4 ms·

Just because they were allowed to take fingerprints when fingerprints were only useful for establishing identity, does not mean they should be allowed to use a

Just because they were allowed to take fingerprints when fingerprints were only useful for establishing identity, does not mean they should be allowed to use a fingerprint to work around other restrictions.

Jare 2y ago
Maybe they shouldn't (I'm not quite sure myself), but the arguments for that seem to me completely separate from any "self incrimination" angle. I frankly can't find a difference between the passkey being your fingerprint and, for example, the passkey being written with a pen on your finger's skin or a postit on your pocket.
- Jerrrry 2y ago
  If your password is written down, then it is fair game for seizure. If your password must be divulged from you with forced complicity, then the complicity is self-incriminating; the constitution forbids this. As an actual sidestep, you could be legally obliged to provide your password to a third-party computer; the current legal hiccup (although not in issue in practice) is to make your password itself incriminating. (hypothetically in minecraft)
  - piaste 2y ago
    > As an actual sidestep, you could be legally obliged to provide your password to a third-party computer I don't understand how this is a sidestep: could you expand?
    - Jerrrry 2y ago
      There are legal arguments that providing a passphrase to an unbiased, unconnected, unrelated and compartmentalized computer to facilitate decryption is not a violation of the accused's 5th amendment rights if the court is sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the encrypted partition contains evidence. The derived decryption key would be analogous to a lockbox key/written instructions to further evidence, and therefore be fair for seizure. In that particular case, even the accused acknowledge the existence of the evidence; whether this is the nuance that allows compulsion via force is the crux of the matter.
      - Repulsion9513 2y ago
        The case you're referencing has nothing to do with how the password is provided and rather with the fact that the existence of the evidence was a foregone conclusion. (Of course, if it was really a foregone conclusion then the question remains why they needed access to that evidence)
        Jerrrry 2y ago
        It doesn't negate, innately, that the action is literally compelling the defendant to incriminate himself with his own actions/words, not his bio-metrics. If the crux is literally that his compulsion is moot to the establishment of the evidence, then it both begs the question you had mentioned - why is it needed - and raises the obvious comparison of a murderer who has confessed to his crimes being compelled to divulge the location of a body. In that comparative example, the location could contain more incriminating evidence. So I guess make your passwords incriminating or make sure you have multiple domains/spans of crimes all unrelated in the same virtual place.

Jare 2y ago

Maybe they shouldn't (I'm not quite sure myself), but the arguments for that seem to me completely separate from any "self incrimination" angle. I frankly can't find a difference between the passkey being your fingerprint and, for example, the passkey being written with a pen on your finger's skin or a postit on your pocket.

Jerrrry 2y ago
If your password is written down, then it is fair game for seizure. If your password must be divulged from you with forced complicity, then the complicity is self-incriminating; the constitution forbids this. As an actual sidestep, you could be legally obliged to provide your password to a third-party computer; the current legal hiccup (although not in issue in practice) is to make your password itself incriminating. (hypothetically in minecraft)
- piaste 2y ago
  > As an actual sidestep, you could be legally obliged to provide your password to a third-party computer I don't understand how this is a sidestep: could you expand?
  - Jerrrry 2y ago
    There are legal arguments that providing a passphrase to an unbiased, unconnected, unrelated and compartmentalized computer to facilitate decryption is not a violation of the accused's 5th amendment rights if the court is sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the encrypted partition contains evidence. The derived decryption key would be analogous to a lockbox key/written instructions to further evidence, and therefore be fair for seizure. In that particular case, even the accused acknowledge the existence of the evidence; whether this is the nuance that allows compulsion via force is the crux of the matter.
    - Repulsion9513 2y ago
      The case you're referencing has nothing to do with how the password is provided and rather with the fact that the existence of the evidence was a foregone conclusion. (Of course, if it was really a foregone conclusion then the question remains why they needed access to that evidence)
      - Jerrrry 2y ago
        It doesn't negate, innately, that the action is literally compelling the defendant to incriminate himself with his own actions/words, not his bio-metrics. If the crux is literally that his compulsion is moot to the establishment of the evidence, then it both begs the question you had mentioned - why is it needed - and raises the obvious comparison of a murderer who has confessed to his crimes being compelled to divulge the location of a body. In that comparative example, the location could contain more incriminating evidence. So I guess make your passwords incriminating or make sure you have multiple domains/spans of crimes all unrelated in the same virtual place.