this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2023
585 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

59207 readers
3234 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
585
Suspects can refuse to provide phone passcodes to police, court rules (arstechnica.com)
submitted 11 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
91 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Suspects can refuse to provide phone passcodes to police, court rules::Phone-unlocking case law is "total mess," may be ripe for Supreme Court review.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 71 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Nope, each state is doing its own thing and the 5th ammendment is being trampled in a few of them. Biometrics and passwords are being forced and this is an amazing ruling for 5A advocates like myself.

SC needs to rule on it, but preferably not THIS supreme court

[–] AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world 25 points 11 months ago (2 children)

But biometrics have never been covered by the 5th amendment. Police collect facial photos and fingerprints and have done so for years. On top of that any DNA you unknowing leave at a police station can be used as evidence (strand of hair, spit on the rim of a water glass). I would never recommend commiting a crime but if you do and have evidence of it on your phone don't use biometrics.

[–] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 31 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Forcing someone to press on their phone to unlock it via fingerprunt is a lot different than just collecting data.

IMO, forced/coerced biometrics to unlock a device SHOULD be covered by 5A

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

Exactly. If the hair I leave behind or my spit on the rim of a glass can unlock my phone, that sucks but those are public things I’ve left behind. Unless I leave my fingers behind on the officers desk, forcing me to unlock my phone with them should be should be a violation of my rights.

[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

How come there are never 3A advocates? What if I'm really against allowing soldiers to quarter in private homes?

Edit: I probably subconsciously stole this joke from someone/somewhere in case anyone thinks I'm trying to claim it as my own.

[–] starman2112@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

I'm sure if the government was doing it's damnedest to house soldiers in our apartments, there'd be more people against it. Unfortunately they're just doing their best to jail anyone they don't like.