Woman ordered to provide her fingerprint to unlock seized iPhone
-
A Southern California woman was recently ordered to provide her fingerprint to unlock a seized iPhone, according to a report by the Los Angeles Times.
Could she pick which finger to use?
-
A Southern California woman was recently ordered to provide her fingerprint to unlock a seized iPhone, according to a report by the Los Angeles Times.
Could she pick which finger to use?
-
A Southern California woman was recently ordered to provide her fingerprint to unlock a seized iPhone, according to a report by the Los Angeles Times.
Could she pick which finger to use?
I don't see what the big deal is. As long as there is a warrant, a person should be required to unlock their phone, whether it's locked with a passcode or a fingerprint, pattern, facial rec, etc Why would a smartphone be protected by the 5th amendment right to not incriminate oneself but their home, car, etc. would not? The government can search your property when they have a warrant - wouldn't that include smartphone, computer, physical safe, etc? It's not like the police can show up at my door with a warrant and I can say, "no, I can't let you in, because I have the right not to incriminate myself."
-
I don't see what the big deal is. As long as there is a warrant, a person should be required to unlock their phone, whether it's locked with a passcode or a fingerprint, pattern, facial rec, etc Why would a smartphone be protected by the 5th amendment right to not incriminate oneself but their home, car, etc. would not? The government can search your property when they have a warrant - wouldn't that include smartphone, computer, physical safe, etc? It's not like the police can show up at my door with a warrant and I can say, "no, I can't let you in, because I have the right not to incriminate myself."
It's been a while since I studied this, so I may be wrong, but I believe that there is a distinction between something like giving a fingerprint or blood sample and providing a passcode. The 5th amendment protects against giving incriminating testimony against oneself. The courts have interpreted that to mean things that reveal the contents of a person's mind or knowledge. So, since fingerprints and blood/DNA samples do not reveal the contents of a person's mind or use their knowledge against themself, they are legally permissible. Passcodes are not since they reveal the contents of a person's mind or what they are thinking. Similarly, people can be forced to provide a key for a safe but not the combination. As to whether that's right or not, that debate has been going on for a long, long time. Personally, history has shown me that I'd rather err on the side of the individual than err on the side of the government. Governments have historically proven to abuse power when given too much of it.
-
It's been a while since I studied this, so I may be wrong, but I believe that there is a distinction between something like giving a fingerprint or blood sample and providing a passcode. The 5th amendment protects against giving incriminating testimony against oneself. The courts have interpreted that to mean things that reveal the contents of a person's mind or knowledge. So, since fingerprints and blood/DNA samples do not reveal the contents of a person's mind or use their knowledge against themself, they are legally permissible. Passcodes are not since they reveal the contents of a person's mind or what they are thinking. Similarly, people can be forced to provide a key for a safe but not the combination. As to whether that's right or not, that debate has been going on for a long, long time. Personally, history has shown me that I'd rather err on the side of the individual than err on the side of the government. Governments have historically proven to abuse power when given too much of it.
That's what I was reading, too. I just don't understand why there would be a distinction. I would generally be in favor of the rights of the individual over the government, but in this case I think making a distinction between a key for the safe and the combination, that just seems silly. It doesn't make any sense. Whether one believes the government should get into the safe or not, it shouldn't matter what method the owner uses to secure it.
-
I don't see what the big deal is. As long as there is a warrant, a person should be required to unlock their phone, whether it's locked with a passcode or a fingerprint, pattern, facial rec, etc Why would a smartphone be protected by the 5th amendment right to not incriminate oneself but their home, car, etc. would not? The government can search your property when they have a warrant - wouldn't that include smartphone, computer, physical safe, etc? It's not like the police can show up at my door with a warrant and I can say, "no, I can't let you in, because I have the right not to incriminate myself."
Unlocking your phone for them is tantamount to providing evidence against yourself, and that's a violation of the 5th amendment. The courts (and by extension, law enforcement) cannot compel you to testify against yourself.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
Unlocking your phone for them is tantamount to providing evidence against yourself, and that's a violation of the 5th amendment. The courts (and by extension, law enforcement) cannot compel you to testify against yourself.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: Unlocking your phone for them is tantamount to providing evidence against yourself, and that's a violation of the 5th amendment. The courts (and by extension, law enforcement) cannot compel you to testify against yourself. I understand what the argument is - I just don't think it makes sense. The government can force you to open your front door so they can come in and search your house when they have a warrant (or they'll just break it down, and they're not going to pay to repair it, AFAIK). How is that different from opening the "front door" of your phone or computer by unlocking it for them? Again, I understand that current legal precedent says that those ARE different, I just don't agree.
-
That's what I was reading, too. I just don't understand why there would be a distinction. I would generally be in favor of the rights of the individual over the government, but in this case I think making a distinction between a key for the safe and the combination, that just seems silly. It doesn't make any sense. Whether one believes the government should get into the safe or not, it shouldn't matter what method the owner uses to secure it.
Ah, I see what you're saying. Thanks for clarifying.