3 ms·

So in america, they can force you to use a biometric but they can't compel you to reveal your password? I mean, i agree with you, but its a really weird line i

by bawolff 9mo ago

So in america, they can force you to use a biometric but they can't compel you to reveal your password? I mean, i agree with you, but its a really weird line in the sand to draw

afavour 9mo ago
That is genuinely the current state of law, yes. There's no real logic at work, just attempts at clawing back control whenever a new gray area appears.
- intrasight 9mo ago
  It is very logical, as revealing a password is considered testimonial and is protected by the fifth amendment.
  - afavour 9mo ago
    Right, and pressing your finger on a fingerprint sensor is also revealing a password, just via different means.
    - intrasight 9mo ago
      But is not legal testimonial
      - afavour 9mo ago
        Right. Like I said, that's not logical, that's just legalese to gain access where you didn't have it before.
        intrasight 9mo ago
        My fiancé is an attorney and I'm an engineer, and she looked at me incredulously when point out anything that is not logical in her legal work. I'm thankful my father talked me out of becoming a lawyer.
Arubis 9mo ago
Pretty much. Something you are: can be legally compelled Something you have: can be legally compelled Something you know: cannot be legally compelled
- zozbot234 9mo ago
  You can still be legally compelled to provide testimony, the catch is merely that you have to be granted immunity from being charged with a crime on the basis of any derived evidence. In this case, it seems that the WaPo journalist could still be compelled to provide such information if she's not charged for any crime.
benterix 9mo ago
> So in america, they can force you to use a biometric but they can't compel you to reveal your password? I don't get it, touching finger is easy, but how do you compel someone to reveal their password?
- bob001 9mo ago
  The UK simply puts you in jail for not doing so.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
- bawolff 9mo ago
  Tell us the password or we throw you in jail, shoot you, etc. The legal system is always ultimately backed by the state's monopoly on violence.
- jon-wood 9mo ago
  Depending on the country and the willingness to comply with legal norms somewhere between putting you in prison until you give it up and hitting you with a stick until you give it up.
  - mock-possum 9mo ago
    And to be clear, in other words, that means you can’t be compelled. You can effectively resist giving up your password, you cannot effectively resist giving up your finger, gruesome though the prospect might be.
- rtkwe 9mo ago
  Put them in jail until they do or charge them with whatever the local flavor for "obstruction" is. In places where they're allowed by law to require you to give up a password not doing so when the proper steps are taken would usually be it's own crime, usually phrased as some sort of "obstruction" charge with it's own sentence. And that's just places where the law and citizen rights are a meaningful concept in restraining state power.
forgotaccount3 9mo ago
One is knowledge the user has, and the other is a physical key they own. Providing your 'finger' to unlock a device is no different than providing your 'key' to unlock something. So you can be compelled to provide those biometrics. Compelling you to reveal a password is not some *thing* you have but knowledge you contain. Being compelled to provide that knowledge is no different than being compelled to reveal where you were or what you were doing at some place or time.
ExpertAdvisor01 9mo ago
Germany does the same thing too . They can force you to unlock via faceid/biometric but can't force you to enter password.
rtkwe 9mo ago
Yes the difference come from a close parsing of the 5th amendment, telling cops the password or code for a device or safe is pretty clearly compelling speech and adverse testimony while allowing cops to gather fingerprints and DNA has long been held as allowed so biometrics were analogized to that. It's also similar to the rule that cops can't force you to tell them the code to a safe but they're allowed with a warrant to destructively open the safe (if it falls under the terms of the warrant). Combine those too legal threads and it's at least reasonable to see how that line gets drawn from previous rulings.

by bawolff 9mo ago

So in america, they can force you to use a biometric but they can't compel you to reveal your password? I mean, i agree with you, but its a really weird line in the sand to draw

afavour 9mo ago

That is genuinely the current state of law, yes. There's no real logic at work, just attempts at clawing back control whenever a new gray area appears.

intrasight 9mo ago
It is very logical, as revealing a password is considered testimonial and is protected by the fifth amendment.
- afavour 9mo ago
  Right, and pressing your finger on a fingerprint sensor is also revealing a password, just via different means.
  - intrasight 9mo ago
    But is not legal testimonial
    - afavour 9mo ago
      Right. Like I said, that's not logical, that's just legalese to gain access where you didn't have it before.
      - intrasight 9mo ago
        My fiancé is an attorney and I'm an engineer, and she looked at me incredulously when point out anything that is not logical in her legal work. I'm thankful my father talked me out of becoming a lawyer.

Arubis 9mo ago

Pretty much. Something you are: can be legally compelled Something you have: can be legally compelled Something you know: cannot be legally compelled

zozbot234 9mo ago
You can still be legally compelled to provide testimony, the catch is merely that you have to be granted immunity from being charged with a crime on the basis of any derived evidence. In this case, it seems that the WaPo journalist could still be compelled to provide such information if she's not charged for any crime.

benterix 9mo ago

> So in america, they can force you to use a biometric but they can't compel you to reveal your password? I don't get it, touching finger is easy, but how do you compel someone to reveal their password?

bob001 9mo ago
The UK simply puts you in jail for not doing so.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
bawolff 9mo ago
Tell us the password or we throw you in jail, shoot you, etc. The legal system is always ultimately backed by the state's monopoly on violence.
jon-wood 9mo ago
Depending on the country and the willingness to comply with legal norms somewhere between putting you in prison until you give it up and hitting you with a stick until you give it up.
- mock-possum 9mo ago
  And to be clear, in other words, that means you can’t be compelled. You can effectively resist giving up your password, you cannot effectively resist giving up your finger, gruesome though the prospect might be.
rtkwe 9mo ago
Put them in jail until they do or charge them with whatever the local flavor for "obstruction" is. In places where they're allowed by law to require you to give up a password not doing so when the proper steps are taken would usually be it's own crime, usually phrased as some sort of "obstruction" charge with it's own sentence. And that's just places where the law and citizen rights are a meaningful concept in restraining state power.

forgotaccount3 9mo ago

One is knowledge the user has, and the other is a physical key they own. Providing your 'finger' to unlock a device is no different than providing your 'key' to unlock something. So you can be compelled to provide those biometrics. Compelling you to reveal a password is not some *thing* you have but knowledge you contain. Being compelled to provide that knowledge is no different than being compelled to reveal where you were or what you were doing at some place or time.

ExpertAdvisor01 9mo ago

Germany does the same thing too . They can force you to unlock via faceid/biometric but can't force you to enter password.

rtkwe 9mo ago

Yes the difference come from a close parsing of the 5th amendment, telling cops the password or code for a device or safe is pretty clearly compelling speech and adverse testimony while allowing cops to gather fingerprints and DNA has long been held as allowed so biometrics were analogized to that. It's also similar to the rule that cops can't force you to tell them the code to a safe but they're allowed with a warrant to destructively open the safe (if it falls under the terms of the warrant). Combine those too legal threads and it's at least reasonable to see how that line gets drawn from previous rulings.