Best description of this I have seen is: the 5th Amendment protects compelled production what you know. It does not protect what you are (fingerprints, hair, etc).
this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2024
53 points (98.2% liked)
Privacy
31981 readers
350 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
So force your phone to require a passcode by holding volume up and off button
Yep. Passcode unlocks are legally protected, unlike fingerprint unlocks. If you have any desire to keep the police out of your phone, you should not have fingerprint unlock enabled.
Or "things you possess," either. I remember being told (maybe in a college class, but I don't remember exactly) that you can be compelled to give up the key to a lock, but not the combination to a lock.
Also breathalyzers. You can be compelled to give blood/breath/etc in the course of a criminal investigation and there are no constitutional protections covering you.
which is crazy. how is puncturing someones sking and drawing blood against their will not a type of battery
If blood draw is done properly it should be pretty uneventful.
Permanent damage could get a lawsuit to compel a less risky procedure by the cops.
still crazy. the person is being held down to have their skin pierced by metal to make it bleed. why the heck is this just casually allowed?! Heck even breathalyzers should have to function without touching you to be legit to me.
It’s not casually allowed. The courts have determined there can be minor intrusions into your body under strictly limited conditions including after a warrant. Arguing that the whole thing is crazy is pointless because you have no constitutional protection once a judge certifies the circumstances necessitate it.
The prosecutors are the ones pushing to get rid of the warrant requirement for blood draws.
You have the option of refusing the breathalyzers, but most legislatures have the automatic clause that you instantly get treated as failing the breathalyzer test.
Oh. I thought folks were saying without a warrant. just at a stop. I get once the court is involved we pretty much lose our rights. Judges can put you in jail pretty much as they please once your in a court room and of course people are jailed and lose many rights. Not happy about that either granted but I get it.
That was inevitable. It's why I never use anything that can be compelled. Make the fuckers work for it in the event the government turns you into a criminal by passing a shitty law.
pretty soon they will be able to beat you with nightsticks, just watch.
Soon?
it doesnt infringe on your 5th amendment right to keep your mouth shut
Just don't use biometrics. Bad idea in general. A 6+ digit PIN or password is just fine, especially if you set your phone to factory reset after a certain number of failed unlock attempts.
That's just giving up your rights from the get go. They can get a warrant to compel the fingerprint.
In this computer age, warrant requests are a button press to send a docusign e-mail to a judge, who can click the sign button while he sips his cappuccino. Make them work for it.
Right... that's what I'm saying. Under the fifth, they can't compel you to unlock your phone if it's protected by a PIN or password and if you set it to factory reset after a bunch of failed attempts, they can try but it's unlikely they'll break the PIN/pass in a few attempts.
The right to not surrender a pass code has actually not yet been decided. We already have differences between regions.
It's protected under the fifth. Even so, requiring a warrant to get your passcode is far better than not requiring a warrant to demand biometrics. Either way you slice it, passcode > biometrics.
SCOTUS has not yet decided that a password in your brain is protected by the fifth.
Your phone is protected by the fifth.
Until SCOTUS decides that passwords are protected by the fifth, you can be held in contempt of court by a judge indefinitely because you forgot the password (theoretical scenario, has not yet happened).
There have been instances where judges ruled in favor of them being protected which sets a legal precedent. The SCOTUS probably won't get involved unless a major lawsuit or federal-level case occurs.
Either way, passcodes are superior. Not sure why you're arguing this.
I take issue with the statement "passwords are protected by the fifth amendment".
SCOTUS is not guaranteed to affirm that above statement.
Were not in a court of law.