One is knowledge the user has, and the other is a physical key they own.
replyProviding your 'finger' to unlock a device is no different than providing your 'key' to unlock something. So you can be compelled to provide those biometrics.
Compelling you to reveal a password is not some *thing* you have but knowledge you contain. Being compelled to provide that knowledge is no different than being compelled to reveal where you were or what you were doing at some place or time.
That is genuinely the current state of law, yes. There's no real logic at work, just attempts at clawing back control whenever a new gray area appears.
replyIt is very logical, as revealing a password is considered testimonial and is protected by the fifth amendment.
replyRight, and pressing your finger on a fingerprint sensor is also revealing a password, just via different means.
replyBut is not legal testimonial
replyRight. Like I said, that's not logical, that's just legalese to gain access where you didn't have it before.
reply> So in america, they can force you to use a biometric but they can't compel you to reveal your password?
replyI don't get it, touching finger is easy, but how do you compel someone to reveal their password?
Put them in jail until they do or charge them with whatever the local flavor for "obstruction" is. In places where they're allowed by law to require you to give up a password not doing so when the proper steps are taken would usually be it's own crime, usually phrased as some sort of "obstruction" charge with it's own sentence. And that's just places where the law and citizen rights are a meaningful concept in restraining state power.
replyDepending on the country and the willingness to comply with legal norms somewhere between putting you in prison until you give it up and hitting you with a stick until you give it up.
replyAnd to be clear, in other words, that means you can’t be compelled. You can effectively resist giving up your password, you cannot effectively resist giving up your finger, gruesome though the prospect might be.
replyTell us the password or we throw you in jail, shoot you, etc. The legal system is always ultimately backed by the state's monopoly on violence.
replyPretty much.
replySomething you are: can be legally compelled Something you have: can be legally compelled Something you know: cannot be legally compelled
You can still be legally compelled to provide testimony, the catch is merely that you have to be granted immunity from being charged with a crime on the basis of any derived evidence. In this case, it seems that the WaPo journalist could still be compelled to provide such information if she's not charged for any crime.
replyYes the difference come from a close parsing of the 5th amendment, telling cops the password or code for a device or safe is pretty clearly compelling speech and adverse testimony while allowing cops to gather fingerprints and DNA has long been held as allowed so biometrics were analogized to that. It's also similar to the rule that cops can't force you to tell them the code to a safe but they're allowed with a warrant to destructively open the safe (if it falls under the terms of the warrant). Combine those too legal threads and it's at least reasonable to see how that line gets drawn from previous rulings.
replyGermany does the same thing too .
They can force you to unlock via faceid/biometric but can't force you to enter password.
reply