zlacker

>>robin_+(OP)
Remember...they can make you use touch id...they can't make you give them your password.

https://x.com/runasand/status/2017659019251343763?s=20

The FBI was able to access Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson's Signal messages because she used Signal on her work laptop. The laptop accepted Touch ID for authentication, meaning the agents were allowed to require her to unlock it.

>>nova22+qq
They can hold you in contempt for 18 months for not giving your password, https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/man-who-refused-....

>>b8+KW
That's a very unusual and narrow exception involving "foregone conclusion doctrine", an important fact missed by Ars Technica but elaborated on by AP: https://apnews.com/general-news-49da3a1e71f74e1c98012611aedc...

>>noiden+S21
> Authorities, citing a “foregone conclusion exception” to the Fifth Amendment, argued that Rawls could not invoke his right to self-incrimination because police already had evidence of a crime. The 3rd Circuit panel agreed, upholding a lower court decision.

I do not follow the logic here, what does that even mean? It seems very dubious. And what happens if one legitimately forgets? They just get to keep you there forever?

>>OGWhal+J91
It means that if all the other evidence shows that the desired evidence is on the computer, then it is not a question of whether it exists, so youre not really searching for something. Youre retrieving it. That doesn't implicate the 4th amendment.

>>halJor+MS1
Unlocking/forced unlocking is not a 4th amendment issue, but a 5th amendment one.

The 4th amendment would protect you from them seizing your phone in the first place for no good reason, but would not protect you from them seizing your phone if they believe it has evidence of a crime.

Regardless, it is not the thing that protects you (or doesn't, depending) from having to give or otherwise type in your passcode/pin/fingerprint/etc.