zlacker

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+(OP)
The fifth amendment gives you the right to be silent, but they didn't write in anything about biometrics.

>>notyou+(OP)
It's something you know vs. something you have. That's how the legal system sees it. You might not tell someone the pin to your safe, but if police find the key to it, or hire a locksmith to drill out your safe, it's theirs with a warrant.

It's interesting in the case of social media companies. Technically the data held is the companies data (Google, Meta, etc.) however courts have ruled that a person still has an expectation of privacy and therefore police need a warrant.

>>notyou+(OP)
When they arrest you, they have physical control of your body. You're in handcuffs. They can put your fingers against the unlock button. You can make a fist, but they can have more strength and leverage to unfist your fist.

There's no known technique to force you to input a password.

>>notyou+(OP)
"technicality" or "loophole" is probably the word.

I fully agree, forced biometrics is bullshit.

I say the same about forced blood removal for BAC testing. They can get a warrant for your blood, that's crazy to me.

>>direwo+sb
Are we not talking about a legal difference? That was my reading.

>>sejje+ak
The law follows practicality in this instance.

>>direwo+sb
Well there is one known technique. https://xkcd.com/538/

>>sejje+ak
Yes, my statement was related to legal means. I’m not a lawyer.

>>notyou+(OP)
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.