Endpoint

1/15/2019
01:51 PM
100%
0%

US Judge: Police Can't Force Biometric Authentication

Law enforcement cannot order individuals to unlock devices using facial or fingerprint scans, a California judge says.

American law enforcement cannot force people to unlock devices using a facial or fingerprint scan, as stated in a new ruling intended to protect individuals from intrusive federal searches.

US judges had previously given authorities power to force people to unlock devices using biometric scans, even though they couldn't force them to share passcodes. A new ruling, which says all passcodes are equal, has been called a "potentially landmark" verdict, Forbes reports.

It comes from the US District Court for the Northern District of California, where a search warrant for an Oakland property was rejected. As part of a Facebook extortion crime investigation, police wanted to access phones on the property with biometric scans. Magistrate judge Kandis Westmore ruled this was "overbroad" as it didn't specify a person or device.

Even with a warrant, the judge said, government officials could not force people to incriminate themselves by using facial, fingerprint, or iris scans to unlock mobile devices. Passcodes and biometric scans can all be used to log into devices and should be treated the same. If someone cannot be forced to provide a passcode, they also cannot be forced into biometric scans.

Read more details here.

Dark Reading's Quick Hits delivers a brief synopsis and summary of the significance of breaking news events. For more information from the original source of the news item, please follow the link provided in this article. View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
2/24/2019 | 6:57:34 PM
Re: Security vs privacy
@Stephen: What do you suggest?

Not being a jerk; I'm genuinely interested. Lots of competing interests here.
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
2/24/2019 | 6:56:37 PM
Re: Golden rule
@REISEN: Well put. We've already seen some examples of this insofar as using pictures of people to recreate images of their fingerprints/irises/etc.

As sometimes-contributor-to-Dark-Reading Terry Ray once put it (I paraphrase): Don't make your password public.
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
2/24/2019 | 6:53:59 PM
Re: Watch Out!
@Edward: It's not even necessarily gruesome in such examples. In Spaceballs, for instance, all the hero has to do is knock out the guy to use his handprint.
REISEN1955
50%
50%
REISEN1955,
User Rank: Ninja
2/5/2019 | 8:09:06 AM
Golden rule
Laws do so much and enforcement the same.  The safe and sane rule is to assume that whatever YOU put out there will BE hacked at some time in the future.  WE have control over what at least WE expose. Now there are data trails of life too - house sold, moved, and address databases by the score.  Employment history.  (I was surprised by the detail Georgia unemployment knew about me!!!)   But we can control SOME of it assume your history is OUT THERE and act accordingly.    Somebody somewhere knows everything about you. 
StephenGiderson
50%
50%
StephenGiderson,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/4/2019 | 8:42:08 PM
Security vs privacy
In my opinion, everyone should be entitled to their own rights. This isn't just about giving them the privacy, but also making sure that they get the security that they deserve. There should be an alternative measure as a solution instead of enforcing a law that forces individuals to authenticate whenever required.
EdwardThirlwall
50%
50%
EdwardThirlwall,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/1/2019 | 9:02:30 PM
Watch Out!
This is wrong on so many levels. But if you've watched as many movies as I have, if you can't crack the password to get into the data storage, it's as simple as torture. With biometrics, I'm sure you've seen what the bad guys do when they need someone's retina or fingerprint to get into the locked room right...
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
1/19/2019 | 8:16:35 PM
USDC opinion
What's being missed here is that this opinion (1) represents a split from other court opinions in the US on this issue, and (2) comes out of a lowly federal district court. Consequently, it has no binding value in and of itself. So it remains to be seen what the widespread law of the land in the US on this issue is.

(Disclaimer: The above is provided for informational, educational, and/or entertainment purposes only. Neither this nor other posts here constitute legal advice or the creation, implication, or confirmation of an attorney-client relationship. For actual legal advice, personally consult with an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction.)
REISEN1955
50%
50%
REISEN1955,
User Rank: Ninja
1/17/2019 | 12:33:37 PM
Re: Evidence?
Agree - a warrant should do the job.  No cooperation = jail time for failing to assist and hindering an investigation.  Plus bearing all costs of an unlock procedure with, say, Apple.  
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
1/16/2019 | 12:48:49 PM
Evidence?
I guess my question is, if you can't force a potential perpetrator to unlock their phone via warrant, can this be facilitated through a formal court injunction? If you can't, would there be any value in utilizing a phone as evidence? You would have to crack the code yourself which can take time and I would think in a criminal case that data on a phone would be valuable to the verity of the case.
Russia Hacked Clinton's Computers Five Hours After Trump's Call
Robert Lemos, Technology Journalist/Data Researcher,  4/19/2019
Tips for the Aftermath of a Cyberattack
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  4/17/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
5 Emerging Cyber Threats to Watch for in 2019
Online attackers are constantly developing new, innovative ways to break into the enterprise. This Dark Reading Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at five emerging attack trends and exploits your security team should look out for, along with helpful recommendations on how you can prevent your organization from falling victim.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-11378
PUBLISHED: 2019-04-20
An issue was discovered in ProjectSend r1053. upload-process-form.php allows finished_files[]=../ directory traversal. It is possible for users to read arbitrary files and (potentially) access the supporting database, delete arbitrary files, access user passwords, or run arbitrary code.
CVE-2019-11372
PUBLISHED: 2019-04-20
An out-of-bounds read in MediaInfoLib::File__Tags_Helper::Synched_Test in Tag/File__Tags.cpp in MediaInfoLib in MediaArea MediaInfo 18.12 leads to a crash.
CVE-2019-11373
PUBLISHED: 2019-04-20
An out-of-bounds read in File__Analyze::Get_L8 in File__Analyze_Buffer.cpp in MediaInfoLib in MediaArea MediaInfo 18.12 leads to a crash.
CVE-2019-11374
PUBLISHED: 2019-04-20
74CMS v5.0.1 has a CSRF vulnerability to add a new admin user via the index.php?m=Admin&c=admin&a=add URI.
CVE-2019-11375
PUBLISHED: 2019-04-20
Msvod v10 has a CSRF vulnerability to change user information via the admin/member/edit.html URI.