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

Technology

59652 readers
4637 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
[–] 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.