Finger Prints Are Not Passwords
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Did you miss the point where I said you get grabbed? and therefore I assume they have the needed warrants? But even with a warrant, you can't be compelled to provide a password to protected files....
Is that true? I thought that the point of the warrant was to get access to more than they could get without one.
Yes it's true, a warrant can't compel you to give up a password, it's considered testifying against yourself, which you are protected from doing. But giving up your fingerprints is not protected I'm guessing because it's a physical thing that you leave everything.. if enough time is taken, the authorities could get your finger prints, then make a fake one to use to unlock your device themselves.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Did you miss the point where I said you get grabbed? and therefore I assume they have the needed warrants? But even with a warrant, you can't be compelled to provide a password to protected files....
Is that true? I thought that the point of the warrant was to get access to more than they could get without one.
Yes it's true, a warrant can't compel you to give up a password, it's considered testifying against yourself, which you are protected from doing. But giving up your fingerprints is not protected I'm guessing because it's a physical thing that you leave everything.. if enough time is taken, the authorities could get your finger prints, then make a fake one to use to unlock your device themselves.
You sure?
-
According to the current legal information from the EFF:
Even if you're arrested, police can only search your phone under limited circumstances.
After a person has been arrested, the police generally may search the items on her person and in her pockets, as well as anything within her immediate control, automatically and without a warrant. But the Supreme Court has ruled that police cannot search the data on a cell phone under this warrant exception.8 Police can, however, search the physical aspects of the phone (like removing the phone from its case or removing the battery) and in situations where they actually believe evidence on the phone is likely to be immediately destroyed, police can search the cell phone without a warrant.
-
I didn't trust it from the beginning, the thought of it being leaked worried me, and guess what.....I was right. I'm safe.....well safeish
-
@scottalanmiller said:
and in situations where they actually believe evidence on the phone is likely to be immediately destroyed, police can search the cell phone without a warrant.*
This exception is up to an officers subjective opinion. It's used all the time here by the county. The assume everyone is either a drug dealer or has a meth lab.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Did you miss the point where I said you get grabbed? and therefore I assume they have the needed warrants? But even with a warrant, you can't be compelled to provide a password to protected files....
Is that true? I thought that the point of the warrant was to get access to more than they could get without one.
Yes it's true, a warrant can't compel you to give up a password, it's considered testifying against yourself, which you are protected from doing. But giving up your fingerprints is not protected I'm guessing because it's a physical thing that you leave everything.. if enough time is taken, the authorities could get your finger prints, then make a fake one to use to unlock your device themselves.
You sure?
Happens a lot. Companies even have to give over Encrpytion codes for all data (and end users data) all the time. No idea what happens if you "forgot" it.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
and in situations where they actually believe evidence on the phone is likely to be immediately destroyed, police can search the cell phone without a warrant.*
This exception is up to an officers subjective opinion. It's used all the time here by the county. The assume everyone is either a drug dealer or has a meth lab.
If the police officer is taking the phone for evidence, they can't really can't still make that claim. If they can, then you are into the "no law applies here" and none of this matters since we are into the realm of them doing anything that they want.
The benefit of fingerprints being required and passwords not doesn't seem to work. Fingerprints can't be required by law. Once there is no law, they can beat the password out of you. Making the point moot.
-
@BMarie said:
I didn't trust it from the beginning, the thought of it being leaked worried me, and guess what.....I was right. I'm safe.....well safeish
But WHAT was leaked? A hash of your fingerprint? What difference does that make?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Did you miss the point where I said you get grabbed? and therefore I assume they have the needed warrants? But even with a warrant, you can't be compelled to provide a password to protected files....
Is that true? I thought that the point of the warrant was to get access to more than they could get without one.
Yes it's true, a warrant can't compel you to give up a password, it's considered testifying against yourself, which you are protected from doing. But giving up your fingerprints is not protected I'm guessing because it's a physical thing that you leave everything.. if enough time is taken, the authorities could get your finger prints, then make a fake one to use to unlock your device themselves.
You sure?
That's definitely different than other trusted sources lead me to understand.
-
@Dashrender said:
That's definitely different than other trusted sources lead me to understand.
Check your sources. Are they quoting the laundry list of 2013 (this article was 2014) references to the opposite being true? Looks like there was reason to believe it in 2013, but nothing substantial, so everyone repeated it. But it got put to the test in 2014 and proved to not be what people had been saying.
