4 ms·

Yes, but the police have to get warrants. If they fail to get a warrant, then it's inadmissable in court. In the phone case, they don't need a warrant if your

by tuxxy 9y ago

Yes, but the police have to get warrants. If they fail to get a warrant, then it's inadmissable in court. In the phone case, they don't need a warrant if your authentication method is literally your face.

coldtea 9y ago
>Yes, but the police have to get warrants. If they fail to get a warrant, then it's inadmissible in court. Depends on the country. Not everywhere, including western Europe, is this true.
fastball 9y ago
Searching through your phone seems like an action that would require a warrant.
- coldtea 9y ago
  Requiring a warrant seems like an action many cops could not care less about nevertheless. For one, there are tons of loopholes, from border searches to "evidence of criminal activity" (dead easy to "prove" for a black/latino/poor person and have the court agree), and unless you can afford a good lawyer, good luck trying to prove your rights were violated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrantless_searches_in_the_United_States#Exceptions_to_the_search_warrant_requirement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrantless_searches_in_the_Un... http://www.npr.org/2011/05/16/136368744/in-warrantless-search-case-top-court-rules-for-police http://www.npr.org/2011/05/16/136368744/in-warrantless-searc... Not to mention that warrants are not that difficult to obtain either -- except in the movies.
rossbmiller 9y ago
Keys and faces don't really matter. It's a 3-part test. 1. You are a government agent 2. You are on a quest for evidence 3. You are searching in a place where there exists a reasonable expectation of privacy If all 3 of these are true, you need a warrant (at least in the US). Doesn't matter if the keys, or in this case your face, are right there. The fact that you locked your phone with something the cop doesn't normally have is enough to require a warrant.
GeekyBear 9y ago
In the United States, the Supreme Court does not allow warrantless cell phone searches. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_v._California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_v._California
- kobeya 9y ago
  The police holds up the phone, pointing towards the suspect: Detective: "Is this yours?" _Suspect glances in the direction indicated, phone unlocks._ Detective: "Nevermind, I got it from here." ----- At least TouchID required physical assault to get you to unlock the phone. FaceID on the other hand can be defeated with perfectly legal attention grabbing techniques.
  - GeekyBear 9y ago
    This doesn't seem to be a valid argument when discussing the police in the United States. Without a warrant: No information taken from your phone by the police is admissible. With a warrant: A judge can compel you to unlock any device with a biometric lock, regardless of what sort of biometric lock we are discussing. Fingerprint, iris scan, or face, it simply does not matter.
    - kobeya 9y ago
      Warrants aren’t always required. Also, lack of a warrant just means the direct evidence they gather won’t be admissible, but it might lead them to new evidence. Also, it’s not just the police one needs worry about.
      - GeekyBear 9y ago
        Even if an illegal search of your phone led to new evidence, in the US that new evidence would fall under a legal doctrine known as "fruit of a poisonous tree". Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally. For example, if a police officer conducted an unconstitutional search of a home and obtained a key to a train station locker, and evidence of a crime came from the locker, that evidence would most likely be excluded under the fruit of the poisonous tree legal doctrine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree Border agents operate under a different set of rules and have been searching mobile devices without a warrant or even probable cause. However the ACLU and EFF have filed a new lawsuit challenging this behavior, now that the Supreme Court has ruled that the police cannot conduct warrantless searches of cell phones inside the US.

by tuxxy 9y ago

coldtea 9y ago

>Yes, but the police have to get warrants. If they fail to get a warrant, then it's inadmissible in court. Depends on the country. Not everywhere, including western Europe, is this true.

fastball 9y ago

Searching through your phone seems like an action that would require a warrant.

coldtea 9y ago
Requiring a warrant seems like an action many cops could not care less about nevertheless. For one, there are tons of loopholes, from border searches to "evidence of criminal activity" (dead easy to "prove" for a black/latino/poor person and have the court agree), and unless you can afford a good lawyer, good luck trying to prove your rights were violated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrantless_searches_in_the_United_States#Exceptions_to_the_search_warrant_requirement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrantless_searches_in_the_Un... http://www.npr.org/2011/05/16/136368744/in-warrantless-search-case-top-court-rules-for-police http://www.npr.org/2011/05/16/136368744/in-warrantless-searc... Not to mention that warrants are not that difficult to obtain either -- except in the movies.

rossbmiller 9y ago

Keys and faces don't really matter. It's a 3-part test. 1. You are a government agent 2. You are on a quest for evidence 3. You are searching in a place where there exists a reasonable expectation of privacy If all 3 of these are true, you need a warrant (at least in the US). Doesn't matter if the keys, or in this case your face, are right there. The fact that you locked your phone with something the cop doesn't normally have is enough to require a warrant.

GeekyBear 9y ago

In the United States, the Supreme Court does not allow warrantless cell phone searches. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_v._California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_v._California

kobeya 9y ago
The police holds up the phone, pointing towards the suspect: Detective: "Is this yours?" _Suspect glances in the direction indicated, phone unlocks._ Detective: "Nevermind, I got it from here." ----- At least TouchID required physical assault to get you to unlock the phone. FaceID on the other hand can be defeated with perfectly legal attention grabbing techniques.
- GeekyBear 9y ago
  This doesn't seem to be a valid argument when discussing the police in the United States. Without a warrant: No information taken from your phone by the police is admissible. With a warrant: A judge can compel you to unlock any device with a biometric lock, regardless of what sort of biometric lock we are discussing. Fingerprint, iris scan, or face, it simply does not matter.
  - kobeya 9y ago
    Warrants aren’t always required. Also, lack of a warrant just means the direct evidence they gather won’t be admissible, but it might lead them to new evidence. Also, it’s not just the police one needs worry about.
    - GeekyBear 9y ago
      Even if an illegal search of your phone led to new evidence, in the US that new evidence would fall under a legal doctrine known as "fruit of a poisonous tree". Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally. For example, if a police officer conducted an unconstitutional search of a home and obtained a key to a train station locker, and evidence of a crime came from the locker, that evidence would most likely be excluded under the fruit of the poisonous tree legal doctrine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree Border agents operate under a different set of rules and have been searching mobile devices without a warrant or even probable cause. However the ACLU and EFF have filed a new lawsuit challenging this behavior, now that the Supreme Court has ruled that the police cannot conduct warrantless searches of cell phones inside the US.