Re:Google Announces Pixel 4
by signal11 on Wednesday October 16, 2019 @05:19AM
(#21268504)
> Biometrics of any kind are not protected if the police have a warrant
It is not as black-and-white as you make it out to be (which was my point -- this will likely end up in the Supreme Court at some point). Specifically, some courts disagree with your position, and hold that even with a warrant, you have a fifth-amendment right not to incriminate yourself.
> But in a more significant part of the ruling, Judge Westmore declared that the government did not have the right, even with a warrant, to force suspects to incriminate themselves by unlocking their devices with their biological features.
The issue is, of course, in the meantime, it's far easier for law enforcement to execute a fait accompli and get a suspect to look at their phone to unlock it.
It is not as black-and-white as you make it out to be (which was my point -- this will likely end up in the Supreme Court at some point). Specifically, some courts disagree with your position, and hold that even with a warrant, you have a fifth-amendment right not to incriminate yourself.
See for instance https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2019/01/14/feds-...
> But in a more significant part of the ruling, Judge Westmore declared that the government did not have the right, even with a warrant, to force suspects to incriminate themselves by unlocking their devices with their biological features.
The issue is, of course, in the meantime, it's far easier for law enforcement to execute a fait accompli and get a suspect to look at their phone to unlock it.