4 ms·
IANAL, but I don't think there's much of a difference between asking someone to reveal the correct password and asking someone to reveal the correct finger. In
by gst 11y ago
IANAL, but I don't think there's much of a difference between asking someone to reveal the correct password and asking someone to reveal the correct finger. In both cases you would be asked to incriminate yourself.
If it would be lawful for a court to ask you to "unlock the phone with the correct finger" then they might as well also ask you to "unlock this harddisk with the correct keyboard keys pushed in the correct order (as a password)".
- rhizome 11y agoI don't think there's much of a difference between asking someone to reveal the correct password and asking someone to reveal the correct finger. There's a huge difference. Authorities can force you to give up your fingerprint, but not your password[1]. 1. http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/telecommunications/court-rules-police-may-compel-suspects-to-unlock-fingerprint-protected-smartphones http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/telecommunications/court-...
- schrodinger 11y agoIt's the "which finger" that becomes similar to a password, not the fingerprint (ianal)
- rhizome 11y agoAll the court cares about is for the person to supply the one that unlocks the phone, they're not going to play guessing games.
- schrodinger 11y agoCourts care about precise distinctions of law (that's their purpose!). Seems clear that fingerprints aren't protected, basically the same thing as your face in terms of privacy given a good enough camera. But they would effectively be asking you the question "which finger did you use to lock this phone" to which you may plead the 5th.
- rhizome 11y agoIt'll be contempt and possibly more if you don't unlock the device with your fingerprint. It's not hard, the "precise distinction of law," is "unlock this with your finger, whichever one does it." I don't know what complicated back and forth you're imagining, but it's never occurred in any case that I've heard of. they would effectively be asking you the question "which finger did you use to lock this phone" to which you may plead the 5th. We already covered this in the link above: the 5th Amendment covers passcodes, not fingerprints.
- Someone 11y agoBut, as Schrodinger says, this is not about your fingerprint; it is about a bit of information you have that the government does not have: which of your finger(s) this device knows about. "A bit of information you have that the government does not have" is a password.
- rhizome 11y agoI really don't understand this line of thinking. What is the scenario you imagine where the question of "which finger?" is relevant? I'll lay out the beginning: - Police want to get into your phone for some reason - You refuse to help them based on 5th Amendment or admiralty law or whatever - They go to court for a order compelling you to operate the touch lock to open the phone - You receive the order - ? Please lay out the "?" part, if you don't mind. I'm highly curious.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- carboncopy 11y ago> We already covered this in the link above: the 5th Amendment covers passcodes, not fingerprints. No, it is you who is not understanding schrodinger's assertion. The secret knowledge of which finger unlocks it is in itself a passcode and subject to 5th Amendment protection.
- Cerium 11y agoYes, and when they do force you to give your fingerprints they don't ask you what finger you want them to print they tell you which finger and when to print.