Reminder that on an iPhone, if you hold the Volume Up and Power buttons simultaneously for several seconds, the phone will vibrate and will require the PIN or password next time you unlock it, not Face/TouchID. This happens whether the screen is on or off, so you can discretely do it in your pocket.

Not sure about all phone models, but at least with mine, if I switch it off then it requires a PIN, rather than biometrics, upon being switched back on. Thus if the police arrive, immediately switching off your phone could be a sensible thing to do

This isn't new. I've been on the passcode to unlock train for a long time because of this. It's only news in that it's been codified by the court. You can't be compelled to reveal info.

On iPhone: press and hold the lock button and either volume button for 1-2sec. It'll force a passcode despite biometrics.

Makes perfect sense to me (not a lawyer, not a US person)... what doesn't make sense is how many people still think biometric is high security (maybe because of how cool they make it look in the movies?)

Enter pin

"I don't know what happened, it's the right code, might be broken."

That pin was device self sanitiziation trigger for preventing information from falling in the hands of the enemy.

Then buy enough claymores to make sure there will not be a second encounter with enemy forces.

For iphone brothers and sisters (courtsey of rpcameron)

You must be using an Android device. On the iPhone, 5 quick presses of the side/power button (or long-pressing power+volume) will bring up the Power Off/SOS menu; any future attempt to unlock will require the passcode. (Either action can be down without any screen interaction, meaning that you can enable this feature silently as soon as you feel it necessary.)

(Also to note for iPhones: if you choose a 7 digit or longer passcode, the entry field does not indicate how long the passcode is; the same is true if you choose an alphanumeric passcode.)

(Extra safety for those in the US if you are in a car, after doing the above stash your phone in the console/glove box; if it is within a sealed compartment not on your person additional cause/warrant is required to gain access to the device.)

This may be the first time a federal ruling has been made but I don't know if it applies to state crimes. Many counties across the nation have ruled one way or another.

SCOTUS once ruled law enforcemeny cannot compel you to unlock a device at all and cannot access your phone without a warrant, but I don't know if that is current. Police can legally lie to you (and beat you with a $5 wrench and pronably get away with it in court).

They also have strong phone cracking packages despite FBI's lament about evidence locked away in seized devices.

Generally, do not consent to searches or cooperate without a lawyer present. Expect everything an officer tells you is intended to mislead. They will even lie in court to the judge.

Hmm, is there an app/feature where if I use my thumb-print instead of say, my fore-finger print, it wipes the phone instead?

This is one of many reasons you should use a password of some kind that you keep inside of your head to unlock your phone rather than a biometric that people can use to unlock it against your will.

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The US Constitution's Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination does not prohibit police officers from forcing a suspect to unlock a phone with a thumbprint scan, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday.

The ruling does not apply to all cases in which biometrics are used to unlock an electronic device but is a significant decision in an unsettled area of the law.

Judges rejected his claim, holding "that the compelled use of Payne's thumb to unlock his phone (which he had already identified for the officers) required no cognitive exertion, placing it firmly in the same category as a blood draw or fingerprint taken at booking."

Payne conceded that "the use of biometrics to open an electronic device is akin to providing a physical key to a safe" but argued it is still a testimonial act because it "simultaneously confirm[s] ownership and authentication of its contents," the court said.

The Supreme Court "held that this was not a testimonial production, reasoning that the signing of the forms related no information about existence, control, or authenticity of the records that the bank could ultimately be forced to produce," the 9th Circuit said.

The Court held that this act of production was of a fundamentally different kind than that at issue in Doe because it was "unquestionably necessary for respondent to make extensive use of 'the contents of his own mind' in identifying the hundreds of documents responsive to the requests in the subpoena."

The original article contains 662 words, the summary contains 241 words. Saved 64%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

???

This has been a theory for a while, just not sure it was a specifically ruled precedent. The notion being similar to how they can force fingerprinting but not testimony. Access to a physical lock or location you can't simply say 'stay out' but they can't force you to divulge a password since it's a thought in your mind.

Also, relying on biometrics is terrible, quick but immutable keys are a big no-no.