"There is an apparently new iOS 18 security feature that reboots iPhones that haven’t been unlocked in a few days, frustrating police by making it harder to break into suspects’ iPhones
…
Apple added “inactivity reboot” code in iOS 18.1 that triggers iPhones to restart after they’ve been locked for four days"
Every time the phone reboots, it disables biometric unlocking until the correct pin is entered.
Most hacking tools that police have access to take advantage of the weaker security found in the biometric unlock mode.
By randomly restarting, the phone’s storage stays fully encrypted until the correct pin or passcode is entered, which is far more secure as it takes either a brute force attack to guess the correct pin, or a court order compelling the person to provide the pin or passcode.
Fun fact, in the United States, a pin or passcode is considered private property, and the police can’t legally force you to provide it without a warrant. However, your face or fingerprints are not considered private property, and they can and have used biometrics to unlock phones without user consent or a warrant before.
If you ever get stopped by the cops, make sure to reboot your phone so they have a harder time finding incriminating evidence.
You don’t have to reboot it. You just have to click the main side button several times (10?). Which you can do by feel.
5 times locks it.
Is it hard to get a court order? I can’t imagine it would be much harder than a house warrant.
A court order doesnt magically give them the unlock code, the court can hold a person in contempt for refusing to give it in some instances but not indefinitely.
Well surely the sentence for contempt of court must be fairly high, otherwise it would be a pretty useless law at all.
Well 4 years was the longest i could find, but usually they are more like 1-30 day sentences and the 4 year one is an outlier.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/man-who-refused-to-decrypt-hard-drives-is-free-after-four-years-in-jail/
Chelsea Manning was held for 62 days for refusing to reveal a source, so not a password but similar reason for the charge https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48223178
The spirit of the law seems to be that if its established the only reason to hold someone is a refusal to give information and its clear they will never comply, that alone is not justification for indefinitely detaining someone, but judges can interpret things how they want.