131–140 of 215 posts
If she ate a bunch of salt and swelled up a bit, it might have the same affect. Providing the finger scan isn't the same as promising it unlocks.
Isn't this same as forcing a person to give testimony against herself ?
Power cycle it. Win.
You can be compelled to provide fingerprints based on a warrant; I'm unsurprised (and not particularly bothered) that you can be compelled to use them on your own device. If you care about security, don't use a fingerprint alone; at most, only use it as a second factor for two-factor authentication. More generally, don't use anything that removes your ability to make a choice under duress, in whichever direction you…
(The state, not you user: JoshTriplett)
But I do NOT agree with your comment.
Fuck the state. A state who is trying to use terror and fear and war and crime as an excuse for power is a fucked state - and I want no part of it.
The fact is that it is a lame excuse for "security" to use ginger-prints as a "secure" access method to a device such as a phone and then for the state to force people to take finger prints as a sure-identity method, which, ostensibly, could then provide access to all their data and phones, etc.
Tell me how that is fucking secure????
So the real argument is about privacy. DO I HAVE ANY OR NOT????
Do passwords really need to be simplified? Do we invariably have to envision the future as a place where we wave our arms around beams of light and gently touch secret symbols to make things work? Isn't that just a juvenile fantasy of being a magician? Was Excalibur the first touch ID?
Curious, what would happen if you purposefully damage your fingerprint? Say by forcing a burn on your finger using a stove top or car cigarette lighter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Contempt is a weird power in general, especially when it's used for reasons like "disrespecting the judge." If I am disrespectful to the governor of my state, or if I'm disrespectful to a police officer, or if I'm disrespectful to a fireman or a bailiff or a legislator or a district attorney or a teacher or the President, that is a thing that I can legally do. But for some reason it's not outrageous for a judge to se…
Contempt is appealable, so it's not as if a single judge could ever detain someone indefinitely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Contempt is only supposed to be for when someone's action brings the mechanism of a trial to a halt. Refusing to do an action that the court thinks it's allowed to compel you to do is an example. Say she waits two days. The phone won't be unlocked with a fingerprint now; it requires a passcode, and the court can't compel someone to provide a passcode in the same way that it can compel them to provide fingerprints. Co…
Probably a ridiculous thought experiment, but I know folks have done similar things before, what if she cut off her thumb and disposed of it in such a way that it was irretrievable? Or something less permanent like dipping her thumb in acid to destroy the fingerprint surface - which would take weeks to heal. Would would the court do then? It sounds to me like fingerprint authentication is not something a criminal sho…
A contempt charge wouldn't hold any more (probably), but there's probably another charge that would apply, like spoliation of evidence [sorry, realized that you mentioned that charge further down in your comment].
> It sounds to me like fingerprint authentication is not something a criminal should use if they don't want to get caught.
True.
> Imagine the criminal held down the power off button for three seconds then swiped, is that a crime?
It's also not normally a crime for her to mutilate her thumb or for me to wave a knife around if I believe I'm alone and don't intend to harm anyone. Motive and context matter.
> but then again how is not giving a passcode not considered spoliation?
The act of making the fingerprint unusable would be the spoliation, I suppose. Not giving the passcode would be protected under the 5th.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a problem for me. Charge and prosecute them or let them go. Indefinite detention without a fair and speedy trial is unquestionably unconstitutional.
Well imagine a criminal is holding a piece of your property or even a person and not revealing where that is. Do you think it's reasonable to hold them for 30 days and then let them go and say "ah well I guess you can return that/them if you want cuz you did your time." A charge of contempt is still a charge.
Self incrimination protections are there for a good reason. If the person is on trial, then they haven't pleaded guilty - they say they haven't done what they are accused of. If they are in fact innocent, if the court decided to enforce them into provide this information and jailed them for contempt, it would literally be indefinite because they are innocent and cannot provide information on what they don't know!
I guess that's why a key or fingerprint is allowed - it is definitely something that can be used one way or the other. If they key doesn't work, it doesn't work. Same with a fingerprint.
But a passcode - it is not definitive. The defendant may say they don't know it as someone changed it on them. They then type in a wrong code: how are you going to disprove that?
I tell my phone, either directly or indirectly, all sorts of things that I would not otherwise document. Locations I've visited, for example. That's something that, unless I've been surveilled, only I know. By unlocking the phone, have I allowed access to documentary evidence, or have I allowed access to an extension of my mind?
Is a smartphone a privileged companion? Like an attorney, or a doctor, or a partner? The spousal communications privilege in the US protects the personal conversations I have with my wife from being disclosed via compelled testimony. If she tells me that she committed a crime, or vice-versa, the recipient of that communication cannot be compelled to testify against the utterer.
Further, spousal testimonial privilege means that she could not be compelled to describe her observations if they may incriminate me.
We have similar affordances in the US for communications with legal counsel, or with medical personnel.
I'm going to go one step further and say that 95% of you, dear readers, tell or otherwise provide secrets to your phone that, if you somehow had to communicate to an actual person, you'd only be willing to tell your spouse, your doctor or your lawyer. To me, that makes my smartphone a privileged confidant. And because it routinely collects information that I do not directly provide it, even though I'm capable of observing and remembering it myself, it acts like (and I treat it like) an extension of my mind. An augmentation that increases the capacity of my own brain's memory.
I'm not in the habit of committing crimes, though I (like most of you) have committed some infractions in the past (speeding, "TP-ing" a house, a bounced check - ahh, the indiscretions of youth). But the knowledge in my head and the communications I have with privileged recipients may, if taken out of context, be used as documentary evidence supporting any number of charges against me.
For example, the fact that I went to Home Depot four times in one week over a year ago could support the charge that I had assembled some device that was later used in a violent crime. That's a scary place to be, isn't it? To know that you did nothing wrong, and yet the vague memories you have of visiting Home Depot last year have potentially been documented more thoroughly by your phone. Is the common man supposed to assume that a smartphone they bought just so their kids can FaceTime with their grandmother 1,500 miles away is silently surveilling them, and can be forced to disclose all manner of information about them?
It's a new world, and the laws of the land are old. Legislation moves at a snails pace already, but compared to the rapidity of technological advancement, the law moves like the pitch drop experiment.