ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    Finger Prints Are Not Passwords

    IT Discussion
    android fail biometrics password security
    9
    125
    54.8k
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • scottalanmillerS
      scottalanmiller @Dashrender
      last edited by

      @Dashrender said:

      Yes still very tin foil hat stuff, at this point to me it's more about what is possible so we as citizens can be prepared.

      That's the biggest problem, though. The number of things that "are possible" are insane. Once we go down that path, none of this matters because they already have access to everything, everywhere. What information is on your device that they can't already get or get in some other way? They can grab your transmissions in and out, they can shim the device, they can pull the chips and unencrypt, etc.

      Knowing what is possible is only marginally useful. Knowing what is practical is what we need to know for security. Otherwise we spend our time worrying about what isn't reasonable instead of focusing on what is. The most important aspect of security is practicality. Once you leave practicality behind, either you end up losing security or you lose the reason for the security.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • DashrenderD
        Dashrender @scottalanmiller
        last edited by

        @scottalanmiller said:

        @Dashrender said:

        Did you miss the point where I said you get grabbed? and therefore I assume they have the needed warrants? But even with a warrant, you can't be compelled to provide a password to protected files....

        Is that true? I thought that the point of the warrant was to get access to more than they could get without one.

        Yes it's true, a warrant can't compel you to give up a password, it's considered testifying against yourself, which you are protected from doing. But giving up your fingerprints is not protected I'm guessing because it's a physical thing that you leave everything.. if enough time is taken, the authorities could get your finger prints, then make a fake one to use to unlock your device themselves.

        scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • scottalanmillerS
          scottalanmiller @Dashrender
          last edited by

          @Dashrender said:

          @scottalanmiller said:

          @Dashrender said:

          Did you miss the point where I said you get grabbed? and therefore I assume they have the needed warrants? But even with a warrant, you can't be compelled to provide a password to protected files....

          Is that true? I thought that the point of the warrant was to get access to more than they could get without one.

          Yes it's true, a warrant can't compel you to give up a password, it's considered testifying against yourself, which you are protected from doing. But giving up your fingerprints is not protected I'm guessing because it's a physical thing that you leave everything.. if enough time is taken, the authorities could get your finger prints, then make a fake one to use to unlock your device themselves.

          You sure?

          http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/federal-judge-orders-defendant-to-reveal-pgp-password-to-law-enforcement/

          ? DashrenderD 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • scottalanmillerS
            scottalanmiller
            last edited by

            According to the current legal information from the EFF:

            Even if you're arrested, police can only search your phone under limited circumstances.

            After a person has been arrested, the police generally may search the items on her person and in her pockets, as well as anything within her immediate control, automatically and without a warrant. But the Supreme Court has ruled that police cannot search the data on a cell phone under this warrant exception.8 Police can, however, search the physical aspects of the phone (like removing the phone from its case or removing the battery) and in situations where they actually believe evidence on the phone is likely to be immediately destroyed, police can search the cell phone without a warrant.

            ? 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • B
              BMarie
              last edited by

              I didn't trust it from the beginning, the thought of it being leaked worried me, and guess what.....I was right. I'm safe.....well safeish

              scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • ?
                A Former User @scottalanmiller
                last edited by

                @scottalanmiller said:

                and in situations where they actually believe evidence on the phone is likely to be immediately destroyed, police can search the cell phone without a warrant.*

                This exception is up to an officers subjective opinion. It's used all the time here by the county. The assume everyone is either a drug dealer or has a meth lab.

                scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • ?
                  A Former User @scottalanmiller
                  last edited by

                  @scottalanmiller said:

                  @Dashrender said:

                  @scottalanmiller said:

                  @Dashrender said:

                  Did you miss the point where I said you get grabbed? and therefore I assume they have the needed warrants? But even with a warrant, you can't be compelled to provide a password to protected files....

                  Is that true? I thought that the point of the warrant was to get access to more than they could get without one.

                  Yes it's true, a warrant can't compel you to give up a password, it's considered testifying against yourself, which you are protected from doing. But giving up your fingerprints is not protected I'm guessing because it's a physical thing that you leave everything.. if enough time is taken, the authorities could get your finger prints, then make a fake one to use to unlock your device themselves.

                  You sure?

                  http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/federal-judge-orders-defendant-to-reveal-pgp-password-to-law-enforcement/

                  Happens a lot. Companies even have to give over Encrpytion codes for all data (and end users data) all the time. No idea what happens if you "forgot" it.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • scottalanmillerS
                    scottalanmiller @A Former User
                    last edited by

                    @thecreativeone91 said:

                    @scottalanmiller said:

                    and in situations where they actually believe evidence on the phone is likely to be immediately destroyed, police can search the cell phone without a warrant.*

                    This exception is up to an officers subjective opinion. It's used all the time here by the county. The assume everyone is either a drug dealer or has a meth lab.

                    If the police officer is taking the phone for evidence, they can't really can't still make that claim. If they can, then you are into the "no law applies here" and none of this matters since we are into the realm of them doing anything that they want.

                    The benefit of fingerprints being required and passwords not doesn't seem to work. Fingerprints can't be required by law. Once there is no law, they can beat the password out of you. Making the point moot.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • scottalanmillerS
                      scottalanmiller @BMarie
                      last edited by

                      @BMarie said:

                      I didn't trust it from the beginning, the thought of it being leaked worried me, and guess what.....I was right. I'm safe.....well safeish

                      But WHAT was leaked? A hash of your fingerprint? What difference does that make?

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • DashrenderD
                        Dashrender @scottalanmiller
                        last edited by

                        @scottalanmiller said:

                        @Dashrender said:

                        @scottalanmiller said:

                        @Dashrender said:

                        Did you miss the point where I said you get grabbed? and therefore I assume they have the needed warrants? But even with a warrant, you can't be compelled to provide a password to protected files....

                        Is that true? I thought that the point of the warrant was to get access to more than they could get without one.

                        Yes it's true, a warrant can't compel you to give up a password, it's considered testifying against yourself, which you are protected from doing. But giving up your fingerprints is not protected I'm guessing because it's a physical thing that you leave everything.. if enough time is taken, the authorities could get your finger prints, then make a fake one to use to unlock your device themselves.

                        You sure?

                        http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/federal-judge-orders-defendant-to-reveal-pgp-password-to-law-enforcement/

                        That's definitely different than other trusted sources lead me to understand.

                        scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • scottalanmillerS
                          scottalanmiller @Dashrender
                          last edited by

                          @Dashrender said:

                          That's definitely different than other trusted sources lead me to understand.

                          Check your sources. Are they quoting the laundry list of 2013 (this article was 2014) references to the opposite being true? Looks like there was reason to believe it in 2013, but nothing substantial, so everyone repeated it. But it got put to the test in 2014 and proved to not be what people had been saying.

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • 1
                          • 2
                          • 3
                          • 4
                          • 5
                          • 6
                          • 7
                          • 2 / 7
                          • First post
                            Last post