this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2024
388 points (83.4% liked)

Technology

59652 readers
4823 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sramder@lemmy.world 76 points 7 months ago (3 children)

The article pretty plainly says the guy was coerced into entering his password. So the headline feels a bit manipulative.

[–] RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world 22 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The headline is click-bait. I honestly don’t know why people still read this crap.

[–] indog@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

So he was "only" coerced, ie likely verbally abused and lied to (which cops are allowed to do) about the consequences of refusing to unlock, instead of being physically forced. Such freedom.

[–] RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

What’s that got to do with using a thumb to unlock the phone?

[–] indog@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

“The general consensus has been that there is more Fifth Amendment protection for passwords than there is for biometrics,” Andrew Crocker, the Surveillance Litigation Director at the EFF, told Gizmodo in a phone interview. “The 5th Amendment is centered on whether you have to use the contents of your mind when you’re being asked to do something by the police and turning over your password telling them your password is pretty obviously revealing what’s in your mind.”

[–] RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Sure, but what does your original comment have to do with the thumbprint?

[–] RGB3x3@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

The cops can coerce or force you to use biometrics to unlock your phone, but they can't coerce you into giving up your passcode without a warrant.

[–] thorbot@lemmy.world 17 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

It’s Gizmodo. Its all manipulative bullshit.

[–] sramder@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Ya know… I hadn’t see anything by them in so long I forgot.

[–] thorbot@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

It’s just as shitty as ever

[–] indog@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

However, the panel said the evidence from his phone was lawfully acquired “because it required no cognitive exertion, placing it in the same category as a blood draw or a fingerprint taken at booking..."

If the precedent is that unlocking the phone is the same category as fingerprint taking, well, what happens if you refuse to be "coerced" into having your prints taken? Even if the legal precedent isn't fully understood, it looks like the reasoning here isn't based on whether there was physical force applied, but whether the search required the contents of the person's mind.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I do t know about fingerprints but I thought a blood draw required cooperation or court order

[–] Railing5132@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

In many (if not most) US jurisdictions, operating a vehicle under a driver's license specifically implies consent to a blood draw when under suspicion of impaired driving.