Should we be concerned about this and not use biometric information to log into our devices?
Imagine this happening in countries where human rights are in decline.
Can thieves use this same technique, and on which type of fingerprint sensors is this possible?
It seems that passwords are the way to go.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Here is the full article;
"The police often use coercion to unlock suspects' biometrically secured phones, employees of the Digital Investigation Team (TDO) have told researchers from Dialogic, the researchers state in an evaluation report of the Innovation Act on Criminal Procedure. Exact figures on how often coercion is used are not known, according to Minister Van Weel of Justice and Security.
"It happens that a mobile phone can only be unlocked using biometric data from the user of that device. In such cases, the police may ask the suspect to unlock his device. If the suspect does not want to cooperate, the police may use force," said the minister, who points to a 2021 Supreme Court ruling. The minister responded to parliamentary questions about a ruling by the European Court of Justice that the police may search data on telephones even in the event of minor crimes.
The authority to breach biometric security by means of coercion has been included in Article 558 of the Code of Criminal Procedure through the Innovation Act on Criminal Procedure. The purpose of this Act is to gain experience with a number of subjects from the new Code of Criminal Procedure. The Innovation Act on Criminal Procedure has led to five pilot projects that Dialogic evaluated at the request of the Scientific Research and Data Centre (WODC) of the Ministry of Justice and Security, which also looked at breaching the biometric security of telephones.
The authority under Article 558 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be applied in any case in which there is a suspicion. At the request of the researchers, the police looked at how often the authority for two other articles (556 and 557 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) was applied or considered. This yielded 23 cases, of which thirteen cases involved actual application of the authority in which coercion was used. "However, this does not provide a reliable picture of the extent to which the authority is applied, since according to the internal working agreements, the application of Article 558 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not have to be registered separately," according to the researchers.
"TDOs have indicated that it often happens that a biometric security is undone against the will of the user. According to some, this happens more often than that the powers of Articles 556 and 557 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are used. The power is often used to gain access to a device in which research must be carried out into historical data," the researchers add.
The researchers write that securing phones with a fingerprint is less common. "Suspects often deliberately do not secure their devices with fingerprints, because this method of security can be undone relatively easily. Security with an iris scan is the least common." When a device is secured with a code or biometric characteristic, the suspect is first asked to unlock the phone. If the suspect refuses to cooperate voluntarily, an order can be given to provide access to the device on the basis of article 125k of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The researchers also state that it is not always easy to force someone to unlock a smartphone secured with a fingerprint. "Because the suspect can resist, for example by deliberately placing his finger in the wrong place. If the suspect is handcuffed, it is easier to place his finger on the smartphone. This may be seized by the investigating officer."
However, it is not always necessary to infringe on the suspect's physical integrity, the researchers write: "When a suspect's fingerprints are registered in a police database, they can be etched into a template that imitates the suspect's finger. In the case of security with a face or iris scan, it is conceivable that the smartphone will recognize the face in question when the smartphone is held up to it." Further technical details about this method are not given.
The researchers state that being able to break through biometric security can have added value for investigations. "In some cases, there is a need to be able to apply this power. The degree of coercion that is applied is limited," they conclude. The researchers note that the power is not strictly speaking an improvement of criminal proceedings, because it could already be applied prior to the pilot based on case law of the Supreme Court.
"The codification of the authority in the new code does have added value, because it creates normative clarity. It is therefore desirable that the authority be included in the new code," the researcher adds. Minister Van Weel says she will respond to the evaluation report before the end of the year."