<story><title>Judge Grants Search Warrant Forcing Woman to Unlock iPhone with Touch ID</title><url>http://www.macrumors.com/2016/05/02/judge-unlock-iphone-touch-id</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>JadeNB</author><text>You&amp;#x27;ve described the state of the law as it is, but surely that doesn&amp;#x27;t address the issue of the law as it should be.  I think that it is possible to be an intelligent but non-technical person and (EDIT: forgot the word &amp;#x27;not&amp;#x27;) realise that, all technical issues aside, the &amp;quot;something you know&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;something you have&amp;quot; parts of a password are on completely different legal footing; and I think that it is reasonable even for a technical person to wonder whether it should be so.&lt;p&gt;EDIT:  I know that complaints about downvotes are not welcome, and it&amp;#x27;s quite possible that I&amp;#x27;m wrong in what I say, but I&amp;#x27;d like to be told how rather than just downvoted!  My comment was meant to be a constructive contribution.&lt;p&gt;EDIT 2:  Wow, these many replies help a lot!  Thanks!</text></item><item><author>JoshTriplett</author><text>You can be compelled to provide fingerprints based on a warrant; I&amp;#x27;m unsurprised (and not particularly bothered) that you can be compelled to use them on your own device.  If you care about security, don&amp;#x27;t use a fingerprint alone; at most, only use it as a second factor for two-factor authentication.  More generally, don&amp;#x27;t use anything that removes your ability to make a choice under duress, in whichever direction you see fit, based on what you&amp;#x27;re protecting and what you&amp;#x27;re being threatened with.&lt;p&gt;I find the ongoing case of someone being jailed indefinitely for refusing to supply a passphrase &lt;i&gt;far&lt;/i&gt; more concerning than someone being compelled to supply a fingerprint.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>dragonwriter</author><text>&amp;quot;Something you have&amp;quot; isn&amp;#x27;t part of a password, its an alternative, non-password factor; passwords are always &amp;quot;something you know&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;There is a trend to use biometrics in place of passwords, which is a convenience feature which compromises security, even though it is often misrepresented as a security feature. (Using biometrics as a second factor helps security, but there is a big difference between &amp;quot;and&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;or&amp;quot; security measures.)</text></comment>
<story><title>Judge Grants Search Warrant Forcing Woman to Unlock iPhone with Touch ID</title><url>http://www.macrumors.com/2016/05/02/judge-unlock-iphone-touch-id</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>JadeNB</author><text>You&amp;#x27;ve described the state of the law as it is, but surely that doesn&amp;#x27;t address the issue of the law as it should be.  I think that it is possible to be an intelligent but non-technical person and (EDIT: forgot the word &amp;#x27;not&amp;#x27;) realise that, all technical issues aside, the &amp;quot;something you know&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;something you have&amp;quot; parts of a password are on completely different legal footing; and I think that it is reasonable even for a technical person to wonder whether it should be so.&lt;p&gt;EDIT:  I know that complaints about downvotes are not welcome, and it&amp;#x27;s quite possible that I&amp;#x27;m wrong in what I say, but I&amp;#x27;d like to be told how rather than just downvoted!  My comment was meant to be a constructive contribution.&lt;p&gt;EDIT 2:  Wow, these many replies help a lot!  Thanks!</text></item><item><author>JoshTriplett</author><text>You can be compelled to provide fingerprints based on a warrant; I&amp;#x27;m unsurprised (and not particularly bothered) that you can be compelled to use them on your own device.  If you care about security, don&amp;#x27;t use a fingerprint alone; at most, only use it as a second factor for two-factor authentication.  More generally, don&amp;#x27;t use anything that removes your ability to make a choice under duress, in whichever direction you see fit, based on what you&amp;#x27;re protecting and what you&amp;#x27;re being threatened with.&lt;p&gt;I find the ongoing case of someone being jailed indefinitely for refusing to supply a passphrase &lt;i&gt;far&lt;/i&gt; more concerning than someone being compelled to supply a fingerprint.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>DannyBee</author><text>&amp;quot;You&amp;#x27;ve described the state of the law as it is, but surely that doesn&amp;#x27;t address the issue of the law as it should be.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Fingerprints and other things like them are 100% non-testimonial. The fifth amendment does not cover non-testimonial evidence (because it only covers being a witness against yourself).&lt;p&gt;This has been law since the amendment was enacted, was the purpose of it, etc.&lt;p&gt;So I suspect if you want the law to be something else, your problem isn&amp;#x27;t even with the courts or judges, it&amp;#x27;s with the founders :)</text></comment>