
Police in Norway can now force you to unlock your phone without court warrant - maaaats
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=no&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrk.no%2Fnorge%2Fna-kan-politiet-tvinge-deg-til-a-lase-opp-telefonen-din-1.13572392&edit-text=&act=url
======
TazeTSchnitzel
IME an easy defeat for Touch ID, on the iPhone 5S at least, is to lick your
fingers. Your phone will fail to unlock, and if you do it five times, your
phone disables Touch ID for you.

Another trick is to simply turn off the phone. Touch ID is always initially
disabled at boot.

I wish Apple would add a “duress finger” feature though.

~~~
LyalinDotCom
"I wish Apple would add a “duress finger” feature though." that's a really
good idea

~~~
vanattab
What is a duress finger feature? A button to wipe the phone on the lock
screen?

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
The idea is that the phone would wipe itself/lock you out/whatever when you
use a particular finger, rather than unlocking. So if made under duress to
unlock the phone with your fingerprint, you use the previously-chosen “duress
finger” rather than the normal one.

~~~
vanattab
What happens if my friend/wife tries to unlock my phone and uses the wrong
code?

------
rsync
One of the most unexpected aspects of the emerging global surveillance regime
is how trivially easy it is to opt out of.

All you have to do is leave your phone at home.

The over reliance on consumer technology and social platforms by _end users_
is unfortunate but expected. Seeing how law enforcement has become so lazy as
to piggyback all of their investigatory efforts on top of it is truly
stupefying...

~~~
gberger
Is this sarcasm?

Leaving your phone at home is equivalent to having no phone at all.

~~~
ryanlol
I can call a Uber with my laptop, the UX isn't great but it works.

What else do you need a phone for?

(Is it _a Uber_ or _an Uber_? Curiously, uber.com seems to use both.)

~~~
samstave
an uber.

------
sondr3
I love being a Norwegian but damn, occasionally the government does some
really dumb stuff. Like this. This is just like when they introduced the Data
Retention Directive and whadda ya know, it's against human rights and now it's
put on ice. I hope it'll happen with this directive.

------
onion2k
Android (stock at least, but likely other flavours too) allows you to have
multiple users on a device. Swipe down from the top a couple of times, then
press the little blue User icon and set up a different user with a pass code
for things you want to remain private. You could happily unlock your phone for
the default user without giving up any private data.

It's not a method of securing anything as it's just obscurity, but very few
people would know about it or bother to look. It's very useful for having
'work stuff' and 'personal stuff' on one device.

~~~
greglindahl
If you aren't careful, you could end up getting charged with lying to police.
That's a serious charge.

~~~
danjoc
Lie to police: Felony. Police lie to you: Doing their job.

Hit police: Felony. Police hit you: Doing their job.

Break into police computer: Felony. Police break into your computer: Doing
their job.

I should see what the police pay for computer jobs. Everything extremely
illegal becomes legal if I am police.

~~~
jopsen
this is Norway, the police have 3 years of training, and don't carry
firearms..

Source:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Police_Service](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Police_Service)

So it doesn't compare to the systemic issues you have in the US. Besides what
are they going to do if you don't unlock...? Give you a fine?

------
sr2
That's why all phones should have a decoy feature so that when asked to
produce a password, you just give them the decoy pass, and it unlocks a clean
profile with no way for them to find anything personal, and or incriminating.

~~~
mvdwoord
I would prefer not to have such oppressive laws in place, for more than one
reason.

~~~
drdeadringer
How many times can we effectively cry "The SOPA is coming!" before protest
fatigue sets in? When the wolves are attempted into law over and again,
something has to give and I'm not sure that corporate-congressional interest
will be the first to blink.

------
jimnotgym
Don't use a thumbprint scanner. Set a PIN. They can force you to put your
thumb in the screen but they cannot force you to remember a PIN. OK their may
be able to put you in prison for not handing over the PIN, but at least that
is your decision. On some phones you can set a PIN that destroys
everything....

~~~
mtgx
The argument that "we're allowed to force you to unlock your phone with your
fingerprint, because we could physically force you to do it anyway" makes me
think that the governments will eventually not give citizens a pass when they
have a PIN number or passphrase either, once they develop the technology to
read our thoughts. And the reason is the same: because they could physically
force you to reveal it.

That's such a shitty way of thinking about laws. Should men be allowed to beat
women just because they are physically stronger, too? No, we've simply decided
as a society that just because you can do something with physical force,
doesn't mean you should be able to do it, and that it's _illegal_ to do it.

And this is why I think forcing you to unlock your phone with your
fingerprint, just because in theory the policemen can hold you down and force
your finger on the phone, is also an immoral law and an immoral way of
thinking.

~~~
dmoy
I don't know about Norwegian law, but in the US the fingerprint compelling
doesn't have anything to other do with "we are physically capable of forcing
you to do this". Rather, there's existing precedent that allows them to
requisition your fingerprint, because historically it was only used for
identification. The PIN has no such precedent. (Maybe it even falls underneath
5th amendment?)

Again sorry, dunno what the parallel is in Norway/EU

I couldn't read the article because there were giant Facebook, Twitter, etc
logos overlayed on all the text in pure black.

~~~
dpark
> _The PIN has no such precedent. (Maybe it even falls underneath 5th
> amendment?)_

Not likely. I don't think the Supreme Court has decided this sort of case yet,
but some lower courts have held that a suspect can be compelled to unlock a
phone. The logic is that it's equivalent to compelling a suspect to unlock a
safe.

~~~
rocqua
As I recall, PINs are like safe combinations. You cannot be compelled to
reveal those (with a 'foregone conclusion' exception). This is because the
code is 'testimony' in the sense that you are testifying you know the
combination.

Fingerprints are like keys. They are physical things. You can be compelled to
produce a key. Similarly you can be compelled to produce your finger.

Obvious I Am Not A Lawyer notification.

~~~
dpark
I'm pretty sure that precedent says you can be compelled to unlock a safe with
a combination lock. You don't have to reveal the combination but you can be
forced to unlock the safe. Protection from self incrimination doesn't include
refusal to turn over evidence.

Edit: Maybe I'm misremembering.
[http://blogs.denverpost.com/crime/2012/01/05/why-
criminals-s...](http://blogs.denverpost.com/crime/2012/01/05/why-criminals-
should-always-use-combination-safes/3343/)

------
valuearb
Use the wrong finger. Try it quickly 5 times and it locks, forcing the
passcode. If they hold the correct finger down, twist the tip of the finger
and try to roll it.

Even better, train a non obvious finger for your passcode. After the last
application of your thumb/index finger fails and forces the passcode, turn to
them, shrug your shoulders and say I don't know why it didn't work.

~~~
bitwize
I don't know if "obstruction of justice" is a thing in Norway but it wouldn't
surprise me if shit like this were prosecutable.

~~~
dpark
Despite the downvotes, your concern is legitimate. Refusal to comply with a
legal order is typically a crime of its own.

I'm sure someone will say that they'd just lie about which finger they set up.
And sure, you can do that. But if you do it in sworn testimony, it's perjury.

~~~
greglindahl
In the US, you can get into a ton of trouble lying to the police even if it's
not sworn testimony.

~~~
likelynew
But it's not lying here. It's intentional hiding of facts. Not saying it won't
get anyone in trouble.

------
tyingq
Guess we now need support for a "distress print" that locks the phone to pin
only. Use your distress finger when in need.

~~~
Zigurd
Unlock with your middle finger. Three tries with your index and done.

------
GreaterFool
This is about unlocking electronic equipment (phones) based on biometrics and
not pin/passwords. I suppose the logic behind it is that the police are
already allowed to do similar things. They can use physical force to restrain
for instance. They can search one's possessions.

Or consider fingerprinting. What would happen if one were to refuse getting
fingerprinted and made trouble? Are police allowed to use force in that case?

~~~
shostack
The only reason police organizations are making it about biometrics is because
they have an easier time getting that then getting laws changed to compel
pin/password unlocking.

But make no mistake, this is all about getting unfettered access to everything
bit of data they can without a warrant. They saw an easy opening to circumvent
existing laws and they jumped for it.

~~~
ball_of_lint
Which is terrifying. Its kind of a slippery slope argument, but how far is
this from mandating universal backdoors in encryption?

------
pavement
But they can't force you to use the fingerprint lock in the first place.

Don't secure your phone with biometrics in Norway.

~~~
zzo38computer
Can you have it require both a fingerprint and password? Perhaps, requiring a
different password for each finger? That is why you need open-source, so that
you can program it by yourself.

Or to do like I, don't have cell phone. You can write notes on paper, even in
code if you need to I suppose. Confuse thieves (including police, which count
as thieves too in this case) by writing very confusing stuff.

~~~
pavement
I haven't seen one that does both for the homescreen lock.

But you'd always want the biometric verification last, since it provides a
powerful clue about who can authenticate all the other layers of security on a
mobile device.

~~~
zzo38computer
That is a good point yes. Either that or display the password prompt even if
the biometric does not pass.

------
EGreg
Smart criminals would not have everything accessible from a phone they take
through customs.

------
sweden
I see a lot of people in this thread pulling the trigger of this "being an
invasion of privacy".

While this is true, I can't help but to feel that the Hacker News crowd tends
of see only one side of this issue.

They are not asking smartphone companies to introduce backdoors in their
products. They are just trying to make sure that police has the right
resources to be able to solve investigations.

To be honest, this sounds reasonable to some extent. When someone gets
questioned by the police, you expect the person to tell the truth. If the
police gets a hint that your smartphone might have significant evidence of
some sort of crime, isn't it reasonable to comply with the request?

It's not like they are asking to access it remotely from anywhere at anytime.

~~~
saidajigumi
> They are just trying to make sure that police has the right resources to be
> able to solve investigations.

Which the police can and have been able to do _with a search warrant_. Courts
in various parts of the world have spoken here: the smartphone is unlike other
personal effects, in that it may provide access to a historically
unprecedented vault of personal information about its owner. The space for
police abuse here is vast, and using courts as a check against police power is
a common solution.

~~~
sweden
I think it is acceptable to wait for a search warrant to search someone's
house, whatever that person was doing there, chances are that there will be
traces of it even if the person tried to destroy evidence (blood residues,
fingerprints, smells, etc).

But for a smartphone, I think it works a little bit differently. Any evidence
that you might have on your smartphone can be quickly destroyed without
leaving any traces. Even if a search warrant takes 5 minutes to be issued, by
the time it arrives to the police it will be completely pointless, since you
were able to press delete on all your photos during those 5 minutes.

~~~
roblabla
So, what, if you find out you have a warrant, you'll immediately destroy any
evidence you have ? Why not, y'know, destroy it in the first place, before any
warrant is issued ?

I don't understand the point you're trying to make.

