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.

  • Korne127@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Idk… you being forced to use your body against your will to reveal secret and private things sounds pretty awful to me

    • PirateJesus@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      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 @[email protected], 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”.

    • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      28
      ·
      7 months ago

      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?

        • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          7 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.”