Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Endpoint Security //


08:15 AM
Larry Loeb
Larry Loeb
Larry Loeb

Federal Judge: Police Can't Force Suspects to Unlock Devices Using Biometrics

A federal judge in California finds that police can't force suspects to unlock their smartphones or other mobiles using biometrics. The court found biometrics are protected much the same way passwords are.

A federal judge in the US District Court for the Northern District of California has ruled that police cannot force the unlocking of a mobile device using biometrics.

The judge, Kandis Westmore, found that biometric technologies, such as fingerprints or face recognition, deserve the same protection that is currently given to passwords under law.

In this case, the court found while there was probable cause for the search warrant, "probable cause does not permit the Government to compel a suspect to waive rights otherwise afforded by the Constitution, including the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination."

The judge also noted the problem has arisen because: "The challenge facing the courts is that technology is outpacing the law."

(Source: iStock)
(Source: iStock)

Now that this case has been settled, enterprises have to be aware of their stakes in this.

The BYOD-era means that it is likely that any business files that may be on the device will be available to someone searching it. Should a worker be compelled to give device access to law enforcement, they would also gain access to possibly confidential enterprise information as well. (See Security Concerns Increasing as BYOD Programs Continue to Grow.)

In the ruling, past practices were considered. The judge wrote:

While securing digital devices is not a novel concept, the means of doing so have changed. Indeed, consumers have had the ability to utilize numeric or alpha-numeric passcodes to lock their devices for decades.

Courts that have addressed the passcode issue have found that a passcode cannot be compelled under the Fifth Amendment, because the act of communicating the passcode is testimonial, as "[t]he expression of the contents of an individual's mind falls squarely within the protection of the Fifth Amendment."

Biometric information was found to be of the same functionality of a passcode in mobile technology. Further, the court noted that "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."

This is contrary to how law enforcement has viewed biometric information in the past. Previously, police and prosecutors have felt that information obtainable from someone's body was different than information communicated by a suspect. Previous court rulings have tended to agree with this interpretation, thinking that biometric information was "physical evidence" and not a testimony given by the subject.

The Fifth Amendment states clearly that no one "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," so what constitutes testimony that given by someone is a real concern in these kinds of cases.

This ruling establishes a precedent that the information which unlocks a mobile device -- no matter where it originates -- is protected by the Fifth Amendment.

But this is a decision that could be overturned on appeal. An Illinois decision in 2017 by a magistrate court judge that made a similar finding was later was overturned by a district court.

Adapting the law to new technology is always problematic. More courts may need to weigh in on this matter before privacy concerns can be dealt with in a stable and ongoing manner.

Related posts:

— Larry Loeb has written for many of the last century's major "dead tree" computer magazines, having been, among other things, a consulting editor for BYTE magazine and senior editor for the launch of WebWeek.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
I Smell a RAT! New Cybersecurity Threats for the Crypto Industry
David Trepp, Partner, IT Assurance with accounting and advisory firm BPM LLP,  7/9/2021
Attacks on Kaseya Servers Led to Ransomware in Less Than 2 Hours
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  7/7/2021
It's in the Game (but It Shouldn't Be)
Tal Memran, Cybersecurity Expert, CYE,  7/9/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Current Issue
Enterprise Cybersecurity Plans in a Post-Pandemic World
Download the Enterprise Cybersecurity Plans in a Post-Pandemic World report to understand how security leaders are maintaining pace with pandemic-related challenges, and where there is room for improvement.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
PUBLISHED: 2021-09-23
A CSRF in Concrete CMS version 8.5.5 and below allows an attacker to clone topics which can lead to UI inconvenience, and exhaustion of disk space.Credit for discovery: "Solar Security Research Team"
PUBLISHED: 2021-09-23
The vCenter Server contains a reflected cross-site scripting vulnerability due to a lack of input sanitization. An attacker may exploit this issue to execute malicious scripts by tricking a victim into clicking a malicious link.
PUBLISHED: 2021-09-23
Rhttproxy as used in vCenter Server contains a vulnerability due to improper implementation of URI normalization. A malicious actor with network access to port 443 on vCenter Server may exploit this issue to bypass proxy leading to internal endpoints being accessed.
PUBLISHED: 2021-09-23
The vCenter Server contains an arbitrary file deletion vulnerability in a VMware vSphere Life-cycle Manager plug-in. A malicious actor with network access to port 9087 on vCenter Server may exploit this issue to delete non critical files.
PUBLISHED: 2021-09-23
The vCenter Server contains a denial-of-service vulnerability in VAPI (vCenter API) service. A malicious actor with network access to port 5480 on vCenter Server may exploit this issue by sending a specially crafted jsonrpc message to create a denial of service condition.