- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
You must log in or register to comment.
Never use biometrics to lock anything. You can be forced to push a finger to a sensor, or your head forcibly held still for a facial scan.
Only use passwords/passcords. only they are secure against this totalitarian bullshit.
They’ll still put you in jail on fake charges if you refuse to give your passcode, but at least your datas safe and now your case is unlawful imprisonment instead of relying on octogenarian judges thinking its okay to force compliance with a biometric.
Only use passwords/passcords. only they are secure against this totalitarian bullshit.
Oh sweet summer child. Password is as easily beaten out of you as biometric.
This ⬆️
There was already a case with this same fingerprint outcome a few years ago. Biometrics are not protected from seizure.
However, passcodes still are. Last time I checked you cannot be compelled to surrender your passcode locking your phone.
Luckily LineageOS and GrapheneOS have a lockdown mode (Graphene also supports disabling fingerprint for screen unlock), though rebooting your phone usually doesn’t cause you to lose any work since everything autosaves as phones kill background apps to save battery and memory. Separate user profiles for situations like protests or certain contexts (preferably with some dummy data to make it not look to sus) are also useful.
to lose* any work
Joke’s on them. The fingerprint scanner on my Pixel 7 is so shit it doesn’t work even when I want it to.
Pixel 7 Power+volume up, lock down
What happened to being secure in our documents and personal affects?
Is the constitution a joke to you?
In this case, the defendant was on parole, so there was already a court order allowing the search of his devices.
The constitution is only used to protect property rights of the owners and the power of managers. The working class is not often afforded it’s protections.
Payne conceded that “the use of biometrics to open an electronic device is akin to providing a physical key to a safe” but argued it is still a testimonial act because it “simultaneously confirm[s] ownership and authentication of its contents,” the court said. “However, Payne was never compelled to acknowledge the existence of any incriminating information. He merely had to provide access to a source of potential information.”
If you can be compelled to hand over a key to a safe, I can see how that translates to putting your thumb on the scanner.
But Gym Jordan can ignore a congressional subpoena. Chyea I’m not giving my thumbprint.
