Mediaboss Marketing

Posted on January 19, 2017

The Minnesota Court of Appeals has produced another wrinklein the contentious matter of privacy rights with respect to biometrically locked mobile devices. The court recently denied an appeal from a convicted burglar who had tried to argue that a courtorder compelling him to unlock his phone for police via fingerprint scan had violated his Fifth Amendment right to protection against self-incrimination.

The Fifth Amendment has generally protected the information American citizens hold in their minds, allowing them to refrain from divulging information that could incriminate themselves; for that reason, it would protect someone from having to tell police his phones lock screen password, if the phone were to contain incriminating evidence. But with the emergence of smartphones fingerprint unlock capability, the question has arisen as to whether the same protections apply.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals says they dont. In its ruling, the court asserted that the previous district court order to make the burglar submit to a fingerprint scan to unlock his phone was no more testimonial than furnishing a blood sample.

Its another example of a court backing the states authority to compel fingerprint unlocks of mobile devices, based on the ideathat fingerprint security is not knowledge-based, but physical. And its another sign that if criminals are going to store any incriminating information in their phones, they probably shouldnt use biometric security it might help to protect them against other criminals, but it wont necessarily offer any protection against the police.

Sources: The Washington Post, Ars Technica

January 19, 2017 by Alex Perala

See the original post here:
Fifth Amendment Doesn't Apply to Fingerprint Security: Minnesota ... - findBIOMETRICS