If you
purposely use a PIN or password to unlock your phone or computer because law
enforcement could compel you to unlock biometric locks, now is a good time to
rejoice. A judge ruled last week that biometric security is protected under the
Fifth Amendment just like passwords.
The
original provision forced both Apple and Google to add password or PIN unlocks
to Android MacOS and iOS. Android introduced a controversial random PIN login
reminder as part of Oreo to make sure ‘you are you’ and work around this
ability for law enforcement to compel you to unlock biometric security.
That is now
a thing of the past.
The ruling was
handed down by a judge from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California during a warrant request. The request, filed in Oakland wanted to
seize mobile devices as part of a larger operation and access using biometrics.
Judge Westmore ruled the request was too broad and that it was nowhere near
specific enough.
The warrant
was to enable raids on persons of interest in a Facebook extortion case. The
police had a good idea of who was behind the crimes and wanted to open up any
devices the suspects owned, including any that were locked with biometrics.
Previously,
warrants had enabled this type of unlocking without any further questions. A
suspect giving a password is regarded as doing so willingly, which is offering
testimony. Biometrics were not regarded as testimony so were previously not
included under Fifth Amendment protections so were regarded as fair game. That
changes now.
This time,
the judge said enough was enough. His ruling says that the government does not
have the right to force a suspect to incriminate themselves, including
compelling them to unlock devices using fingerprint, iris or face.
The judge
wrote that fingerprints and face scans were not the same as “physical evidence”
when considered in a context where those body features would be used to unlock
a phone.
A quote:
“If a
person cannot be compelled to provide a passcode because it is a testimonial
communication, a person cannot be compelled to provide one’s finger, thumb,
iris, face, or other biometric feature to unlock that same device.”
“The
undersigned finds that a biometric feature is analogous to the 20 nonverbal,
physiological responses elicited during a polygraph test, which are used to
determine guilt or innocence and are considered testimonial.” (Source)
Dave’s
Computers has nothing against law enforcement or their need to access devices
and the data stored on them to help investigations. However, we have always
wondered why one version of security mean more than another. It confused people
and was not an ideal situation. Now the playing field has been equalized and we
all know where we stand.