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
I don't get why I can be forced to use my biometrics to unlock but I cannot be forced to give a pin. Doesn't jive in my brain.

>>notyou+Mo1
Compelled speech is protected, fingerprints aren't.

Imagine it's 1926 and none of this tech is an issue yet. The police can fingerprint and photograph you at intake, they can't compel speech or violate the 5th.

That's exactly what's being applied here. It's not that the police can do more or less than they could in 1926, it's that your biometrics can do more than they did in 1926. They're just fingerprinting you / photographing you .. using your phone.