For example using privacy screen protectors or phone cases with a manual shutter over the camera.

  • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I understand the phone owner is not covered by the fifth amendment to prevent authorities from unlocking a device using biometrics, but authorities still need a warrant or probable cause as it falls into search of private property.

    • brimnac@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You sure that’s been ruled on? Not arguing, only feel like I’ve seen a lot more instances of police violating that than hearing they couldn’t do it.

      Edit: my apologies, you’re right. I was able to check into it and see recent rulings. Warrant levels may vary, but they need a warrant.

      • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Despite username similarities, I’m not Legal Eagle, nor do I have a legal background. Though I would be very much surprised if authorities in the US could search anybody’s phone at will without consent, warrant, or reasonable suspicion.

        • DrWeevilJammer@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          This very much depends on the state. Some state courts (California) have ruled that one can refuse a request to unlock a phone via biometrics, while others (Minnesota) have ruled that you do not have the right to refuse.

          My understanding is that a passcode or PIN can be considered “testimony”, because you have to communicate this information, and testimony can’t be forced.

          But biometrics aren’t always considered to be testimony, because it’s something you ARE.