7 ms·

"providing fingerprints and other biometric information is considered outside the protection" Is it just me, or is there a contradiction here? I'm happy to pro

"providing fingerprints and other biometric information is considered outside the protection" Is it just me, or is there a contradiction here? I'm happy to provide you with a finger print (in ink), but that in itself is not enough to unlock the phone. You need my live hand attached to my live finger. I think the problem here is that it is an oversimplification to call it a "finger print".

FireBeyond 12y ago
Not really. While there were comments about ‘sub dermal fields’ with the iPhone, it was very quickly shown that you do not need even a reasonable facsimile of flesh, let alone live flesh, to fool the sensor.
kyboren 12y ago
DNA tests are done by cotton swab of your 'live' cheek. Should they only be done on 'dead' dandruff? In any case, it should be pretty easy to recreate a sufficiently-convincing fake finger given an ink fingerprint. But that all misses the point. The only reason passwords get special treatment is that an order to compel production of a password is an order to testify against oneself. For example, unless the defendant already admits to knowing the password, the fact that the defendent knew the password after production would be obviously prejudicial. It would be tantamount to requiring the defendent to testify, "yes, it was me". In other words, compulsory production of information whose existence and location is not a foregone conclusion probably falls foul of the Fifth Amendment. Compulsory production of your finger does not require you to provide any information other than information that clearly exists about you. (IANAL)