4 ms·

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 wi

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.

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.