". They had a warrant. If the suspect wasn't cooperating, it would've just increased the charge against them. Even if the warrant itself wasn't specifying the use of FaceID, it couldn't have been hard to just hold it in front of their face since that's not protected by law unlike passwords.
They would've just went to companies like Greyshift or Cellebrite to have it unlocked had faceID not been enabled.

[asus killer]

43 minutes ago, TetraSky said:

"Forced". They had a warrant. If the suspect wasn't cooperating, it would've just increased the charge against them. Even if the warrant itself wasn't specifying the use of FaceID, it couldn't have been hard to just hold it in front of their face since that's not protected by law unlike passwords.
They would've just went to companies like Greyshift or Cellebrite to have it unlocked had faceID not been enabled.

I already said this in this forum, people speake like warrants are a " do whatever " card. It's not, it specifies what can be searched and how.

If it wasnt forced the person could simply close their eyes, its not just hold it in front of the suspect.

[Syntaxvgm]

7 hours ago, Arika S said:

Better Pro Tip:

 

 

oh yea because the police are infallible. 

[Tech_Dreamer]

Weirdly enough i was upset at first , thinking it was an abuse of power, then wasn't upset based on for what case it was used.

[79wjd]

 

Quote

Apple probably faced a huge deal of pressure last time when they refused to I mean there was no backdoor to open users phone without thier password being encrypted on the device, adding a face unlock made the job easier for the authorities, ofcourse if people have nothing to hide won't have any problems but I wonder if people would avoid face unlock feature altogether from here on out. 

Face ID is no different than touch id (which already existed -- in the 5s -- at the time when the FBI wanted the San Bernardino 5 unlocked). Touch ID and then Face ID were surely not added out of pressure from the government but rather as a convenience feature.

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

14 hours ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Also, they do know how to beat people so there are no marks left...

Yup, and even photographic evidence doesn't get them convicted. 

 

 

On-topic : Biometrics never were a good idea to begin with.  I've always refused to use them on any of my devices, and this is just one of the reasons why. 

[kasugatei]

15 hours ago, GoldenLag said:

What if google steals your phone to use for Targeted adds!!

 

Oh god the horror

I can't say that I understand your sarcastic comment attempt. How did you manage to put Google into this all of the sudden?

 

For the rest of the people,the reason why I don't use biometrics is because I am used to enter passcode. Some habits die hard 

[captain_to_fire]

15 hours ago, TetraSky said:

They would've just went to companies like Greyshift or Cellebrite to have it unlocked had faceID not been enabled.

GrayShift box will no longer work once USB restricted mode kicks in after one hour. 

[MMKing]

15 hours ago, TetraSky said:

"Forced". They had a warrant. If the suspect wasn't cooperating, it would've just increased the charge against them. Even if the warrant itself wasn't specifying the use of FaceID, it couldn't have been hard to just hold it in front of their face since that's not protected by law unlike passwords.
They would've just went to companies like Greyshift or Cellebrite to have it unlocked had faceID not been enabled.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] 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.

 

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

Suspects of a crime are under no obligation to assist the police. The police may search your property, or your person only with a search warrant. Said warrant must specify where exactly the police are to search, and what exactly the police expect to find. ''Nothing to hide, nothing to fear'' does not apply in the US.

 

If you think it was acceptable to force the suspect (S-U-S-P-E-C-T) to unlock his phone, you're a complete idiot. In the very best case scenario, there was nothing of interest on the phone. In the worst case scenario, a man guilty of sexually assaulting children will have incriminating evidence thrown out court due to the way the evidence was obtained. The absence of said evidence may lead to a lower prison sentence than it would have with said evidence, or there may be insufficient evidence to put the man in jail at all, assuming he is guilty.

 

If you've ever heard of people getting off on a ''technicality'', this could very well end up becoming an example.

[ARikozuM]

The laws need to catch up with tech. Biometrics should not be allowed to be used by law enforcement unless explicitly stated by the search warrant. 

[EPENEX]

26 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

The laws need to catch up with tech. Biometrics should not be allowed to be used by law enforcement unless explicitly stated by the search warrant. 

Or just don't use biometrics to secure your devices as they can be easily broken into. If all they need is your face or fingerprint, they can get it.

[Monkey Dust]

12 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

The laws need to catch up with tech. Biometrics should not be allowed to be used by law enforcement unless explicitly stated by the search warrant. 

Yeah, the law needs to be very clear about what is, and isn't allowed. It's very murky across pretty much the whole western world, and governments should really provide clarity on what law enforcement can and cannot do. Unfortunately they are made up of approximately 98% tech illiterate people so they probably mess it up if they tried.  

[Brooksie359]

On 10/2/2018 at 1:26 AM, VegetableStu said:

actually:

why not just uncheck the first one?

Because you don't want the police to get into your iTunes and apps store. Good uncheck the second one too.

[EarthWormJM2]

On 10/2/2018 at 1:23 AM, Jurrunio said:

Conclusion: If you are going to commit crimes, make sure you use things generated by your consciousness (password, code, shape etc) as password than physically present stuff (face, fingerprints, pupil etc).

Too bad most people like us who are smart enough to think of these things... are also smart enough NOT to commit these crimes and make our monies elsewhere. lol.

[Phentos]

I use biometrics (fingerprint only atm) for convenience but my phone forces me to enter a pattern at random times when unlocking. I consider that good enough for me.

 

I value my privacy but I don't let it get in the way of ease of use and convenience. I don't let myself get into the situation where a cop would be questioning me and wants my phone as "evidence" for some reason or another. Call me a sheep or ignorant if you want, idc. I will admit that I don't have Facebook or IG (deleted Facebook account in 2012, never signed up for IG) if that matters, since I consider Mark Zuckerberg a sociopathic and deceitful person.