Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2024 Poal.co

604

Well, you probably should not be using your finger print to unlock anything anyway. Most of those sensors are (or at least used to be) fairly easily fooled. But now that they say they can force you to unlock your phone with a fingerprint... Don't enable that feature for your phone. Simple as that.

Archive: https://archive.today/k8PWN

From the post:

>The US Constitution's Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination does not prohibit police officers from forcing a suspect to unlock a phone with a thumbprint scan, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday. The ruling does not apply to all cases in which biometrics are used to unlock an electronic device but is a significant decision in an unsettled area of the law. The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit had to grapple with the question of "whether the compelled use of Payne's thumb to unlock his phone was testimonial," the ruling in United States v. Jeremy Travis Payne said. "To date, neither the Supreme Court nor any of our sister circuits have addressed whether the compelled use of a biometric to unlock an electronic device is testimonial."

Well, you probably should not be using your finger print to unlock *anything* anyway. Most of those sensors are (or at least used to be) fairly easily fooled. But now that they say they can force you to unlock your phone with a fingerprint... Don't enable that feature for your phone. Simple as that. Archive: https://archive.today/k8PWN From the post: >>The US Constitution's Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination does not prohibit police officers from forcing a suspect to unlock a phone with a thumbprint scan, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday. The ruling does not apply to all cases in which biometrics are used to unlock an electronic device but is a significant decision in an unsettled area of the law. The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit had to grapple with the question of "whether the compelled use of Payne's thumb to unlock his phone was testimonial," the ruling in United States v. Jeremy Travis Payne said. "To date, neither the Supreme Court nor any of our sister circuits have addressed whether the compelled use of a biometric to unlock an electronic device is testimonial."

(post is archived)

[–] • 2 pts

Don't use any biometrics or facial recognition to gain access to any devices. Passwords or patterns only.

[–] • 0 pt

Or if you do, reboot it as soon as the cops start talking. I think all of them require the pin/password on reboot.

[–] • 0 pt

You may use biometrics for in app authentication without using biometric for unlock. That strikes a better, but maybe imperfect, balance

[–] • 2 pts

Wow. Wow.

Police state, here we are.

[–] • 1 pt

You just now getting that memo? We've been here.

[–] • 1 pt

No. I realize it's been like this for a while. Simply acknowledging the on going march towards ever more tyranny.

[–] • 1 pt

>9th Circuit

According to the website Ballotpedia, "Since 2007, the Ninth Circuit had a reversal rate of 80.3 percent."

I predict another reversal in their future.

[–] • 1 pt

Yeah, that is very possible. Also, if your court has that bad of a "win rate" you are doing something wrong and unconstitutional.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

Forcing you to communicate a private device password? That is unacceptable behavior for government.

Forcing movement of your body and property to achieve the result of forced confession, acceptable.

You may be enslaved by government to furnish evidence against yourself. You may not be required to speak evidence against yourself, however. Expect further rulings to clarify that forced servitude must be of "reasonable duration" using means which are not morally repugnant and reasonably calculated to bring about the desired product of such servitude.