In a Virgina Beach Circuit Court ruling, a criminal defended will be required to use his fingerprint to unlock his iOS device, even though he does not have to reveal his passcode so that police can search the contents.
This is a very interesting case and sets precedence for future rulings. A person's passcode is considered knowledge, therefore he cannot be forced to reveal it under the law. The Fifth Amendment prohibits forced self-incrimination. However, the Virginia ruling considers Touch ID to be more inline with giving a DNA sample, a handwriting sample, or a physical key.
If you think of Touch ID as a form of fingerprinting, then the ruling makes sense. However, if you think of Touch ID as a form of personal encryption, the ruling violates the Fifth Amendment.
Wired wrote an interesting piece on the subject more than a year ago, when Touch ID was first introduced. The article's author, attorney Marcia Hofmann, notes that the Fifth Amendment may not apply when it comes to biometric-based fingerprint compared to memory-based passwords. The Fifth Amendment protects people from being forced to give a testimonial that might incriminate them.
"A communication is "testimonial" only when it reveals the contents of your mind. We can't invoke the privilege against self-incrimination to prevent the government from collecting biometrics like fingerprints, DNA samples, or voice exemplars. Why? Because the courts have decided that this evidence doesn't reveal anything you know. It's not testimonial."
This is the first in what will, most likely, become a common ruling. It is likely that, in a future update, Apple will implement the ability to have both biometric fingerprint scanning and password verification for true two-step authentication on iOS devices.
[Via: CultofMac]
No comments:
Post a Comment