Slashdot Mirror
Judge Rules Against Forced Fingerprinting (thestack.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Stack: A federal judge in Chicago has ruled against a government request which would require forced fingerprinting of private citizens in order to open a secure, personal phone or tablet. In the ruling, the judge stated that while fingerprints in and of themselves are not protected, the government's method of obtaining the fingerprints would violate the Fourth and Fifth amendments. The government's request was given as part of a search warrant related to a child pornography ring. The court ruled that the government could seize devices, but that it could not compel people physically present at the time of seizure to provide their fingerprints "onto the Touch ID sensor of any Apple iPhone, iPad, or other Apple brand device in order to gain access to the contents of any such device." The report mentions that the ruling was based on three separate arguments. "The first was that the boilerplate language used in the request was dated, and did not, for example, address vulnerabilities associated with wireless services. Second, the court said that the context in which the fingerprints were intended to be gathered may violate the Fourth Amendment search and seizure rights of the building residents and their visitors, all of whom would have been compelled to provide their fingerprints to open their secure devices. Finally, the court noted that historically the Fifth Amendment, which protects against self-incrimination, does not allow a person to circumvent the fingerprinting process." You can read more about the ruling via Ars Technica.
Just to get the clear... government can't finger print you if your evolved in a child pornography ring as it's a violation of your Fourth and Fifth amendments --- but if you want to exercise your 2nd amendment then you have to give up your 4th and 5th...
Oooh, beat me with a clue stick oh wise one! How kinky.
All that bullshit aside, the Supreme Court takes so few cases per year that EVERY court's number of cases appealed up is so small as to almost be negligible. The fact remains that when the Ninth Circuit's cases get to the Supremes, they're overruled in 8 out of 10 cases.
That should scare you, because how many people just plain don't have the resources to appeal a case to the Supreme Court, or how many cases are just unable to be heard by them because of time restraints?
Would you trust a police officer whose cases only made it to a jury a small number of times, but 80 percent of those times the jury found he had made a wrongful arrest? Or would you want him fired from the force?