All Your Fingerprints Are Belong To Us: iPhone Users Forfeit Fifth Amendment
Court rules fingerprints have no fifth amendment right. What does this mean for the rest of our biometric data? Follow Alex on TWITTER - https://twitter.com/RealAlexJones Like Alex on FACEBOOK...
By: TheAlexJonesChannel
Continue reading here:
All Your Fingerprints Are Belong To Us: iPhone Users Forfeit Fifth Amendment - Video
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties - Fifth Amendment - Shh! The Right to Remain Silent
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties is a free online course on Janux that is open to anyone. Learn more at http://janux.ou.edu. Created by the University of O...
By: Janux
View post:
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties - Fifth Amendment - Shh! The Right to Remain Silent - Video
Your Fingerprints Belong To Us: Iphone Users Forfeit 5th Amendment 1
Court rules fingerprints have no fifth amendment right. What does this mean for the rest of our biometric data? Stay in the know - Follow Alex on Twitter https://twitter.com/RealAlexJones Like...
By: THElNFOWARRlOR
See the original post here:
Your Fingerprints Belong To Us: Iphone Users Forfeit 5th Amendment 1 - Video
Advances in technology always make for interesting interpretations of established law.
Most recently, a Virginia Beach Circuit Court this week ruled that an individual in a criminal proceeding cannot be forced to divulge the passcode to his cellphone as it would violate the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment. At the same time, the Court held that an individual can be compelled to give up his fingerprint to unlock Touch ID, or any fingerprint protected device for that matter.
The Court reasoned that while a passcode requires a defendant to divulge actual knowledge, a fingerprint is a form of physical evidence, akin to a handwriting sample or DNA that authorities are already legally allowed to demand in certain circumstances. In a similar vein, the Supreme Court has previously ruled that while authorities can compel an individual to hand over a physical key to a locked safe, they can't compel an individual to provide them with a combination to said safe; the key in this example is nothing more than physical evidence while the combination, based on an individual's unique knowledge, is categorized as "testimonial."
Mashable adds:
"It's exactly what we thought it would happen when Apple announced its fingerprint ID," Hanni Fakhoury, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights organization, told Mashable. (Android phones such as the Galaxy S5 and HTC One Max also have fingerprint ID systems.)
While the ruling in Virginia Beach is not as binding as a Supreme Court decision, it does establish legal precedent other local courts can draw on. More importantly, "it's just a good wake-up call for people to realize that fingerprint ID doesn't necessarily provide the same sort of legal protection than a password does," Fakhoury says.
As relayed by The Virginian-Pilot, the ruling stems from a case involving a man charged with strangling his girlfriend. Authorities had reason to believe that video footage of the couple's altercation might be located on the defendant's cellphone and "wanted a judge to force" the defendant hand over the passcode.
The rest is here:
Court rules: Touch ID is not protected by the Fifth Amendment but Passcodes are
A Virginia Circuit Court judge ruled on Thursday that a persondoes not need to provide a passcode to unlock their phone for the police. The court also ruled that demanding a suspect to provide a fingerprint to unlock aphone would be constitutional.
The case in question this week involved a man named David Baust, who was charged in February with trying to strangle his girlfriend. The Virginian Pilot reports that Baust's phone might contain video of the conflict but that hisphone was locked with a passcode. Baust's attorney argued that passcodes are protected by the Fifth Amendment.
The judge agreed with Baust, though he noted in his written opinion that giving police a fingerprint is akin to providing a DNA or handwriting sample or an actual key, which the law permits, the Virginian Pilot reports. A passcode, though, requires the defendant to divulge knowledge, which the law protects against.
The ruling is interesting because it draws into relief the legal difference between a person's identity and their knowledge. The Fifth Amendment protects peoplefrom being forced to witness against themselves, and last year when Apple's TouchID fingerprint sensor was announced, Ars' sister site Wired noted that fingerprints may not have the same protection as passcodes. A communication is 'testimonial' only when it reveals the contents of your mind, Wired wrote. We cant invoke the privilege against self-incrimination to prevent the government from collecting biometrics like fingerprints, DNA samples, or voice exemplars. Why? Because the courts have decided that this evidence doesnt reveal anything you know. Its not testimonial.
Ars has contacted Baust's attorney and will update if we hear any comment from him.
See more here:
Virginia judge: Police can demand a suspect unlock a phone with a fingerprint