Privacy

32442 readers

738 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
Don't promote proprietary software
Try to keep things on topic
If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
Be nice :)

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

328

Cops can force suspect to unlock phone with thumbprint, US court rules (arstechnica.com)

submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

121 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] [email protected] -26 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 53 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Not without a search warrant.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

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."