Federal agents arriving at a reporter’s door before sunrise is not just a press freedom story, it is a security stress test for every device in that home. When investigators can physically seize phones and laptops, any lock that opens with a face or a finger stops being a safeguard and becomes a shortcut. The raid on Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson’s home shows how quickly biometric locks can turn into a law enforcement tool, and why I believe it is time to retire them from any phone that holds sensitive work.
The core lesson is simple and unsettling: if someone can grab you and your phone at the same time, your body becomes the weak link. Passwords can be forgotten or refused, but a thumb can be pressed against a sensor in seconds. For journalists, activists and anyone who handles confidential material, that is not a theoretical risk, it is now a demonstrated one.
The raid that shattered assumptions about “safe” devices
When Agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation arrived at Hannah Natanson’s home earlier this month, they did not just knock, they left with her work and personal laptops along with other electronics like her phone and storage devices. According to reporting on the FBI operation, the search was tied to her reporting on whistleblower complaints, which means the devices likely contained confidential notes, messages and source identities. Once those machines were in government custody, every security choice she had made on them, from lock screens to backup settings, suddenly mattered in a very concrete way.
The reaction inside the press corps captured how destabilizing that moment felt. Colleagues described the search as a shock to long standing norms, noting that, Under previous administrations, reporters were more likely to face subpoenas that could be fought in court than a dawn raid that scooped up entire digital lives. Accounts of journalists scrambling to reassess how they store notes and protect contacts after the search of Natanson’s home make clear that this was not treated as a one off anomaly but as a warning that the government is willing to push deeper into reporters’ devices.
Why biometrics crumble the moment the door bursts open
Biometric locks were sold as a security upgrade, but in a raid scenario they are closer to a master key in the government’s pocket. If agents have a valid warrant and physical control of both you and your phone, they do not need your cooperation to unlock a fingerprint or face scan. They can simply hold the device up to your face or press your thumb on the sensor, bypassing the very idea of a voluntary choice. That is the terrifying asymmetry: the more convenient the unlock method, the easier it is to compel without leaving a paper trail of consent.
Law enforcement has already shown how aggressively it will use that leverage. In one case highlighted by digital rights advocates, Oct Crocker described how investigators used broad Search warrants to force multiple people to unlock fingerprint protected phones, treating their bodies as evidence to be exploited. The account of federal agents using warrants to get into fingerprint locked phones shows that this is not a hypothetical abuse, it is an established tactic. Once a device is in custody, a biometric lock is not a shield, it is a to do item on an agent’s checklist.
Journalists are already rewriting their threat models
Inside newsrooms, the Natanson raid has triggered a rapid shift from abstract digital hygiene talks to concrete operational changes. Reporters who cover national security, law enforcement and whistleblowers are rethinking everything from how they store drafts to whether they ever let a source’s real name touch a personal phone. Accounts gathered under the Follow Politics banner describe journalists swapping tips on burner devices, encrypted messaging and how to keep sensitive work off any hardware that might be swept up in a home search. The shared sense is that if a colleague’s living room can suddenly become an evidence locker, everyone’s risk calculus has to change.
That reassessment is not limited to reporters. Commentators who examined the Natanson case have framed it as a broader civil liberties alarm, arguing that the same tactics used on a Washington Post reporter could be turned on activists, local officials or corporate whistleblowers. One analysis of the Washington Post raid stressed how the combination of aggressive searches and modern device forensics gives authorities unprecedented visibility into private lives. In that context, clinging to biometric locks on phones that hold protest plans, union organizing chats or legal strategy is not just risky, it is reckless.
The legal gray zone that favors fingerprints over passcodes
Part of what makes biometrics so dangerous in this environment is the legal ambiguity around them. Courts have long treated memorized information, like a passcode, as something closer to testimony, which can trigger stronger protections against compelled disclosure. A fingerprint or face scan, by contrast, is often treated like a physical key or a DNA sample, something the government can demand or seize with far fewer constitutional hurdles. That split means the exact same phone can be far better protected if it is locked with a long password than if it opens with a glance.
The Natanson case underscores how quickly that distinction can matter. When Federal officials seized her devices, they did so under color of law, and only later did a judge step in to order the DOJ to halt review of the data. Reporting on the court order describes how a Federal judge told the DOJ and the FBI to pause combing through the contents of the phones and laptops taken in the dawn raid, after the Washington Post and its lawyers pushed back. The fact that it took a legal fight to secure even a temporary stop to the government’s access, as detailed in coverage by Brian Stelter, shows how much power investigators have once devices are unlocked, and why any feature that makes that unlocking easier tilts the field against the owner.
What killing phone biometrics actually looks like in practice
Turning off Face ID or a fingerprint reader is not a magic shield, but it is a crucial first step in regaining control over your data. For anyone in a high risk profession, from reporters to immigration lawyers, the baseline should be a strong, unique passcode that cannot be guessed from birthdays or addresses. That code should be long enough to resist brute force attempts, and devices should be set to erase or lock out after a limited number of failed tries. In practical terms, that means digging into settings on an iPhone or Android handset and disabling biometric unlock entirely, so the only way in is through something you know, not something you are.
Operational habits have to change alongside the lock screen. Journalists who watched the Natanson raid unfold are already talking about keeping sensitive chats on separate devices that never leave the newsroom, or using end to end encrypted apps that minimize what is stored on the phone at all. Guidance circulating after the search of Natanson’s emphasizes steps like disabling cloud backups for confidential conversations, regularly exporting and securely deleting notes, and carrying a clean travel phone to protests or border crossings. None of these measures are perfect, but they all become more meaningful once the easiest path into the device, the biometric shortcut, has been shut off.
The Natanson raid is a stark reminder that the front line of press freedom now runs straight through the lock screen. When Agents can walk out of a reporter’s house with a pocket full of electronics, the choice between a fingerprint and a passcode is no longer a matter of convenience, it is a question of who controls the story those devices can tell. I believe the safest answer, for anyone who might someday hear a knock at dawn, is to kill phone biometrics before someone else uses them against you.
More from Morning Overview