6 ms·

Don't use a thumbprint scanner. Set a PIN. They can force you to put your thumb in the screen but they cannot force you to remember a PIN. OK their may be able

Don't use a thumbprint scanner. Set a PIN. They can force you to put your thumb in the screen but they cannot force you to remember a PIN. OK their may be able to put you in prison for not handing over the PIN, but at least that is your decision. On some phones you can set a PIN that destroys everything....

mtgx 9y ago
The argument that "we're allowed to force you to unlock your phone with your fingerprint, because we could physically force you to do it anyway" makes me think that the governments will eventually not give citizens a pass when they have a PIN number or passphrase either, once they develop the technology to read our thoughts. And the reason is the same: because they could physically force you to reveal it. That's such a shitty way of thinking about laws. Should men be allowed to beat women just because they are physically stronger, too? No, we've simply decided as a society that just because you can do something with physical force, doesn't mean you should be able to do it, and that it's illegal to do it. And this is why I think forcing you to unlock your phone with your fingerprint, just because in theory the policemen can hold you down and force your finger on the phone, is also an immoral law and an immoral way of thinking.
- dmoy 9y ago
  I don't know about Norwegian law, but in the US the fingerprint compelling doesn't have anything to other do with "we are physically capable of forcing you to do this". Rather, there's existing precedent that allows them to requisition your fingerprint, because historically it was only used for identification. The PIN has no such precedent. (Maybe it even falls underneath 5th amendment?) Again sorry, dunno what the parallel is in Norway/EU I couldn't read the article because there were giant Facebook, Twitter, etc logos overlayed on all the text in pure black.
  - dpark 9y ago
    > The PIN has no such precedent. (Maybe it even falls underneath 5th amendment?) Not likely. I don't think the Supreme Court has decided this sort of case yet, but some lower courts have held that a suspect can be compelled to unlock a phone. The logic is that it's equivalent to compelling a suspect to unlock a safe.
    - rocqua 9y ago
      As I recall, PINs are like safe combinations. You cannot be compelled to reveal those (with a 'foregone conclusion' exception). This is because the code is 'testimony' in the sense that you are testifying you know the combination. Fingerprints are like keys. They are physical things. You can be compelled to produce a key. Similarly you can be compelled to produce your finger. Obvious I Am Not A Lawyer notification.
      - dpark 9y ago
        I'm pretty sure that precedent says you can be compelled to unlock a safe with a combination lock. You don't have to reveal the combination but you can be forced to unlock the safe. Protection from self incrimination doesn't include refusal to turn over evidence. Edit: Maybe I'm misremembering. http://blogs.denverpost.com/crime/2012/01/05/why-criminals-should-always-use-combination-safes/3343/ http://blogs.denverpost.com/crime/2012/01/05/why-criminals-s...
    - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
      Can you compel a suspect to unlock a safe using a code, not a key?
      - krastanov 9y ago
        Not inside the USA (but if you are at the border you can be refused entry in a tit-for-tat fashion - you might count that as compelling). The EFF FAQ has a lot more details.
gnodar 9y ago
> On some phones you can set a PIN that destroys everything Even better, you can set a pin to only destroy specific data. Less chance of arousing suspicion.
- giancarlostoro 9y ago
  What phones actually do that though? I wonder what happens if you tell a police officer you may hold data that they may not hold the security clearance to see through though? Those are legitimate cases, what happens then? Weird. Edit: I guess my case makes more sense as a question of what happens in the US in such a case, but the former question is a general one.
  - willstrafach 9y ago
    Such a device would usually have a standard label to indicate that fact.
    - giancarlostoro 9y ago
      Not everything has such a label on it. People use work emails on their phones for example which could contain just about anything.
      - willstrafach 9y ago
        One might have unclass or SBU e-mail on their work phone but it would be very problematic if there was actual classified data on a "regular" device.

mtgx 9y ago

The argument that "we're allowed to force you to unlock your phone with your fingerprint, because we could physically force you to do it anyway" makes me think that the governments will eventually not give citizens a pass when they have a PIN number or passphrase either, once they develop the technology to read our thoughts. And the reason is the same: because they could physically force you to reveal it. That's such a shitty way of thinking about laws. Should men be allowed to beat women just because they are physically stronger, too? No, we've simply decided as a society that just because you can do something with physical force, doesn't mean you should be able to do it, and that it's illegal to do it. And this is why I think forcing you to unlock your phone with your fingerprint, just because in theory the policemen can hold you down and force your finger on the phone, is also an immoral law and an immoral way of thinking.

dmoy 9y ago
I don't know about Norwegian law, but in the US the fingerprint compelling doesn't have anything to other do with "we are physically capable of forcing you to do this". Rather, there's existing precedent that allows them to requisition your fingerprint, because historically it was only used for identification. The PIN has no such precedent. (Maybe it even falls underneath 5th amendment?) Again sorry, dunno what the parallel is in Norway/EU I couldn't read the article because there were giant Facebook, Twitter, etc logos overlayed on all the text in pure black.
- dpark 9y ago
  > The PIN has no such precedent. (Maybe it even falls underneath 5th amendment?) Not likely. I don't think the Supreme Court has decided this sort of case yet, but some lower courts have held that a suspect can be compelled to unlock a phone. The logic is that it's equivalent to compelling a suspect to unlock a safe.
  - rocqua 9y ago
    As I recall, PINs are like safe combinations. You cannot be compelled to reveal those (with a 'foregone conclusion' exception). This is because the code is 'testimony' in the sense that you are testifying you know the combination. Fingerprints are like keys. They are physical things. You can be compelled to produce a key. Similarly you can be compelled to produce your finger. Obvious I Am Not A Lawyer notification.
    - dpark 9y ago
      I'm pretty sure that precedent says you can be compelled to unlock a safe with a combination lock. You don't have to reveal the combination but you can be forced to unlock the safe. Protection from self incrimination doesn't include refusal to turn over evidence. Edit: Maybe I'm misremembering. http://blogs.denverpost.com/crime/2012/01/05/why-criminals-should-always-use-combination-safes/3343/ http://blogs.denverpost.com/crime/2012/01/05/why-criminals-s...
  - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
    Can you compel a suspect to unlock a safe using a code, not a key?
    - krastanov 9y ago
      Not inside the USA (but if you are at the border you can be refused entry in a tit-for-tat fashion - you might count that as compelling). The EFF FAQ has a lot more details.

gnodar 9y ago

> On some phones you can set a PIN that destroys everything Even better, you can set a pin to only destroy specific data. Less chance of arousing suspicion.

giancarlostoro 9y ago
What phones actually do that though? I wonder what happens if you tell a police officer you may hold data that they may not hold the security clearance to see through though? Those are legitimate cases, what happens then? Weird. Edit: I guess my case makes more sense as a question of what happens in the US in such a case, but the former question is a general one.
- willstrafach 9y ago
  Such a device would usually have a standard label to indicate that fact.
  - giancarlostoro 9y ago
    Not everything has such a label on it. People use work emails on their phones for example which could contain just about anything.
    - willstrafach 9y ago
      One might have unclass or SBU e-mail on their work phone but it would be very problematic if there was actual classified data on a "regular" device.