Suspect Required To Unlock iPhone Using Touch ID in Second Federal Case (9to5mac.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report on 9to5Mac: A second federal judge has ruled that a suspect can be compelled to unlock their iPhone using their fingerprint in order to give investigators access to data which can be used as evidence against them. The first time this ever happened in a federal case was back in May, following a District Court ruling in 2014. The legal position of forcing suspects to use their fingerprints to unlock devices won't be known with certainty until a case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, but lower court rulings so far appear to establish a precedent which is at odds with that concerning passcodes. Most constitutional experts appear to believe that the Fifth Amendment prevents a suspect from being compelled to reveal a password or passcode, as this would amount to forced self-incrimination -- though even this isn't certain. Fingerprints, in contrast, have traditionally been viewed as 'real or physical evidence,' meaning that police are entitled to take them without permission.Ars Technica has more details.

Comments

Re:Fingerprints are protected in Europe

[Archangel Michael]

We "fat dumb Americans" are about to elect one of the two biggest mistakes we have ever made, because we have devolved into arguing over emotional labels and not actual character and qualifications. That, the our court system is rigged against the electorate, since we can vote on laws and have them overturned by one (or more) person(s) in a black robe.

Ah, traditions ...

[PinkyGigglebrain]

"Fingerprints, in contrast, have traditionally been viewed as 'real or physical evidence,'"

I wonder it these judges would also consider the practice of strapping a male baby to a board and cutting off part of it's penis without anesthesia to be acceptable because it is "tradition"

I can think of many other "traditions" that need to be reconsidered in light of modern times.

Re:Ah, traditions ...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's because the male version in the USA is always the removal of a tiny piece of skin under sterile medical conditions with almost zero actual consequences except cleanliness (with the only people saying otherwise being true crackpots who make pseudoscientific arguments citing scientific-sounding statements to attemtp to sound like they have any authority whatsoever when even basic bio, much less medical, students can spy them from 1000 miles as deluded idiots) whereas the female equivalent throughout much of the world tends to be the removal of the parts equivalent to the entire end of the male penis.

Tiny skin piece != gspot/glans-like parts.

The female equivalent is, in effect, remove the "sexual" part of "sexual organ", the male version is "all done, he'll feel better in a few days."

Re:Ah, traditions ...

[Anonymous Coward]

In western circumcision, they're not cutting off a part of the penis in the sense you write this: a lot of millenial fucktards and their more-fucktard parents bought bullshit about this by pseudo-experts, but it's just a bit of skin.

In the female equivalent in non-western cultures, it actually is part of their sexual organs--it tends, in fact, to be the "sexual" (stimulus) part of the organ. It's like cutting-off the head/glans of a male penis rather than...the bit of skin (that leads to lower STD infection, which is not bullshit, as much as the propagandists might cry "BUT BUT BUT BUT PROBLEMS!!!")

Now the propagandists went shrilly crying that "OMG, in males it's removing NERVE ENDINGS!!!"

BUT SO DOES CUTTING YOUR ****ING FINGER.

They're ENDINGS and NOT the nerves--the nerve ENDINGS grow back.

End rant against fucking idiot.