[bee_rider]

I don’t know if that is true, nabbing somebody’s phone at a protest and pointing it at them seems like the sort of thing a cop could get away with at a protest for example. It must be illegal, but in the hustle and bustle of the moment, might be hard to catch.

[AlexandrB]

It's not illegal[1] and is the number one reason I don't use biometrics to unlock my phone.

[1] https://www.phonearena.com/news/court-ruling-cops-can-force-...

[pjot]

If you’re talking about someone holding an iPhone to someone’s face, there’s a setting called “attention aware” that verifies your eyes are open and looking at the phone.

[gabeio]

Which is unfortunately causing people's alarms to not work and the current recommendation is to deactivate said feature.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0kl4glp547o (bbc news article about it)

[happyopossum]

Umm, no. That’s an article with random speculation from unnamed people on the internet.

Attention awareness does not stop alarms, and it requires your eyes to be open and looking at the phone.

[gabeio]

> Attention awareness does not stop alarms, and it requires your eyes to be open and looking at the phone.

Attention awareness silences/drasticly reduces the volume of alarms, that's how it is designed.

If they have a bug in the attention awareness feature it stands to reason that it could not require your eyes to be open or looking at the device in question at the time.

[latexr]

If you’re in that kind of environment, press the lock button five times in a row (iPhone) to require a password to unlock on the next interaction.

[nmeagent]

Challenge: surreptitiously press your lock button five times while being accosted or outright assaulted by one or more police officers.

[latexr]

Or, you know, just do it beforehand?

[adolph]

Early in the iOS Face ID cycle I saw this play out with a parent and child where the parent would make a funny face each time the child held the phone up to the parent's face, defeating the biometric.