Subverting encryption on the iPhone isn’t an issue when the government can compel citizens to unlock their smartphone with a fingerprint.
Federal law has established that law enforcement can compel a “fingerprint search warrant” to gain access to a suspect’s smartphone, according to The Atlantic.
Constitutional concerns about the access have been dismissed because it’s a difference in kind.
“The Fifth Amendment, which protects people from incriminating themselves during legal proceedings, prevents the government from compelling someone to turn over a memorized PIN or passcode,” Kaveh Waddell wrote. “But fingerprints, like other biometric indicators—DNA, handwriting samples, your likeness—have long been considered fair game, because they don’t reveal anything in your mind.”
Though the fingerprint works like a PIN to access sensitive information, it’s not an admission or revealing of a person’s thoughts.
The warrant creates a useful precedent for law enforcement. Though compelling tech companies to subvert encryption hasn’t given them useful legal precedents, the fingerprint warrant gives investigators a possible opening.
For Americans concerned about self-incrimination and privacy, it’s a warning not to use fingerprint locks. Passcodes are still constitutionally protected, and federal authorities haven’t had the luck in court to compel that information from suspects. The ruling could backfire if criminals, who previously used a fingerprint lock, shift to a more secure password or other methods of hiding evidence and information.
There’s more than one way to obtain fingerprints.
“Since humans leave their fingerprints on surfaces in their daily lives, law enforcement might be able to lift prints and unlock devices even without suspects’ fingers,” Lily Hay Newman wrote for Slate.
Whether that would violate any constitutional protections is unclear, but the ruling has made that technique less useful if criminals are aware.
The ruling is the latest in the push-and-pull of law enforcement demanding backdoor access to technological security in the name of public safety. In this instance, law enforcement got the precedent they wanted.
