Look, unless you're Al Sharpton, don't pick dumb cases. The case does not stand for the proposition that police can search your phone because you were pulled over. This guy was on parole, which required, as a condition of early release, that he allow his electronic devices to be searched. Thus, this case is not representative of the common man.

I also note he was a fentanyl dealer, but if you want this guy to be your poster child, go for it I guess.

Also, don't use your thumb print to secure your phone. Simple as.

@freepatriot Interesting. What about the right to remain silent? Maybe people should stop using thumbprints and go back to passwords for their devices? Passwords seem like they should be covered under the right to remain silent.

@h4890 @freepatriot

IMHO this is what the fifth amendment was designed for: you cannot be compelled to do anything that produces testimony against you. However, that dies the instant someone encrypts the location of the teenager he kidnapped on his phone, so the future rule will be the journalist rule: reveal the data, or stay in jail on contempt charges until you will.
It wasn't self-incrimination, unless the argument is he was testifying the phone belonged to him. Further, he didn't have those rights anyway. His parole agreement mandated searches.
@Humpleupagus @h4890 @freepatriot

I can't see the early replies so do not know the case. If the phone did not belong to him, why would his password or thumbprint unlock it?
I'm asking for is his thumb "testimony." He didn't say anything. It may be a 4th amendment issue, because it was a search, but he was on parole and has no 4th amendment rights.
@Humpleupagus @h4890 @freepatriot

He asked:

"What about the right to remain silent? Maybe people should stop using thumbprints and go back to passwords for their devices? Passwords seem like they should be covered under the right to remain silent."

This is all I am riffing on. Anything else, you're replying to someone else and I have no relevant comment.
Courts are still split on the issue, but it's kinda hard to compel a password if you really don't want to give it up.

> Courts widely consider providing a password to be "testimonial" under the Fifth Amendment, meaning you can't be forced to give it up because it's like compelled speech revealing knowledge from your mind, but judges disagree on when exceptions like the "foregone conclusion" (where police already know the password) apply, leaving the law inconsistent until the U.S. Supreme Court clarifies it.
@Humpleupagus @h4890 @freepatriot

That's why I think we are going to the journalist rule: you will stay in jail until you enter the password, since the device is technically in the hands of government. The bill of rights was not designed for the digital era, but at the end of the day, all data is incarnate.

@amerika @freepatriot That most certainly does capture the trend. It is sad, but not surprising. I also find it fascinating how finger prints unlocks everything now, and how it is potentially so much less safe than the good old password.

A guy passed out at one of my events, and finding the contacts details of his next of kin was a simple as using his finger print (while he was passed out) to unlock his phone and then just opening the family chat.

@amerika @freepatriot Step 1... hop on a plane to Stockholm. ;)

They are open to the public, but I make no promises of equally eventful events in the future. ;)

@freepatriot lol, biometrics are just the state's way of having your password weather you like it or not, also fucking cloud based password managers are open books honestly.
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Merovingian Club

A club for red-pilled exiles.