4 ms·

I doubt this will hold up. You can be compelled by a court to have your blood withdrawn if a warrant is issued while you're under suspicion of DUI. Why would

I doubt this will hold up. You can be compelled by a court to have your blood withdrawn if a warrant is issued while you're under suspicion of DUI. Why would it not be similarly allowable to have your finger placed on the unlock button? Testimonial privilege (against being forced to testify) is about not being made to say / speak statements against your own prosecution. Speech. Testimony. Having evidence taken is not forcing you to speak, testify, or make a statement, at least in the current interpretation of evidence. This ruling is not for sure at all.

gammateam 8y ago
“A California [federal] judge” yeah I stopped reading there Even the 9th circuit appeals court upholding this ruling wouldnt be something to trust This part of the country simply doesnt have consensus with the rest and doesnt have power over the constitution, whether I like the ruling or not.
- pc86 8y ago
  Until a higher court overturns it this is the law of the land in that jurisdiction. Whether they agree with a court 2,000 miles away is completely irrelevant. Also you should occasionally read things that you disagree with, if only to test your own assumptions and prejudices about yourself and the world around you. It makes you an objectively better person.
  - gammateam 8y ago
    There can be a lack of appeal which lets the district court ruling stand. What does your second paragraph have to do with anything mentioned in this thread
arcturus17 8y ago
In the eyes of the law, how is this different to being compelled to give your passcode though? Of course it’s easier and they could maybe even unlock a phone with your corpse but in jurisdictions where the law protects the individual’s privacy above all else this shouldn’t make a difference.
- rocqua 8y ago
  Its 'something you know' vs 'something you are'. In some sense, the issue here is that we use fingerprints as authorization whilst they should be authentication.
- supernova87a 8y ago
  It is fundamentally, very importantly, different. Being compelled to say / give your password is forcing you to admit or testify that you know the code and can unlock your phone. You can choose not to give testimony (statements) that could be used against you. On the other hand, if you are in possession of a physical key or code written on a piece of paper... or fingerprint... you can be compelled to turn that piece of evidence over to the government.
  - pc86 8y ago
    And this ruling is simply stating that your fingerprint is more akin to testimony than it is to an object. I personally don't think it will stand up (unfortunately) but for the moment, in this jurisdiction, it will.
- IkmoIkmo 8y ago
  As I understand it, we are not required to incriminate ourselves. e.g. we can not be told or forced to confess, similarly we cannot be told to open a lock. In fact, there is no way to determine wether you indeed do know (or remember), or do not know/remember the passcode prior to forcing you to hand it over. Any punishment for not cooperating may be a punishment for not remembering, or worse, not even ever knowing the passcode. But we can be be 'used' to build evidence. For example, being detained and forced to stand in a line-up so that a witness may recognise you. Or having your speech recorded, so it may be compared to a criminal telephone recording. Or having your fingerprint taken to be compare to fingerprints found at a crimescene. Having your key be taken to unlock a vault which is suspected to contain stolen items. Or indeed, having your finger or face scanned to unlock the same thing. These seem like fundamentally different things, one which may lead to improper judgements, another which leads to generally reasonable judgements.
pc86 8y ago
> Testimonial privilege (against being forced to testify) is about not being made to say / speak statements against your own prosecution. Speech. Testimony. As the article states, polygraph results are (were) legally considered testimony. That's the results, not what you actually said. So "testimony === speech" is incorrect at both the practical and the legal level. This court is simply saying that your fingerprint is much closer to testimony than it is to objective chemical proof of a crime, as in your blood draw DUI/DWI example.
m-p-3 8y ago
And also, the problem with biometrics is that they're not passwords, they're usernames. It's by no mean secret, although somewhat unique to the individual.

gammateam 8y ago

“A California [federal] judge” yeah I stopped reading there Even the 9th circuit appeals court upholding this ruling wouldnt be something to trust This part of the country simply doesnt have consensus with the rest and doesnt have power over the constitution, whether I like the ruling or not.

pc86 8y ago
Until a higher court overturns it this is the law of the land in that jurisdiction. Whether they agree with a court 2,000 miles away is completely irrelevant. Also you should occasionally read things that you disagree with, if only to test your own assumptions and prejudices about yourself and the world around you. It makes you an objectively better person.
- gammateam 8y ago
  There can be a lack of appeal which lets the district court ruling stand. What does your second paragraph have to do with anything mentioned in this thread

arcturus17 8y ago

In the eyes of the law, how is this different to being compelled to give your passcode though? Of course it’s easier and they could maybe even unlock a phone with your corpse but in jurisdictions where the law protects the individual’s privacy above all else this shouldn’t make a difference.

rocqua 8y ago
Its 'something you know' vs 'something you are'. In some sense, the issue here is that we use fingerprints as authorization whilst they should be authentication.
supernova87a 8y ago
It is fundamentally, very importantly, different. Being compelled to say / give your password is forcing you to admit or testify that you know the code and can unlock your phone. You can choose not to give testimony (statements) that could be used against you. On the other hand, if you are in possession of a physical key or code written on a piece of paper... or fingerprint... you can be compelled to turn that piece of evidence over to the government.
- pc86 8y ago
  And this ruling is simply stating that your fingerprint is more akin to testimony than it is to an object. I personally don't think it will stand up (unfortunately) but for the moment, in this jurisdiction, it will.
IkmoIkmo 8y ago
As I understand it, we are not required to incriminate ourselves. e.g. we can not be told or forced to confess, similarly we cannot be told to open a lock. In fact, there is no way to determine wether you indeed do know (or remember), or do not know/remember the passcode prior to forcing you to hand it over. Any punishment for not cooperating may be a punishment for not remembering, or worse, not even ever knowing the passcode. But we can be be 'used' to build evidence. For example, being detained and forced to stand in a line-up so that a witness may recognise you. Or having your speech recorded, so it may be compared to a criminal telephone recording. Or having your fingerprint taken to be compare to fingerprints found at a crimescene. Having your key be taken to unlock a vault which is suspected to contain stolen items. Or indeed, having your finger or face scanned to unlock the same thing. These seem like fundamentally different things, one which may lead to improper judgements, another which leads to generally reasonable judgements.

pc86 8y ago

> Testimonial privilege (against being forced to testify) is about not being made to say / speak statements against your own prosecution. Speech. Testimony. As the article states, polygraph results are (were) legally considered testimony. That's the results, not what you actually said. So "testimony === speech" is incorrect at both the practical and the legal level. This court is simply saying that your fingerprint is much closer to testimony than it is to objective chemical proof of a crime, as in your blood draw DUI/DWI example.

m-p-3 8y ago

And also, the problem with biometrics is that they're not passwords, they're usernames. It's by no mean secret, although somewhat unique to the individual.