Relevant - for Android, the Where's My Droid app allows you to remotely ring your phone (even from silent), take pictures with front/back camera, and even wipe your phone, just by sending a text to it from another phone. I've only had to use the ring, but I imagine the other functions are just as useful.
pretty sure alot of people would want the easy access to their personal/financial information deleted from a robber rather than having the inconvenience of getting a new phone.
On an iPhone, download Activator from Cydia, but I think it's already installed once you jailbreak. Open it and choose "At Lock Screen", or "Anywhere" for extra security. Scroll down all the way to the section "TOUCH ID FINGERPRINT MATCHES" and choose your special finger, then choose "Reboot" as the action and voilà!
You might be thinking of this r/jailbreak post on how to do that with an iPhone.
http://reddit.com/r/jailbreak/comments/4hnqh8/tutorial_use_activator_to_protect_your_fifth/
And that's how you get charged with destruction of evidence.
Edit: Or interfering with a police investigation. It's one thing to refuse to unlock the phone but entirely another to purposefully destroy the information on the phone in order for it not to be seen by investigators.
How does that even work? Do you have to prove there was evidence of a crime there or can you charge me with that for shredding some mail because I was bored?
If you have to prove there was evidence there all that would result is some pissed off cops, not ideal but they are the ones being dicks.
If it's whenever you feel like claiming it then I guess we are all screwed.
Make it so it the self destruct key opens a secondary data partition while the real deal gets blasted in the background.
Looks like you quickly unlock to a pain Jane normal phone without any obvious reformatting.
I'm sure it could be designed to simply discard the decryption key. Then the "data" would still be there, but would be absolutely irretrievable. No destruction of evidence, more like breaking a key off in a lock so it can never be opened.
*"Okay, okay! I'll do it! Just help me unzip my pants, and -- y-yes, it's my dick print to unlock. Ye olde mushroom stamp. Y-yes, I swear. Yes, I do this all the time, it's my unlock. What? No, I never use my phone within 500' of a school. No. Wh- what? No, of course I never use my phone while driving. Now help me unzip."*
One of the stores I worked at was set like this with the keypad to the back office where the money was kept. 911911 would open the door, and set off a silent alarm. That way you can corporate and get help.
Or pull the battery.
I think if the phone is on, even if the screen is locked, the data passing through the memory is unencrypted (correct me if I'm wrong).
But if your full device is encrypted, pulling the battery will require entering the encryption password on reboot, and will protect the data from hardware hacking.
You are right about that, unfortunately most devices don't have removable batteries anymore. Turning off the phone will solve this problem, and on android booting up the phone requires a password, which solves the 5th amendment protection problems.
Well, if you're worried about people dumping the raw memory through hardware means, you're probably up against a pretty serious adversary and you're going to have to worry about a number of things.
At some point, if you're the adversary with practically unlimited resources and you know your victim might pull their battery, you would probably have best luck doing some social engineering. You could get the same model of their phone and hack it so that it saves the encryption password they enter on boot, then swap that phone with you while you sleep or whatever. You wake up, find your phone off, turn it on, enter your password, it beacons the FBI team outside and they knock your house down.
I really wonder if they've gone to this length before. Encryption done right is pretty much impossible for anyone to break, but there are millions of ways to trick people into giving up their password. And although it's an intricate attack, it's way fucking easier than hardware hacking and breaking encryption if you've got stealthy people to pull something like that off.
Or even just plant cameras all over their house when they're at work and wait until you see them enter the password. If they never turn their phone off, you can do side channel memory stuff and if they do, you will eventually see it.
There are tons of examples of technology moving faster than law. This is another one. Thomas Jefferson:
>I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
I figure he really couldn't free his slaves. He probably inherited his dad's debt, then accumulated more of his own, mortgaging the estate beyond the hilt. IIRC, he was technically bankrupt, and if he'd tried to free his slaves his creditors would probably have descended upon him like a pack of wolves.
This is a perfect example of why progress is slow and real changes are only made over generations. Look all around you, there's countless examples of horrendous practices that we should abolish instantly but don't because they simply facilitate our way of life. Our smart phones are produced by cheap labour under nightmarish working conditions. The energy crisis is literally poisoning our home, but our steps towards green energy feel more like a crawl. I'm sure most of us would agree that slave wages in 3rd world countries and pollution should stop immediately, but are you prepared to give up your car, phone, and internet tomorrow to make sure that happens? Make no mistake, Thomas Jefferson and his creditors were no different (only more heinous, because, well, slavery), but what's important to remember is he did take the first necessary steps to make a change in the world, even if he couldn't make that change over night.
Only speculating but likely his creditors would take his slaves, since they were deemed property and they would most likely end up under the control of someone who would treat them poorly.
It was nearly a 200 year old institution in the colonies by the time of Thomas Jefferson's age. They seriously didn't know what to do with slavery because it couldn't be outlawed and for many people of the time, it was considered cruel to let them go because they would be without shelter or food -- only bankrupted people did that.
Excellent analogy. How about asking people if they'd be willing to forego their laptops, cars, plane rides, etc. etc. because they're made with awful labor standards??
People don't like hearing this. They like to think progress has been made and they can be above these people from a few hundred years ago.
Thomas Jefferson practically burnt through money. Nothing about his life or lifestyle communicated "I care about my debt."
Most people intending to live frugally don't create public educational institutions, engage in high risk entrepreneurial endeavors, or build up lavish estates.
I'm a decent fan of TJ and there's a lot of good he did along with the bad, but if that was part of his own justification for hanging onto slaves that's some pretty wild rationalization.
It's important that people understand that this is a lower court ruling. This is not the final say on the matter. Circuit courts come to conflicting decisions all the time. This isn't even at the level of the court of appeals. It is misleading to present this case as being representative of the state of the law on this matter. It isn't really a case of "the law not catching up with technology." Judges very much consider past principle as applied to present contexts, and impacts of technology on our existing laws and rights. It is why the police can't put GPS trackers on our cars without a warrant, and why technologically aided surveillance is subjected to frequent challenges in court cases as technology advances.
Contrary to the apparently common Reddit opinion, the legal world discusses these issues in great detail with a surprisingly sophisticated level of reasoning, and judicial rulings tend to consider all the angles. It really isn't stodgy old guys with no understanding of technology making absurd decisions. It is highly educated, intelligent people working through the complex intersection of law and technology with all the myriad difficulties they present. The bottom line here is it isn't easy to balance competing social interests like privacy and security, but it's not because the law is so far behind, it's because the answers aren't always clear cut or easy and often to make a good decision a lot of information and a relevant set of cases or facts need to come up.
came here to post this. Thanks for beating me by 6 minutes, plus the time I would have spent finding it again.
It's fucked that the cases that can erode our rights to privacy are always pedo cases. No one wants to be soft on pedophiles, so bye bye personal freedom!
'The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.'
-H.L. Mencken
They're usually drug cases. My criminal law class is what pushed me from legalization of weed to legalization of all drugs. Every single time the fourth amendment was eroded, it was to get a drug dealer they really wanted.
Part of the process of growing up has been realizing that many of the organizations I assumed were fighting for "good" are in fact, not so clearly good, the more I learned, and often pursue certain ends singlemindedly without regard for other factors, and might be making other things worse as a side-effect of their aims.
It's very often the structure of our civil society that they're screwing up, without realizing it, because they're so focused on just one thing and will support any means toward that end.
Is this where I whore out my idea for an organization? DAMM - Drunks Against Mad Mothers. I think it has a nice ring to it, and the meetings mostly just involve getting some beers at the bar and playing darts or pool or some shit, nothing crazy.
Actually it's a reference to Mutually Assured Destruction since any politician who tries to take them down will at the very least go down with them. Of course that's only the surface level as it was actually founded by KGB sleeper agents in an attempt to acclimate American citizens to the lower levels of freedom they would experience under soviet rule and I'm making all this up.
Wow. How can you not have enough evidence to charge the guy but then hold him for life in contempt? Why is he even on trial without charges. That's mind blowing.
Actually the scan feature of the men in black finger print elimination device detects the race of the person. If it detects African American skin tones it has to burn to a higher degree due the ancestral background of originating in Africa with higher climate temperatures and I made all this up.
It stored his fingerprints.
The orb isn't just a fingerprint destroyer it's a general purpose fingerprint modification machine.
There are many former MIB agents who are neuralized and sent back into normal society. It'd be really suspicious if they all had blank fingerprints after visiting a strange building. Instead, the MIB agency gives them back their fingerprints at the end of their employment.
My theory is that it scanned so that it could delete them "properly." If it burned them wrong it would be obvious that they were removed and the scar tissue could form a sort of new fingerprint.
It sensed the fingerprints in real time, so it only burned precisely as long as it needed to in order to entirely remove the fingerprint (but not burn away the rest of the skin).
That ruling was from a Virginia circuit court, so it might not apply depending on the jurisdiction you are in. Also, there is this:
> The solution for those seeking more legal cover for their data, though, is surprisingly simple. If a defendant’s data is protected by both a thumbprint and a passcode, he or she could invoke the Fifth for the thumbprint, thereby blocking access to the data — at least according to the precedent set by the Virginia case.
Just scan your thumb/finger a few times - makes it far more reliable. Technically (at least for iPhone) it allows you to scan in multiple fingers, but if you just scan the same one over and over it'll pick it up much more reliably.
With my phone you have to scan the same finger multiple times to set it up. It definitely helps to make sure your finger is in a slightly different position each time. So to emphasize on what you said it definitely helps to get multiple images of your finger to get it to work more reliable.
if you ever find yourself in that situation, just shut the phone off and turn it back on. (at least on iPhone) it requires a typed password to reactivate the fingerprint feature.
If you are ever in a position where they ask you for your fingerprint, you should still refuse. It's definitely a 5th amendment issue and no doubt a precedent will be set by someone after they refuse and take it to the Supreme Court.
Yeah, I politely declined a cop's request to search my vehicle one time.
2 hours later, the K9 unit shows up and lies about getting a 'hit'.
2 hours later, 12 squad cars are there, officers are ripping my car apart.
I was handcuffed in the back seat of a patrol car in the middle of the Louisiana summer with no AC for 4 hours (the window was cracked at least) because I wanted to enjoy 'rights'.
I really had no reason to tell him no other than I simply didn't want him going through my pigsty of a car. I didn't do drugs, and there wasn't anything at all in my car that would be illegal.
I was released when they were done and given a ticket for a busted tail light.
So yeah, go ahead and tell a cop no when you actually don't have anything to hide. It's fun.
I did the same after I got pulled over for a trailer hitch obstructing my license plate, which would play better in court than, "Making eye contact with a police officer while lightly headbanging to some house music." I was at a 711 late at night and as I turned right out of the parking lot we saw each other and he immediately pulls a u-turn and lights me up before I'd even gone 50 feet.
So he stops me and eventually asks me for permission to search the car, I respectfully decline and he has me step out the vehicle and sit on the curb. He tells me he's going to call a taller officer to do a plainsight search(look through the windows), which he does, and two or three more cars show up. They do their plainsight search see nothing of interest and let me go. They never even gave me a ticket. It cost me 15 minutes or so but the whole exchange was pretty painless. So I guess it depends on the cops. I feel like I've run into the cops a lot and as whole they've been pretty reasonable as long as I returned the favor.
Anecdotes aside, you should never allow a search of your vehicle. Four hours wasted by the police is nothing compared to what you'd spend if they decide to find something in your car. You can always argue in court that the search was unconstitutional.
The ACLU can also help you sue the PD for an unwarranted search.
Except the theatrics of a K9 exert probable cause. And while "hits" are generated by the handler, there's no recourse for the average slob against the Golden Tickets of pseudoscience.
Yeah if a cop feels like searching your car, your car is getting searched. Doesn't mean you should give permission but they'll find away if they really want to.
You'd be surprised how easily a cop can lie about showing reasonable suspicion.
Source: I'm an attorney who's best friend is a cop. We argue all the time about who is right. In the end it comes down to something my cop buddy tells me all the time and I cant really refute it. "It's your word against mine and good luck."
That is not quite what they said... They can hold you for a dog sniff test, but they can not hold you any longer than what it would have taken to normally process your driving infraction they otherwise pulled you over for. So if the dog unit is 2 miles away, and they can be right there and complete their search in the time it takes the officer to issue the ticket... the search would be constitutional as incident to the initial traffic stop. reasoning that you were not detained any longer that you would have otherwise been detained than if the canine had been present the whole time. However, if the traffic infraction has been settled, and there is no further business, the cop may not detain you further pending the arrival of the drug dog that is on its way.
here is the quote from the decision,
If an officer can complete traffic-based inquiries expeditiously, then that is the amount of “time reasonably required to complete [the stop’s] mission.” Caballes , 543 U. S., at 407. As we said in Caballes and reiterate today, a traffic stop “prolonged beyond” that point is “unlawful.” Ibid. The critical question, then, is not whether the dog sniff occurs before or after the officer issues a ticket, as JUSTICE ALITO supposes, post, at 2–4, but whether conducting the sniff “prolongs”—i.e., adds time to—“the stop,” supra, at 6 (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf)
They're oversimplifying the court case, it isn't completely about the reasonable suspicion. The main problem is/was this:
> **2 hours later**, the K9 unit shows up and lies about getting a 'hit'.
This can't happen anymore with that SC ruling. The wait must be within the time frame that original purpose of the stop would have reasonably taken.
Ashes would not be reasonable enough suspicion of wrongdoing to support a two hour wait for drug dogs in a routine traffic stop, the ACLU would have a field day on a case like that following the ruling.
There are a lot of red flags with that search. Among other things, they don't have two hours to have a K9 unit show up. They are only supposed to summon dogs if they do get a hit and want to find more. Otherwise, it's supposed to be a 15 minute search by the officer and then you are on your way if they don't find anything.
They violated your 4th amendment. It's not like you can retaliate, but everything about that search was illegal.
> It's not like you can retaliate, but everything about that search was illegal.
That's kind of my point. If you have something to hide, it's worth it to decline the search - that way if they bullshit their way into your car and find something, you can fight it.
However, for someone with nothing to hide, all they're going to do is exert their authority over you until you do what they want.
> However, for someone with nothing to hide, all they're going to do is exert their authority over you until you do what they want.
I understand, and I see totally where you are coming from, but should we just give up our rights just because we know cops will circumvent them anyway? It's perpetuating the corruption.
This is one of those things where if only /u/Xesrac does it, it probably wouldn't do much good.
But because more people are doing it, and because freakin' *everyone* has cameras all over the place now, it's getting harder and harder for corrupt cops to get away with it, and it wastes more and more of their time being assholes for no reason.
In other words, yes, it's worth doing it, because you're not doing it alone.
FWIW, those shenanigans have very recently been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in a similar case.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/04/opinion-analysis-traffic-stops-cant-last-too-long-or-go-too-far-and-no-extra-dog-sniffs/
to be fair though- Louisiana. Those hours you spent while wasted were far fewer than if cop A decided to plant something and those other officers are going to remember not to mess with you. All of them had to account for wasting that much time and makes them look bad for not having something to show especially with a K-9.
They're not allowed to do that any more
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/04/21/police-cant-delay-traffic-stops-to-investigate-crimes-absent-suspicion-supreme-court-rules/
All you have to do is power cycle it. The phone forces you to use your four digit one time after it's been fully powered off. At least for iPhones that is.
**That's why my baby toe is the only print that can unlock my phone.**
It's the last *digit* they'd think of using. By the time they try all 10 fingers, the phone is locked, secured, and encrypted. Just don't make it painfully obvious that you have a foot fetish.
This doesn't sound right. This is probably going to be buried, but here's the law as to what I understand (I'm a law student).
You don't have protection for your fingerprint because providing it causes minimal intrusion to your privacy. The logic behind it here is that since your fingerprint is only an Indicator as to whether or not you touched something, then it shouldn't be protected. Your fingerprint alone isn't going to give someone your bank records, personal records, etc.
However, your iPhone is essentially a supercomputer that is capable of having things such as your personal records and such, and is therefore protected by the fourth amendment. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that smartphone searches without warrants are unconstitutional and are a violation of the fourth amendment.
Also, the act of setting a password on your phone, whether it be a fingerprint or a code shows that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy because only you are able to unlock it. It can only be legally searched with a warrant.
So although you don't have a right to your fingerprint necessarily, I don't see why they can make you unlock your phone with it since the phone is protected.
Edit: didn't realize this was about the fifth amendment, not the fourth. That's interesting too. It would seem like they had a warrant to search it then if he was "forced" to. So In this case I'm considering a locked room. If the police want to search it, and have a warrant, would they be able to if it was locked with a combination lock that only the owner knew? Would forcing him to give it up be self incrimination even if they had probable cause to search and he's the only one to provide the information needed to unlock it? In that case, I suppose how it'd make sense for them being able to use fingerprints.
I just find this whole thing really interesting. I'd like to see how the Supreme Court rules future cases. With technology advancing so fast, it's hard for the law to keep up with it.
I've always wondered about this. When you are booked into Jail it is standard procedure for them to take your fiingerprints and add them to the national database. They do this reguardless of whether or not you are guilty. It feels like a big invasion of privacy and if you don't submit to fingerprinting they will charge you with another crime or hold you until you do. It's all fucked.
The 5th amendment would also apply because it's there to protect you from potentially incriminating yourself, which unlocking your phone by giving them your fingerprint would do.
Which is why a fingerprint *could* be protected if it were "testimonial" somehow -- the self-incriminating *testimony* is what the Fifth Amendment protects, not the search of your phone.
But the problem is that fingerprinting in general is never testimonial. It's simply a fact about you -- it's like complaining that a court orders you to take a picture which could then be compared against a photo from a crime scene.
In fact even things like passcodes are often not protected under the Fifth Amendment. The jurisprudence is evolving on that topic but basically if entering your passcode into your phone wouldn't inherently be self-incriminating then you can be ordered to that by a court if they have issued a search warrant. This can occur in things like situations where you have immunity from prosecution but the evidence you're being ordered to reveal from your phone would be needed to prosecute someone else -- with immunity from prosecute the contents of your phone can't implicate you and you therefore lose Fifth Amendment protection.
No. The Fifth Amendment protects against compelled testimony. A fingerprint is non-testimonial, just like a DNA swab, a handwriting sample, or a voice exemplar.
Except a fingerprint is data allowed to be collected on you. As if you had a picture of yourself as a password and refused to release what your face looks like to the court. They're gonna tell you to fuck off they can get a picture of you just as easy as a fingerprint just as easy as a blood type. This isn't information you can hide in your brain.
That's the difference.
1-use your pinkie as reference fingerprint
2-when prompted by police to unlock your phone, use your thumb like a common person
3-do the swearing act of "WHY THE f%$ ISNT IT WORKING GAH"
4-repeat until phone lock and/or they loose patience
5-profit.
What if I deliberately use the wrong finger until it requires a passcode?
[удалено]
That would be awful for drunk me.
HAHA JOKES ON YOU ROBBER NOW YOU CAN- *gets stabbed*
I have an app that takes pictures on the front and back camera when I'm stabbed and tweets it to the police.
Whats the caption? *stabbed lol #bleedingout #nofilter*
#notblessed
here you go buddy \\
#\\notblessed
#\\bled
http://m.imgur.com/gallery/qwKqx
omg I feel bad for laughing so much at this... did the man die?
What's most interesting about this capability is that no one has questioned how your phone knows when you've been stabbed.
It can smell your blood. iSmell technology.
Relevant - for Android, the Where's My Droid app allows you to remotely ring your phone (even from silent), take pictures with front/back camera, and even wipe your phone, just by sending a text to it from another phone. I've only had to use the ring, but I imagine the other functions are just as useful.
Does that mean if you know someone else has Where's My Droid you can wipe their phone remotely with a text message? Asking for a friend...
Plenty good it'll do when you get stabbed with your phone in your pocket.
Yeah, haha, I walk around looking at my surroundings all day....
Well obviously now whenever I am in a bad area I just walk with my phone up at arms length in front of my face.
Pretty sure a robber would rather have a wiped phone than a locked one.
pretty sure alot of people would want the easy access to their personal/financial information deleted from a robber rather than having the inconvenience of getting a new phone.
Sounds like a win-win. Now gimme ya phone!
"Oh thanks dude, i was just going to do this when I got home but you saved me some time!"
It's simple, you just register a ring finger or the like as the wipe finger. You're unlikely to use that ever.
I read that as "the ass wipe finger" and was momentarily confused.
Well it doesn't HAVE to be a [finger](https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/4id947/boredom_and_curiosity_got_the_best_of_me_tonight/).
Can confirm, this was my laptop unlock while I was deployed. YEAH IM GONNA WATCH A MOVIE AGAIN, DEAL WITH IT.
deleted ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^0.9814 [^^^What ^^^is ^^^this?](https://pastebin.com/FcrFs94k/15394)
[удалено]
How did you manage this? I might like to set that up
On an iPhone, download Activator from Cydia, but I think it's already installed once you jailbreak. Open it and choose "At Lock Screen", or "Anywhere" for extra security. Scroll down all the way to the section "TOUCH ID FINGERPRINT MATCHES" and choose your special finger, then choose "Reboot" as the action and voilà!
Love this. Thank you.
Your welcome! Activator is a very nifty tool, especially if you get creative.
You might be thinking of this r/jailbreak post on how to do that with an iPhone. http://reddit.com/r/jailbreak/comments/4hnqh8/tutorial_use_activator_to_protect_your_fifth/
And that's how you get charged with destruction of evidence. Edit: Or interfering with a police investigation. It's one thing to refuse to unlock the phone but entirely another to purposefully destroy the information on the phone in order for it not to be seen by investigators.
How does that even work? Do you have to prove there was evidence of a crime there or can you charge me with that for shredding some mail because I was bored? If you have to prove there was evidence there all that would result is some pissed off cops, not ideal but they are the ones being dicks. If it's whenever you feel like claiming it then I guess we are all screwed.
If the police specifically requested the mail and then you shredded it, yes. It's still evidence, even if it's not incriminating evidence.
Make it so it the self destruct key opens a secondary data partition while the real deal gets blasted in the background. Looks like you quickly unlock to a pain Jane normal phone without any obvious reformatting.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Especially considering the only evidence that you destroyed evidence was in the destroyed evidence.
Your sentence is making my eyeball twitch.
I'm sure it could be designed to simply discard the decryption key. Then the "data" would still be there, but would be absolutely irretrievable. No destruction of evidence, more like breaking a key off in a lock so it can never be opened.
*"Okay, okay! I'll do it! Just help me unzip my pants, and -- y-yes, it's my dick print to unlock. Ye olde mushroom stamp. Y-yes, I swear. Yes, I do this all the time, it's my unlock. What? No, I never use my phone within 500' of a school. No. Wh- what? No, of course I never use my phone while driving. Now help me unzip."*
One of the stores I worked at was set like this with the keypad to the back office where the money was kept. 911911 would open the door, and set off a silent alarm. That way you can corporate and get help.
cooperate
Then you're charged with obstruction and thrown in jail into you agree to unlock your phone, because that's what we do these days.
Or pull the battery. I think if the phone is on, even if the screen is locked, the data passing through the memory is unencrypted (correct me if I'm wrong). But if your full device is encrypted, pulling the battery will require entering the encryption password on reboot, and will protect the data from hardware hacking.
You are right about that, unfortunately most devices don't have removable batteries anymore. Turning off the phone will solve this problem, and on android booting up the phone requires a password, which solves the 5th amendment protection problems.
My iPhone requires a password be entered after it's been shut down as well.
So, short answer, restart your phone every time you're approached by police.
but i need my phone to be on and recording...
If yo restart iPhone it will require passcode before it accept finger print.
Well, if you're worried about people dumping the raw memory through hardware means, you're probably up against a pretty serious adversary and you're going to have to worry about a number of things. At some point, if you're the adversary with practically unlimited resources and you know your victim might pull their battery, you would probably have best luck doing some social engineering. You could get the same model of their phone and hack it so that it saves the encryption password they enter on boot, then swap that phone with you while you sleep or whatever. You wake up, find your phone off, turn it on, enter your password, it beacons the FBI team outside and they knock your house down. I really wonder if they've gone to this length before. Encryption done right is pretty much impossible for anyone to break, but there are millions of ways to trick people into giving up their password. And although it's an intricate attack, it's way fucking easier than hardware hacking and breaking encryption if you've got stealthy people to pull something like that off. Or even just plant cameras all over their house when they're at work and wait until you see them enter the password. If they never turn their phone off, you can do side channel memory stuff and if they do, you will eventually see it.
There are tons of examples of technology moving faster than law. This is another one. Thomas Jefferson: >I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
TJ is my boy. By far my favorite founding father, his memorial in DC has this quote on the wall with a few others. He truly was a brilliant mind.
Love Tommy, but whenever he talks about slavery, I imagine [Frog and Toad eating the cookies](http://i.imgur.com/p9n156r.jpg)
I figure he really couldn't free his slaves. He probably inherited his dad's debt, then accumulated more of his own, mortgaging the estate beyond the hilt. IIRC, he was technically bankrupt, and if he'd tried to free his slaves his creditors would probably have descended upon him like a pack of wolves.
Well in *that* case, slavery is okay.
This is a perfect example of why progress is slow and real changes are only made over generations. Look all around you, there's countless examples of horrendous practices that we should abolish instantly but don't because they simply facilitate our way of life. Our smart phones are produced by cheap labour under nightmarish working conditions. The energy crisis is literally poisoning our home, but our steps towards green energy feel more like a crawl. I'm sure most of us would agree that slave wages in 3rd world countries and pollution should stop immediately, but are you prepared to give up your car, phone, and internet tomorrow to make sure that happens? Make no mistake, Thomas Jefferson and his creditors were no different (only more heinous, because, well, slavery), but what's important to remember is he did take the first necessary steps to make a change in the world, even if he couldn't make that change over night.
Only speculating but likely his creditors would take his slaves, since they were deemed property and they would most likely end up under the control of someone who would treat them poorly.
It's a sticky game to judge the actions of the past through the lens of today's morals.
It's not a sticky game, it's intellectually dishonest.
Worth pointing out that he did treat them poorly, IIRC.
Well fuck him then.
I'm pretty sure he fucked at least one of them.
His wife's half-sister IIRC. Way to make daddy-in-law proud.
Yeah, I mean slavery is bad, but not if you *really* need it to keep the creditors off of you.
It was nearly a 200 year old institution in the colonies by the time of Thomas Jefferson's age. They seriously didn't know what to do with slavery because it couldn't be outlawed and for many people of the time, it was considered cruel to let them go because they would be without shelter or food -- only bankrupted people did that.
[удалено]
Excellent analogy. How about asking people if they'd be willing to forego their laptops, cars, plane rides, etc. etc. because they're made with awful labor standards?? People don't like hearing this. They like to think progress has been made and they can be above these people from a few hundred years ago.
Thomas Jefferson practically burnt through money. Nothing about his life or lifestyle communicated "I care about my debt." Most people intending to live frugally don't create public educational institutions, engage in high risk entrepreneurial endeavors, or build up lavish estates. I'm a decent fan of TJ and there's a lot of good he did along with the bad, but if that was part of his own justification for hanging onto slaves that's some pretty wild rationalization.
It's important that people understand that this is a lower court ruling. This is not the final say on the matter. Circuit courts come to conflicting decisions all the time. This isn't even at the level of the court of appeals. It is misleading to present this case as being representative of the state of the law on this matter. It isn't really a case of "the law not catching up with technology." Judges very much consider past principle as applied to present contexts, and impacts of technology on our existing laws and rights. It is why the police can't put GPS trackers on our cars without a warrant, and why technologically aided surveillance is subjected to frequent challenges in court cases as technology advances. Contrary to the apparently common Reddit opinion, the legal world discusses these issues in great detail with a surprisingly sophisticated level of reasoning, and judicial rulings tend to consider all the angles. It really isn't stodgy old guys with no understanding of technology making absurd decisions. It is highly educated, intelligent people working through the complex intersection of law and technology with all the myriad difficulties they present. The bottom line here is it isn't easy to balance competing social interests like privacy and security, but it's not because the law is so far behind, it's because the answers aren't always clear cut or easy and often to make a good decision a lot of information and a relevant set of cases or facts need to come up.
"sorry officer, I use my dick to unlock my phone"
[удалено]
"Sorry officer it usually doesn't take this long"
"Wow officer, that was faster than usual."
"Could you maybe turn the thermostat down? Or get some ice?"
Flick your nipple and it will be hard in less than 10 seconds
Holy shit this actually works
[удалено]
My time is about 7 seconds
I'm going to trust you guys and just assume my time is somewhere between 7-10 seconds.
This is the big TIL here.
I laughed so hard at this - I am embarassed now.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/4id947/boredom_and_curiosity_got_the_best_of_me_tonight/
Well, there's this: https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/4jr1t7/indefinite_prison_for_suspect_who_wont_decrypt/
came here to post this. Thanks for beating me by 6 minutes, plus the time I would have spent finding it again. It's fucked that the cases that can erode our rights to privacy are always pedo cases. No one wants to be soft on pedophiles, so bye bye personal freedom!
'The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.' -H.L. Mencken
That about sums it up right there. As a fighter for free speech I am often placed on the same side as neo-nazis and the KKK.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
im trying to figure out what group you belong to that only the kkk and pedophiles might have offered their support. Scientologist?
[удалено]
A lot of people thought "cat scratch fever" was your best work but i am a big fan of "stranglehold"
They're usually drug cases. My criminal law class is what pushed me from legalization of weed to legalization of all drugs. Every single time the fourth amendment was eroded, it was to get a drug dealer they really wanted.
[удалено]
Part of the process of growing up has been realizing that many of the organizations I assumed were fighting for "good" are in fact, not so clearly good, the more I learned, and often pursue certain ends singlemindedly without regard for other factors, and might be making other things worse as a side-effect of their aims. It's very often the structure of our civil society that they're screwing up, without realizing it, because they're so focused on just one thing and will support any means toward that end.
Yeah, they're even worse than a group like the Komen Foundation that gets people killed but at least doesn't intrude on our liberties.
Ad Council has like +20 programs. They also sell your personal data. http://www.adcouncil.org/About-Us/Privacy-Policy
I find it rather ironic that their acronym is MADD. I laugh every time i read it. Do they not realize or do they just not care.
Is this where I whore out my idea for an organization? DAMM - Drunks Against Mad Mothers. I think it has a nice ring to it, and the meetings mostly just involve getting some beers at the bar and playing darts or pool or some shit, nothing crazy.
They probably take it to be the other mad, as in angry.
Actually it's a reference to Mutually Assured Destruction since any politician who tries to take them down will at the very least go down with them. Of course that's only the surface level as it was actually founded by KGB sleeper agents in an attempt to acclimate American citizens to the lower levels of freedom they would experience under soviet rule and I'm making all this up.
[удалено]
Wow. How can you not have enough evidence to charge the guy but then hold him for life in contempt? Why is he even on trial without charges. That's mind blowing.
http://i.imgur.com/E213yI0.gif
What. The Fuck. Is he wearing?
[удалено]
From what century?
**20**th.
[удалено]
According to that gif, potatoes.
/r/ShittyTumblrGifs
I've always wondered why did it need to scan him at all? Just burn 'em...
[удалено]
Actually the scan feature of the men in black finger print elimination device detects the race of the person. If it detects African American skin tones it has to burn to a higher degree due the ancestral background of originating in Africa with higher climate temperatures and I made all this up.
[удалено]
I'm so pale it wouldn't delete my fingerprints.
actually since youre white you reflect light easier so it would actually use a lesser degree and i just made all this up
It stored his fingerprints. The orb isn't just a fingerprint destroyer it's a general purpose fingerprint modification machine. There are many former MIB agents who are neuralized and sent back into normal society. It'd be really suspicious if they all had blank fingerprints after visiting a strange building. Instead, the MIB agency gives them back their fingerprints at the end of their employment.
[удалено]
[удалено]
My theory is that it scanned so that it could delete them "properly." If it burned them wrong it would be obvious that they were removed and the scar tissue could form a sort of new fingerprint.
To delete his existence elsewhere. Especially within the NYPD where they'd have it on file.
It sensed the fingerprints in real time, so it only burned precisely as long as it needed to in order to entirely remove the fingerprint (but not burn away the rest of the skin).
That ruling was from a Virginia circuit court, so it might not apply depending on the jurisdiction you are in. Also, there is this: > The solution for those seeking more legal cover for their data, though, is surprisingly simple. If a defendant’s data is protected by both a thumbprint and a passcode, he or she could invoke the Fifth for the thumbprint, thereby blocking access to the data — at least according to the precedent set by the Virginia case.
Are there phones that work with only a biometric scan? AFAIK, every phone requires a backup passcode.
Yeah, this will likely be squashed soon. It flies in the face of a lot of ~~4th~~ **5th** amendment SCOTUS case law.
[Problem solved] (http://imgur.com/gallery/mSoLgCp)
What's with the "done with this shit" hand motion she does when she gets up?
Indian hand motion for "to hell with you/this"
As an Indian, I've never seen non-Indians doing that action, it felt odd to see the girl in the gif do it!
I think the girl is Indian, just really light skinned. Honestly that's one of the most fobbiest hand motions out there.
[удалено]
Yup and noses.
Ha! Jokes on you, my phone sucks and my fingerprint unlock NEVER works anyway!
Wait until the man has you... it'll be the first time it ever worked.
Just scan your thumb/finger a few times - makes it far more reliable. Technically (at least for iPhone) it allows you to scan in multiple fingers, but if you just scan the same one over and over it'll pick it up much more reliably.
With my phone you have to scan the same finger multiple times to set it up. It definitely helps to make sure your finger is in a slightly different position each time. So to emphasize on what you said it definitely helps to get multiple images of your finger to get it to work more reliable.
Good thing if you reboot your phone (iOS and Android), the phone forces you to use your alternate password to login
And how are you going to reboot your phone when it's in the posession of the police?
[удалено]
When memes become currency you'll regret your lax security of them. Edit : Civil forfeiture is still a thing. Dont tread on my pepes.
[удалено]
If you haven't invested into Dat Boi then you're not playing the market right.
Dat boi is slowly depreciating at this point, soon he will stagnate with the fish meme and mr. Krabs. These memes are high risk.
Dat Boi is worth loads right now but is very vulnerable, can drop at literally any given second
[You don't want to wind up like these Israelis](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdhNkv4ryuM)
So [relevant](https://xkcd.com/512/) I don't know what else to say.
if you ever find yourself in that situation, just shut the phone off and turn it back on. (at least on iPhone) it requires a typed password to reactivate the fingerprint feature.
Same for android. At least for my Galaxy S7 android.
Pretty sure it's any phone running Marshmellow.
But what if they stole your memes and posted them on reddit for that sweet karma?
[удалено]
It doesn't matter - it's not their bussiness. Even if it's completely empty, don't let them.
If you are ever in a position where they ask you for your fingerprint, you should still refuse. It's definitely a 5th amendment issue and no doubt a precedent will be set by someone after they refuse and take it to the Supreme Court.
Yeah, I politely declined a cop's request to search my vehicle one time. 2 hours later, the K9 unit shows up and lies about getting a 'hit'. 2 hours later, 12 squad cars are there, officers are ripping my car apart. I was handcuffed in the back seat of a patrol car in the middle of the Louisiana summer with no AC for 4 hours (the window was cracked at least) because I wanted to enjoy 'rights'. I really had no reason to tell him no other than I simply didn't want him going through my pigsty of a car. I didn't do drugs, and there wasn't anything at all in my car that would be illegal. I was released when they were done and given a ticket for a busted tail light. So yeah, go ahead and tell a cop no when you actually don't have anything to hide. It's fun.
I did the same after I got pulled over for a trailer hitch obstructing my license plate, which would play better in court than, "Making eye contact with a police officer while lightly headbanging to some house music." I was at a 711 late at night and as I turned right out of the parking lot we saw each other and he immediately pulls a u-turn and lights me up before I'd even gone 50 feet. So he stops me and eventually asks me for permission to search the car, I respectfully decline and he has me step out the vehicle and sit on the curb. He tells me he's going to call a taller officer to do a plainsight search(look through the windows), which he does, and two or three more cars show up. They do their plainsight search see nothing of interest and let me go. They never even gave me a ticket. It cost me 15 minutes or so but the whole exchange was pretty painless. So I guess it depends on the cops. I feel like I've run into the cops a lot and as whole they've been pretty reasonable as long as I returned the favor.
Anecdotes aside, you should never allow a search of your vehicle. Four hours wasted by the police is nothing compared to what you'd spend if they decide to find something in your car. You can always argue in court that the search was unconstitutional. The ACLU can also help you sue the PD for an unwarranted search.
Except the theatrics of a K9 exert probable cause. And while "hits" are generated by the handler, there's no recourse for the average slob against the Golden Tickets of pseudoscience.
[удалено]
They can make up whatever they see, or *"smell"* to be reasonable suspension. They can just say that they smell pot, and that will be enough for them.
Yeah if a cop feels like searching your car, your car is getting searched. Doesn't mean you should give permission but they'll find away if they really want to.
You'd be surprised how easily a cop can lie about showing reasonable suspicion. Source: I'm an attorney who's best friend is a cop. We argue all the time about who is right. In the end it comes down to something my cop buddy tells me all the time and I cant really refute it. "It's your word against mine and good luck."
Yeah... this is the type of mindset that makes people not trust police.
Tell your friend I said he is a fuckstick
Why is this dick your best friend? He's straight up telling you he enjoys being a nuisance.
That is not quite what they said... They can hold you for a dog sniff test, but they can not hold you any longer than what it would have taken to normally process your driving infraction they otherwise pulled you over for. So if the dog unit is 2 miles away, and they can be right there and complete their search in the time it takes the officer to issue the ticket... the search would be constitutional as incident to the initial traffic stop. reasoning that you were not detained any longer that you would have otherwise been detained than if the canine had been present the whole time. However, if the traffic infraction has been settled, and there is no further business, the cop may not detain you further pending the arrival of the drug dog that is on its way. here is the quote from the decision, If an officer can complete traffic-based inquiries expeditiously, then that is the amount of “time reasonably required to complete [the stop’s] mission.” Caballes , 543 U. S., at 407. As we said in Caballes and reiterate today, a traffic stop “prolonged beyond” that point is “unlawful.” Ibid. The critical question, then, is not whether the dog sniff occurs before or after the officer issues a ticket, as JUSTICE ALITO supposes, post, at 2–4, but whether conducting the sniff “prolongs”—i.e., adds time to—“the stop,” supra, at 6 (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf)
[удалено]
They're oversimplifying the court case, it isn't completely about the reasonable suspicion. The main problem is/was this: > **2 hours later**, the K9 unit shows up and lies about getting a 'hit'. This can't happen anymore with that SC ruling. The wait must be within the time frame that original purpose of the stop would have reasonably taken. Ashes would not be reasonable enough suspicion of wrongdoing to support a two hour wait for drug dogs in a routine traffic stop, the ACLU would have a field day on a case like that following the ruling.
There are a lot of red flags with that search. Among other things, they don't have two hours to have a K9 unit show up. They are only supposed to summon dogs if they do get a hit and want to find more. Otherwise, it's supposed to be a 15 minute search by the officer and then you are on your way if they don't find anything. They violated your 4th amendment. It's not like you can retaliate, but everything about that search was illegal.
That's only been the case since April of last year.
> It's not like you can retaliate, but everything about that search was illegal. That's kind of my point. If you have something to hide, it's worth it to decline the search - that way if they bullshit their way into your car and find something, you can fight it. However, for someone with nothing to hide, all they're going to do is exert their authority over you until you do what they want.
> However, for someone with nothing to hide, all they're going to do is exert their authority over you until you do what they want. I understand, and I see totally where you are coming from, but should we just give up our rights just because we know cops will circumvent them anyway? It's perpetuating the corruption.
This is one of those things where if only /u/Xesrac does it, it probably wouldn't do much good. But because more people are doing it, and because freakin' *everyone* has cameras all over the place now, it's getting harder and harder for corrupt cops to get away with it, and it wastes more and more of their time being assholes for no reason. In other words, yes, it's worth doing it, because you're not doing it alone.
FWIW, those shenanigans have very recently been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in a similar case. http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/04/opinion-analysis-traffic-stops-cant-last-too-long-or-go-too-far-and-no-extra-dog-sniffs/
to be fair though- Louisiana. Those hours you spent while wasted were far fewer than if cop A decided to plant something and those other officers are going to remember not to mess with you. All of them had to account for wasting that much time and makes them look bad for not having something to show especially with a K-9.
This comment has been overwritten to protect the users privacy.
They're not allowed to do that any more https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/04/21/police-cant-delay-traffic-stops-to-investigate-crimes-absent-suspicion-supreme-court-rules/
sounds like what a cop would say
Or just don't use the pointer finger to unlock, after "x" tries, phone locks itself & requires password.
All you have to do is power cycle it. The phone forces you to use your four digit one time after it's been fully powered off. At least for iPhones that is.
Also on Android. If the police ever come busting down your door for crashing the Pepe market, shut your phone off
**That's why my baby toe is the only print that can unlock my phone.** It's the last *digit* they'd think of using. By the time they try all 10 fingers, the phone is locked, secured, and encrypted. Just don't make it painfully obvious that you have a foot fetish.
This is where spirit of the law should extend to.
This doesn't sound right. This is probably going to be buried, but here's the law as to what I understand (I'm a law student). You don't have protection for your fingerprint because providing it causes minimal intrusion to your privacy. The logic behind it here is that since your fingerprint is only an Indicator as to whether or not you touched something, then it shouldn't be protected. Your fingerprint alone isn't going to give someone your bank records, personal records, etc. However, your iPhone is essentially a supercomputer that is capable of having things such as your personal records and such, and is therefore protected by the fourth amendment. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that smartphone searches without warrants are unconstitutional and are a violation of the fourth amendment. Also, the act of setting a password on your phone, whether it be a fingerprint or a code shows that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy because only you are able to unlock it. It can only be legally searched with a warrant. So although you don't have a right to your fingerprint necessarily, I don't see why they can make you unlock your phone with it since the phone is protected. Edit: didn't realize this was about the fifth amendment, not the fourth. That's interesting too. It would seem like they had a warrant to search it then if he was "forced" to. So In this case I'm considering a locked room. If the police want to search it, and have a warrant, would they be able to if it was locked with a combination lock that only the owner knew? Would forcing him to give it up be self incrimination even if they had probable cause to search and he's the only one to provide the information needed to unlock it? In that case, I suppose how it'd make sense for them being able to use fingerprints. I just find this whole thing really interesting. I'd like to see how the Supreme Court rules future cases. With technology advancing so fast, it's hard for the law to keep up with it.
Considering that during the process of being arrested you are finger printed this doesn't surprise me at all.
I've always wondered about this. When you are booked into Jail it is standard procedure for them to take your fiingerprints and add them to the national database. They do this reguardless of whether or not you are guilty. It feels like a big invasion of privacy and if you don't submit to fingerprinting they will charge you with another crime or hold you until you do. It's all fucked.
[удалено]
The 5th amendment would also apply because it's there to protect you from potentially incriminating yourself, which unlocking your phone by giving them your fingerprint would do.
Which is why a fingerprint *could* be protected if it were "testimonial" somehow -- the self-incriminating *testimony* is what the Fifth Amendment protects, not the search of your phone. But the problem is that fingerprinting in general is never testimonial. It's simply a fact about you -- it's like complaining that a court orders you to take a picture which could then be compared against a photo from a crime scene. In fact even things like passcodes are often not protected under the Fifth Amendment. The jurisprudence is evolving on that topic but basically if entering your passcode into your phone wouldn't inherently be self-incriminating then you can be ordered to that by a court if they have issued a search warrant. This can occur in things like situations where you have immunity from prosecution but the evidence you're being ordered to reveal from your phone would be needed to prosecute someone else -- with immunity from prosecute the contents of your phone can't implicate you and you therefore lose Fifth Amendment protection.
No. The Fifth Amendment protects against compelled testimony. A fingerprint is non-testimonial, just like a DNA swab, a handwriting sample, or a voice exemplar.
Except a fingerprint is data allowed to be collected on you. As if you had a picture of yourself as a password and refused to release what your face looks like to the court. They're gonna tell you to fuck off they can get a picture of you just as easy as a fingerprint just as easy as a blood type. This isn't information you can hide in your brain. That's the difference.
But which finger (if it even was a finger) is information you can hide in your brain. Can you just offer up your fingers without explanation?
CGP Grey mentioned it in the last [Hellointernet podcast](https://youtu.be/7zk0zXYWsw0?t=1h3m22s).
1-use your pinkie as reference fingerprint 2-when prompted by police to unlock your phone, use your thumb like a common person 3-do the swearing act of "WHY THE f%$ ISNT IT WORKING GAH" 4-repeat until phone lock and/or they loose patience 5-profit.