Police in Norway can now force you to unlock your phone without court warrant
translate.google.com
translate.google.com
Another trick is to simply turn off the phone. Touch ID is always initially disabled at boot.
I wish Apple would add a “duress finger” feature though.
So, wouldn't you index go her essentially be your duress finger o. IOS?
All you have to do is leave your phone at home.
The over reliance on consumer technology and social platforms by end users is unfortunate but expected. Seeing how law enforcement has become so lazy as to piggyback all of their investigatory efforts on top of it is truly stupefying...
Leaving your phone at home is equivalent to having no phone at all.
What else do you need a phone for?
(Is it a Uber or an Uber? Curiously, uber.com seems to use both.)
It's pretty nice not having a phone at all, and checking on the internet maybe once a day or less.
Because we all plan for that.
Should I elaborately qualify everything I say and such?
Even someone subject to an unfair amount of police scrutiny can estimate whether the activities they plan to engage in at a given time are higher or lower on whatever attention catching scale.
That doesn't always sound like a good piece of advice, especially if they're fishing for something to hate you for.
It's not a method of securing anything as it's just obscurity, but very few people would know about it or bother to look. It's very useful for having 'work stuff' and 'personal stuff' on one device.
Yes, undercover police is used in other countries, but there are many restrictions and limitations. The US however is pretty big on what other countries consider entrapment - especially, in fictional TV series :)
Hit police: Felony. Police hit you: Doing their job.
Break into police computer: Felony. Police break into your computer: Doing their job.
I should see what the police pay for computer jobs. Everything extremely illegal becomes legal if I am police.
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Police_Service
So it doesn't compare to the systemic issues you have in the US. Besides what are they going to do if you don't unlock...? Give you a fine?
Also unlike the US such things aren't used as evidence of guilt, not are they punished by major prison sentences..
One example I found off Google, though I've heard of others:
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/10/nokia-patent-may-be-...
That's such a shitty way of thinking about laws. Should men be allowed to beat women just because they are physically stronger, too? No, we've simply decided as a society that just because you can do something with physical force, doesn't mean you should be able to do it, and that it's illegal to do it.
And this is why I think forcing you to unlock your phone with your fingerprint, just because in theory the policemen can hold you down and force your finger on the phone, is also an immoral law and an immoral way of thinking.
Again sorry, dunno what the parallel is in Norway/EU
I couldn't read the article because there were giant Facebook, Twitter, etc logos overlayed on all the text in pure black.
Not likely. I don't think the Supreme Court has decided this sort of case yet, but some lower courts have held that a suspect can be compelled to unlock a phone. The logic is that it's equivalent to compelling a suspect to unlock a safe.
Fingerprints are like keys. They are physical things. You can be compelled to produce a key. Similarly you can be compelled to produce your finger.
Obvious I Am Not A Lawyer notification.
Edit: Maybe I'm misremembering. http://blogs.denverpost.com/crime/2012/01/05/why-criminals-s...
Even better, you can set a pin to only destroy specific data. Less chance of arousing suspicion.
Edit: I guess my case makes more sense as a question of what happens in the US in such a case, but the former question is a general one.
Even better, train a non obvious finger for your passcode. After the last application of your thumb/index finger fails and forces the passcode, turn to them, shrug your shoulders and say I don't know why it didn't work.
I'm sure someone will say that they'd just lie about which finger they set up. And sure, you can do that. But if you do it in sworn testimony, it's perjury.
Zion the latter case, did you comply or not? Did you use the wrong finger or not? Did you intentionally resist or did the sensor fail to work properly/efficiently?
Those are extremely difficult things to prove layer in court.
Or consider fingerprinting. What would happen if one were to refuse getting fingerprinted and made trouble? Are police allowed to use force in that case?
But make no mistake, this is all about getting unfettered access to everything bit of data they can without a warrant. They saw an easy opening to circumvent existing laws and they jumped for it.
That makes more sense...
Similar to how the police can require you to unlock the trunk of your car. It's a physical key.
Don't secure your phone with biometrics in Norway.
Or to do like I, don't have cell phone. You can write notes on paper, even in code if you need to I suppose. Confuse thieves (including police, which count as thieves too in this case) by writing very confusing stuff.
But you'd always want the biometric verification last, since it provides a powerful clue about who can authenticate all the other layers of security on a mobile device.
While this is true, I can't help but to feel that the Hacker News crowd tends of see only one side of this issue.
They are not asking smartphone companies to introduce backdoors in their products. They are just trying to make sure that police has the right resources to be able to solve investigations.
To be honest, this sounds reasonable to some extent. When someone gets questioned by the police, you expect the person to tell the truth. If the police gets a hint that your smartphone might have significant evidence of some sort of crime, isn't it reasonable to comply with the request?
It's not like they are asking to access it remotely from anywhere at anytime.
Sure, with a warrant.
Which the police can and have been able to do with a search warrant. Courts in various parts of the world have spoken here: the smartphone is unlike other personal effects, in that it may provide access to a historically unprecedented vault of personal information about its owner. The space for police abuse here is vast, and using courts as a check against police power is a common solution.
But for a smartphone, I think it works a little bit differently. Any evidence that you might have on your smartphone can be quickly destroyed without leaving any traces. Even if a search warrant takes 5 minutes to be issued, by the time it arrives to the police it will be completely pointless, since you were able to press delete on all your photos during those 5 minutes.
I don't understand the point you're trying to make.
Police should not expect anything. Even if you tell the truth, police could still build a story so that it will make you guilty of something. Not because police are evil, but because investigation is not easy, so any interaction with the police is a great danger for any person, especially the honest ones since they are often more naive and less equipped to deal with the police.
A person does not have to testify against oneself. This principle stands in the USA and Finland for sure (that I know of), I'd expect it to stand in Norway as well.
We could apply the same thing to your smartphone: if you were taking pictures of some view and you happened to catch something on camera which you didn't reveal to the police, wouldn't that be obstruction of justice as well?
And for that to carry any weight, the police should have to show that you had that information in the first place. If they knew you were filming a crime and you said you saw nothing, that should not be obstruction. It's just suspicious. It should be grounds for a warrant, which could be used to establish that you had captured the evidence and lied. Then it's obstruction.
As a third party witness it is different, at least in Norway.
> In general, anyone is required to appear before the courts and give testimony, except dictated otherwise by the law
Nonetheless:
> §123: A witness may refuse to answer questions leading to self-incrimination either for the witness itself, or for anyone related to the witness as described by §122
What? No, I expect them to invoke the 5th and shut up.
Even in a America, despite what we see in the news, many Americans are quite nice and decent people that want to help.
If the police is investigating a crime in your neighborhood and asks you if you heard anything, or saw anyone suspicious. Was the neighbors door open when you came home last night? what time was that? Would you refuse to answer?
Do you not want the burglar or murderer to be caught?
I know the police in the US is too confrontational, you need to fix that so that people can talk to the police.
Some - many, most? - of the people they will be questioning are completely innocent of a crime.
Imagine you are an innocent bystander in some political event and a group of policemen are holding you down while one of them tears your eyelids open with his fingers and forces your phone against your eye.
Does that sound reasonable to you?
And who gets to make this decision, some policeman, on the spot, in a busy crowd, on a bad day when he's been dealing with rioters? For any reason he likes?
This is just opening up a new avenue for police brutality and physical intimidation of minorities.
Look at stop and search in the US and how it is used (specifically, who it is used against), and it is far less invasive than this.
I think policemen should be standing up to oppose this and require the use of a court warrant, as is the current standard. I wonder how many will.
If they can establish you had the means, motive and opportunity, why look for anyone else. Your device can put you close enough to a crime scene that you become the convenient person to convict.