Cops can force suspect to unlock phone with thumbprint, US court rules
Cops can force suspect to unlock phone with thumbprint, US court rules
Ruling: Thumbprint scan is like a "blood draw or fingerprint taken at booking."
The legal situation is more complex and nuanced than the headline implies, so the article is worth reading. This adds another ruling to the confusing case history regarding forced biometric unlocking.
You're viewing a single thread.
Makes perfect sense to me (not a lawyer, not a US person)... what doesn't make sense is how many people still think biometric is high security (maybe because of how cool they make it look in the movies?)
Idk… you being forced to use your body against your will to reveal secret and private things sounds pretty awful to me
Idk… you being forced to use your body against your will to reveal secret and private things sounds pretty awful to me
Hopefully it gets overturned and your compulsion to stick your finger on the devices requires a warrant.
I'm in partial agreement with @gomp@lemmy.ml, they should be allowed to take your fingerprint and then apply that fingerprint to a device. Or get a warrant to make you stick you finger on the device. Recording your fingerprint is just collecting data to investigate a crime, it generates a record. Sticking your finger on a device is making you participate in the investigation, and generates no investigative record other than "device did/didn't unlock".
If the popo suspect you killed your wife and find you sitting on top of a chest freezer refusing to come off, should they be allowed to force you?
Not without a search warrant.
And what if it's the trunk of his car?
Which better relates to the case in the OP, as the lack of a search warrant was never the question here:
Payne conceded that "the use of biometrics to open an electronic device is akin to providing a physical key to a safe" but argued it is still a testimonial act because it "simultaneously confirm[s] ownership and authentication of its contents," the court said. "However, Payne was never compelled to acknowledge the existence of any incriminating information. He merely had to provide access to a source of potential information."
Biometric is high security against thieves and nosy girlfriends, not kidnappers or cops apparently. You need to be physically present for most of them which means it can't be done without you knowing. The problem arises when the person who wants access also has access to you.
Also not a lawyer or a US person, but from listening to American tech media, this has been an issue of some debate for a decade or more now.
The trick lies in their 5th amendment right against self-incrimination. Police cannot require you to give your PIN because that would violate 5th amendment rights. It has been ruled in some parts of America (but the ruling in other parts has been the opposite, IIRC) that you can be forced to give biometric unlocks. In my opinion this is kinda silly and inconsistent. It might be in line with the letter of the law, but it's certainly not in keeping with its spirit.
As an American and avid rights understander, it is not the 5th Amendment which this risks violating (which you did cite correctly), but the 4th Amendment, which guarantees protection from undue searches and seizures of your person, property, or effects. This is the whole reason for the warrant requirement and the reason you hear us bitching whenever something comes up that lets police or agents of the government acquire non-public access to information or property in a warrantless way.
An example: the police are investigating Mary's death and suspect you of having planned the murder in the Notes app on your phone, so they want to get into your phone. Without a court order (warrant), you have to give them permission. With the court order, you must give the passcode and/or unlock the phone.
Now, at this point, if your passcode happened to be 'I killed John02&' you could argue 5th Amendment protection because divulging the information would incriminate yourself in the crime, or a different crime.
I believe the reason the 5th is usually referenced is that this usually comes up in situations where the 4th is already not relevant. Either because there already is a warrant, or because you're crossing a border (which IMO seems like an incredibly sketchy excuse and would likely not have been accepted by those who originally penned the 4th amendment, but is at least well-established law at this point).
With the court order, you must give the passcode and/or unlock the phone
The thing is, case law has determined that this is not the case. Passcodes are fairly well protected, from what I've heard. You cannot be made to divulge them anywhere in the US, because of the 5th amendment, even with a warrant. Case law is more split on whether biometrics should be offered the same protection.
Though again, this is all my understanding of it having heard it third hand from Americans. Mostly from Americans who themselves are not legal experts, though I think I've at least a couple of times heard it directly from lawyers.
They will try to scare you into unlocking your device. I would get a lawyer if you get arrested.
The bigger problem IMO is that the Constitution does not universally apply at or within 100 miles of a border, which is where apparently 72% of the population lives.
Yeah, it’s like if you kept a bunch of illegal things in a safe the authorities have the authority to force you to unlock the safe.
Authorities with a warrant can drill into a safe to get to its contents. That’s legally distinct from forcing someone to unlock the safe by entering the combination. It takes some mental effort to enter a combination, so it counts as “testimony”, and in the USA people can’t be forced to testify against themselves.
The parallel in US law is that people can be forced to unlock a phone using biometrics, but they can’t be forced to unlock a phone by entering a passcode. The absurd part here is that the actions have the same effect, but one of them can be compelled and the other cannot.
It’ll be interesting to see if it applies to facial recognition. In iOS, at least, you need to look at the phone to unlock it. That’s an intentional action. If you look to the side or close your eyes, it won’t work.
So if you’re conscious, you can’t easily be forced to unlock the phone with your face and eyes if you’re able to resist. But if you’re unconscious, then maybe they could use your face (assuming your eyes aren’t rolled back into your head because the cops gave you brain damage.)
But you can be easily tricked. Even easier than with the fingerprint.
"Hey, can you look at those pictures?", shows some printed out pictures with the phone hiding behind and then quickly just dropping the pictures.
then quickly just dropping the pictures
Could even poke a camera-sized hole in the picture. And disguise it by putting that hole over something similarly-coloured.
But anyway, but of it is really that you can be held in contempt for refusing to unlock with biometrics, if they've got an appropriate warrant.
Probably a "have a look at this" and the 2 seconds before you realize that you are currently unlocking your phone, would be enough.
They can also compel you to provide a key to the safe, should one exist.
The issue constantly is something you have vs something you know. They also can compel you to provide a document or item from within the safe, if they know that the item exists.
Depends on the country you life in. And even in the USA it is to my knowledge not correct. They can try to crack it themself but you have not to comply.
Nobody cares. It's easy. Folks aren't out getting arrested in mass, even in the United States. Unless youre out selling drugs or protesting while breaking shit it has no functional effect on your life in any way.
Ah, yes, if you've done nothing wrong argument.
I still care whether government is being properly restrained in applying it's power against any individual citizen, because that citizen represents all of us.
Innocent until proven guilty, and all that
I don't care. I'm just saying the why.
TBH privacy advocates have largely put themselves into the position of the window ME UAC prompt. They are deaf to it and IMO it's a large part of the privacy community treating everything like an 11 and refusal to look towards a user friendly threat model.