5 ms·

I recall a supreme court decision that law enforcement cannot force someone to offer their password, as it is a violation of the 5th ammendment: https://techcru

I recall a supreme court decision that law enforcement cannot force someone to offer their password, as it is a violation of the 5th ammendment: https://techcrunch.com/2019/11/21/court-police-suspects-passwords/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/11/21/court-police-suspects-pass... However, in this most recent case, it was not a password used to unlock the phone but facial recognition: > The judge granted the Justice Department's request to place Capitol riot defendant Guy Reffitt in front of his laptop so they could use facial recognition to unlock the device And apparently this is not protected by the same ruling, which is interesting.

Arnt 5y ago
The police couldn't compel you to reveal secrets (all or some) and a password is a such a secret. But your face is not. Should the judge say: Because the face could be used for a task that is often performed using a secret, it is a secret in the sense of the law?
HWR_14 5y ago
The fifth amendment provides blanket protection from forcing you to divulge any information that can be used to convict you of a crime. This includes passwords. It also means that people can be forced to testify if given immunity to the crimes they will confess to (this is what freed Bill Cosby recently). There is no such protection covering other evidence (although a warrant may be required). The police can force you to give up DNA, fingerprints and to stand still and be photographed. Whether the information in either case is used to unlock a computer or a safe, is shown to witness or matched against samples is irrelevant.