4 ms·

I am not American but I wonder why this is an issue. I can understand refusing to do so when passing through customs but this person was accused of a crime. S

I am not American but I wonder why this is an issue. I can understand refusing to do so when passing through customs but this person was accused of a crime. Shouldn't law enforcement be allowed to check inside the laptop for evidence of his involvement? I mean if the government comes in and arrest me at my home they are allowed by warrant to enter my home. Why should a laptop be any different?

dreadlordbone 5y ago
A pesky little thing called The Fifth Amendment.
- function_seven 5y ago
  So what is the distinction between the following scenarios: 1. Checking to see if your fingerprint matches the pattern left on the stolen painting. 2. Checking to see if your DNA matches the DNA left under the victim's fingernails. 3. Checking to see if your face matches the face pattern stored on the laptop recovered during a search of your premises. 4. Checking to see if your fingerprint matches the pattern left in the Secure Enclave of the phone that was located near the scene of the crime via phone company records and GPS. These scenarios are all slightly different. I'm not saying this is or is not a 5th Amendment issue. Would really like to get a legal argument on the important distinction between #1/2 and #3/4.
  - jjeaff 5y ago
    I thinks it's likely that you could "check to see if your fingerprint matches the one in your phone". But that is totally different than using your fingerprint to unlock the device and then take information off the device to prosecute you. However, it has been found a few times that biometrics aren't really protected. But in many cases a password can be. Because you can't be compelled to incriminate yourself with your own testimony per the 5th amendment.
  - SAI_Peregrinus 5y ago
    None of those involve self-incrimination, so I don't think any of them are protected under the 5th amendment. They're all just comparing physical evidence to the suspect's physical traits.
alistairSH 5y ago
The 5h Amendment protects US citizens from providing self-incriminating testimony. That's an absolute (in theory). The question then becomes "what is testimony?" Historically, the courts have ruled that physical things are NOT testimony. So, a court can demand you proceed a physical key to a safe. And now a fingerprint or facial scan. On the other side, courts have ruled combinations, passcodes, and passwords (things you know) are testimony and are protected by the 5th. I'm not sure of all courts have ruled the same way on fingerprints and facial scans, but if you consider them closer to a physical key than a secret code, then the current ruling makes sense. Personally, I'm have mixed feelings about it. I could be swayed either way with a solid argument. So far, I lean slightly towards biometrics are closer to physical keys, but only just barely.
2Gkashmiri 5y ago
not an american but there is a concept of self incrimination. the idea is a person is not going to be forced to give evidence against himself. like no court can force an accused to say "say i have killed him, then convict him because he said that himself" or as it stands in india, "The Indian Constitution provides immunity to an accused against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) – ‘No person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself’. It is based on the legal maxim “nemo teneteur prodre accussare seipsum”, which means “No man is obliged to be a witness against himself.”"

dreadlordbone 5y ago

A pesky little thing called The Fifth Amendment.

function_seven 5y ago
So what is the distinction between the following scenarios: 1. Checking to see if your fingerprint matches the pattern left on the stolen painting. 2. Checking to see if your DNA matches the DNA left under the victim's fingernails. 3. Checking to see if your face matches the face pattern stored on the laptop recovered during a search of your premises. 4. Checking to see if your fingerprint matches the pattern left in the Secure Enclave of the phone that was located near the scene of the crime via phone company records and GPS. These scenarios are all slightly different. I'm not saying this is or is not a 5th Amendment issue. Would really like to get a legal argument on the important distinction between #1/2 and #3/4.
- jjeaff 5y ago
  I thinks it's likely that you could "check to see if your fingerprint matches the one in your phone". But that is totally different than using your fingerprint to unlock the device and then take information off the device to prosecute you. However, it has been found a few times that biometrics aren't really protected. But in many cases a password can be. Because you can't be compelled to incriminate yourself with your own testimony per the 5th amendment.
- SAI_Peregrinus 5y ago
  None of those involve self-incrimination, so I don't think any of them are protected under the 5th amendment. They're all just comparing physical evidence to the suspect's physical traits.

alistairSH 5y ago

The 5h Amendment protects US citizens from providing self-incriminating testimony. That's an absolute (in theory). The question then becomes "what is testimony?" Historically, the courts have ruled that physical things are NOT testimony. So, a court can demand you proceed a physical key to a safe. And now a fingerprint or facial scan. On the other side, courts have ruled combinations, passcodes, and passwords (things you know) are testimony and are protected by the 5th. I'm not sure of all courts have ruled the same way on fingerprints and facial scans, but if you consider them closer to a physical key than a secret code, then the current ruling makes sense. Personally, I'm have mixed feelings about it. I could be swayed either way with a solid argument. So far, I lean slightly towards biometrics are closer to physical keys, but only just barely.

2Gkashmiri 5y ago

not an american but there is a concept of self incrimination. the idea is a person is not going to be forced to give evidence against himself. like no court can force an accused to say "say i have killed him, then convict him because he said that himself" or as it stands in india, "The Indian Constitution provides immunity to an accused against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) – ‘No person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself’. It is based on the legal maxim “nemo teneteur prodre accussare seipsum”, which means “No man is obliged to be a witness against himself.”"