You're arrested, and the cops hold the phone up to your face to unlock it. That's a pretty big compromise, and there's literally nothing you can do to prevent it.
If you're arrested then the cops can tie you, grab the keys and unlock your door "and there's literally nothing you can do to prevent it.".
Also some guy can just make a copy your key (pretty trivial) -- heck people can even break your door bypassing the key altogether.
Nobody's saying that home security is good. The point the parent was making is that, even with a "liveness test", compared to other biometric identification, this is a regression from fingerprint-based authentication for the iPhone.
You think they can force you to look at it ("engage" with it) but not touch the phone?
Honestly, the easiest attack would just be to ask me about my dogs. 99.99% chance I'll unlock my phone, pull up pictures and show them to you (easy grab) or just hand you the phone and let you browse through them.
In the phone case, they don't need a warrant if your authentication method is literally your face.
Depends on the country. Not everywhere, including western Europe, is this true.
For one, there are tons of loopholes, from border searches to "evidence of criminal activity" (dead easy to "prove" for a black/latino/poor person and have the court agree), and unless you can afford a good lawyer, good luck trying to prove your rights were violated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrantless_searches_in_the_Un...
http://www.npr.org/2011/05/16/136368744/in-warrantless-searc...
Not to mention that warrants are not that difficult to obtain either -- except in the movies.
If all 3 of these are true, you need a warrant (at least in the US). Doesn't matter if the keys, or in this case your face, are right there. The fact that you locked your phone with something the cop doesn't normally have is enough to require a warrant.
Detective: "Is this yours?"
_Suspect glances in the direction indicated, phone unlocks._
Detective: "Nevermind, I got it from here."
-----
At least TouchID required physical assault to get you to unlock the phone. FaceID on the other hand can be defeated with perfectly legal attention grabbing techniques.
Without a warrant: No information taken from your phone by the police is admissible.
With a warrant: A judge can compel you to unlock any device with a biometric lock, regardless of what sort of biometric lock we are discussing. Fingerprint, iris scan, or face, it simply does not matter.
Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally.
For example, if a police officer conducted an unconstitutional search of a home and obtained a key to a train station locker, and evidence of a crime came from the locker, that evidence would most likely be excluded under the fruit of the poisonous tree legal doctrine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree
Border agents operate under a different set of rules and have been searching mobile devices without a warrant or even probable cause.
However the ACLU and EFF have filed a new lawsuit challenging this behavior, now that the Supreme Court has ruled that the police cannot conduct warrantless searches of cell phones inside the US.
Doesn't (or can't) law enforcement also use parallel construction (based on information obtained without a warrant)? I believe the point about what's admissible is not as clear cut as you state in a single sentence.
And even there, would this stop a police force who routinely abuses, beats up, or even kills innocent people on the street for no or imagined provocation?
is how you work around that issue.
Keep in mind, you don't need to refuse to TouchID/FaceID forever, just for the timeout (which I do wish was configurable -- I think one hour is reasonable).
1. You're walking, with your phone in your pocket.
2. Suddenly, a cop accosts you. You don't have time to react.
3. They detain and restrain you (with handcuffs or otherwise)
4. They pat you down and find your phone
5. They hold up your phone to your face to unlock it
I know that people who've never been detained or interacted much with cops think that this is a completely unlikely situation, or easily avoidable, but I promise you it is not.
TouchID isn't great from a law enforcement perspective, but it's light years ahead of FaceID.
FaceID / TouchID are a "convenience" to be used when you are comfortable with your surroundings. Can you be caught off guard even when you are paranoid? Of course, nothing is ever guaranteed in life, except death and taxes as the saying goes!
You and I have incredibly different experiences of policing and detention if, for you, "be proactive when you're at-risk" is appreciably different from saying "don't use FaceID ever".
If you are in such high risk situations continuously that "be proactive when you're at-risk" is appreciably the same as "don't use FaceID ever", then I say you are doing something very wrong and not just incidentally being stopped for a suspicion of possibly doing something wrong.
Either way, your experience is definitely not in the 99.9999% of the population which FaceID would be sufficiently safe if it proves to be as secure as Apple implies. For you, let's hope you aren't using a numeric pin code either!
The biometric attacks being discussed here are ones that could quite plausibly be used against you in many/most districts in the US, and be totally legal for the police to use.
1. You're walking, with your phone in your pocket.
2. Suddenly, a cop accosts you. You don't have time to react.
3. They detain and restrain you (with handcuffs or otherwise)
4. They pat you down and find your phone
5. They take your hand and place it on the fingerprint sensor.
Ignoring #2 (and the terrible language you used), I don't see how my scenario is significantly more or less likely than yours.
Have you ever been detained?
As far as I'm concerned, "refuse to look at it" is useful as a prevention tactic as not having any lock at all.
I'm honestly curious, what's the difference between "I refuse to look at my phone" and "I refuse to enter my PIN" when being detained?
It's in the marketing materials for the phone, was mentioned multiple times on stage during the introduction, and is in the introduction to the whitepaper that this entire HN thread is about. So yeah - a couple of sources are available...
Yeah, I'm going to say that this is an absolutely unrealistic expectation to have of someone who's just gotten detained and is concerned about having the contents of their phone viewed by law enforcement.
"Make sure that you don't open your eyes at any point in the direction where they might be holding your phone" is completely unactionable.
As is the assumption you won't be forced to touch your finger to the phone. I can assure you, if someone wants into your phone bad enough, they will break your fingers if thats what it takes.