The legal situation is more complex and nuanced than the headline implies, so the article is worth reading. This adds another ruling to the confusing case history regarding forced biometric unlocking.
The legal situation is more complex and nuanced than the headline implies, so the article is worth reading. This adds another ruling to the confusing case history regarding forced biometric unlocking.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The US Constitution’s Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination does not prohibit police officers from forcing a suspect to unlock a phone with a thumbprint scan, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday.
The ruling does not apply to all cases in which biometrics are used to unlock an electronic device but is a significant decision in an unsettled area of the law.
Judges rejected his claim, holding “that the compelled use of Payne’s thumb to unlock his phone (which he had already identified for the officers) required no cognitive exertion, placing it firmly in the same category as a blood draw or fingerprint taken at booking.”
Payne conceded that “the use of biometrics to open an electronic device is akin to providing a physical key to a safe” but argued it is still a testimonial act because it “simultaneously confirm[s] ownership and authentication of its contents,” the court said.
The Supreme Court “held that this was not a testimonial production, reasoning that the signing of the forms related no information about existence, control, or authenticity of the records that the bank could ultimately be forced to produce,” the 9th Circuit said.
The Court held that this act of production was of a fundamentally different kind than that at issue in Doe because it was “unquestionably necessary for respondent to make extensive use of ‘the contents of his own mind’ in identifying the hundreds of documents responsive to the requests in the subpoena.”
The original article contains 662 words, the summary contains 241 words. Saved 64%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
People who demand constant internet connect when thy go out have a higher probability of having too much personal information on their phone. It’s a difference in mindset or mentality.
Cell service is overrated. Given the amount of people in public that are either scrolling or on some form of a social media shows having data service is not as important as people think it is. I have a GrapheneOS phone for listening to music and if I want to check for public wi-fi for a specific task but most days I never connect online when I am out and I’ve never signed up for a cell data plan before.
Life can be happier when someone is out in public and can’t check messages, that usually can wait anyways for a few hours, and they can enjoy the world around, not what’s on a screen.
I don’t believe doing things over public WiFi is that secure as traffic can be logged etc.
Most traffic these days goes over secure channels. Any time the website you’re accessing is HTTPS, they can see that you’re accessing that website, but they can’t see which pages you’re on our read what they say, or what you submit.
The exception is if they get you to install their own certificate to allow them to man-in-the-middle you. Laws in some authoritarian countries already require devices have root certificates that allow the government to spy on everything. And the EU is currently considering the same. Which should be a major concern for any European residents.
With a new randon MAC address created each time it connects online, logging means nothing for trying to identity or remembering a device.