4 ms·

I don't think that the biometric issue has anything to do with it. It's the content. If you have something 'in a safe' - can the police arbitrary require you

I don't think that the biometric issue has anything to do with it. It's the content. If you have something 'in a safe' - can the police arbitrary require you to unlock that safe to produce whatever is inside? It's unlikely, without a warrant, no? Passwords, biometrics - secondary issues. Or perhaps a good analogy would be the 'locked in the glovebox' - I don't think police can require you to open it if it's locked, unless they have a warrant. Same for trunk, no?

otoburb 10y ago
I'm not a lawyer. However, the amicus brief[1] is pretty good reading and addresses your scenario above with a locked box, vault or safe. In those instances, the "content" doesn't change (hence the decryption argument doesn't apply here), but the method by which the lockbox is secured greatly matters (page 13 of the brief): "As the Supreme Court noted in Hubbell, the compelled entry of a safe’s combination is testimonial because it requires the compelled use of the “contents of [an individual’s] own mind” and is thus within the Fifth Amendment’s privilege. [...] Meanwhile, the compelled production of a lockbox’s key is not testimonial, because it involves “a mere physical act”." Thus, biometric data (i.e. the act of placing your face or finger near/on the device to unlock) could be construed as a "mere physical act" as referenced in the U.S. vs. Hubbell Supreme Court case[2]. [1] https://www.eff.org/document/us-v-mitchell-eff-and-aclu-amicus-brief https://www.eff.org/document/us-v-mitchell-eff-and-aclu-amic... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Hubbell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Hubbell
- edblarney 10y ago
  If that's true, it's ridiculous. The issue at hand is that it's a 'locking mechanism' - something that only specific people can do, by virtue of the fact that they have a key, or knowledge, or whatever. Whether it's biometric, a password, or a padlock - is basically irrelevant to the nature of the situation, I would hope that it's recognized as such legally, although I admit I have no idea.
  - subway 10y ago
    As with all things legal, it's all up to the Judge(es), and how they decide to interpret the law and your actions.

otoburb 10y ago

I'm not a lawyer. However, the amicus brief[1] is pretty good reading and addresses your scenario above with a locked box, vault or safe. In those instances, the "content" doesn't change (hence the decryption argument doesn't apply here), but the method by which the lockbox is secured greatly matters (page 13 of the brief): "As the Supreme Court noted in Hubbell, the compelled entry of a safe’s combination is testimonial because it requires the compelled use of the “contents of [an individual’s] own mind” and is thus within the Fifth Amendment’s privilege. [...] Meanwhile, the compelled production of a lockbox’s key is not testimonial, because it involves “a mere physical act”." Thus, biometric data (i.e. the act of placing your face or finger near/on the device to unlock) could be construed as a "mere physical act" as referenced in the U.S. vs. Hubbell Supreme Court case[2]. [1] https://www.eff.org/document/us-v-mitchell-eff-and-aclu-amicus-brief https://www.eff.org/document/us-v-mitchell-eff-and-aclu-amic... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Hubbell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Hubbell

edblarney 10y ago
If that's true, it's ridiculous. The issue at hand is that it's a 'locking mechanism' - something that only specific people can do, by virtue of the fact that they have a key, or knowledge, or whatever. Whether it's biometric, a password, or a padlock - is basically irrelevant to the nature of the situation, I would hope that it's recognized as such legally, although I admit I have no idea.
- subway 10y ago
  As with all things legal, it's all up to the Judge(es), and how they decide to interpret the law and your actions.