4 ms·
As I understand it, this has always been the case? The point is that the police can't prove you do or do not remember a code. Consequently, they can't compel
by bsder 3y ago
As I understand it, this has always been the case?
The point is that the police can't prove you do or do not remember a code. Consequently, they can't compel you to use that code.
However, since your thumbprint definitely exists, they can compel you to use it.
- JohnFen 3y agoThat was my understanding as well. Are we missing something here?
- AdamJacobMuller 3y agoMy understanding of it was different. As I understood it, the police can not compel you to tell them something you know because this would be analogous to testifying against yourself, however, they can require you to give them something you have (or something they would find with a warrant) because it is a physical thing, not testimony. It's the difference between being required to give up a safe combination which the police can not compel you to tell them, vs, a key to a safe which the police could search you for and take from you and use to open the safe within the bounds of a warrant (or some other theoretical circumstances).
- ortusdux 3y agoI'd add this to the list of reasons why biometrics ≠ passwords.
- jetrink 3y ago> The point is that the police can't prove you do or do not remember a code. Consequently, they can't compel you to use that code. Also, they can't coerce you to reveal the code even if they can prove you know it. Confessions extracted under torture by inquisitors was a recent memory when the Bill of Rights was drafted.
- ukd1 3y agoWell, at least in the USA; in the UK the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), specifically under Part III - a Section 49 notice can be issues, which legally requires an individual to disclose passwords or encryption keys, though I can only see a few folks prosecuted for failure to disclose.