• Overzeetop@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    23 days ago

    I was under the impression that Digital IDs are not a picture you bring up and hand to LE - it’s a RFID token transfer that you tap to authenticate on a reader. That doesn’t mean that there won’t be LE officers who will bully people, or that people won’t be smart enough to recognize that the picture on their phone isn’t their ID, but that not how digital IDs (are supposed to) work.

  • alyaza [they/she]@beehaw.orgOPM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    24 days ago

    In Riley v. California, the Supreme Court unanimously held that police need a warrant to search through cell phones, even during otherwise lawful arrests. But if you hand over your unlocked phone to a police officer and offer to show them something, “it becomes this complicated factual question about what consent you’ve granted for a search and what the limits of that are,” Brett Max Kaufman, a senior staff attorney in the ACLU’s Center for Democracy, told The Verge. “There have been cases where people give consent to do one thing, the cops then take the whole phone, copy the whole phone, find other evidence on the phone, and the legal question that comes up in court is: did that violate the scope of consent?”

    If police do have a warrant to search your phone, numerous courts have said they can require you to provide biometric login access via your face or finger. (It’s still an unsettled legal question since other courts have ruled they can’t.) The Fifth Amendment typically protects giving up passcodes as a form of self-incrimination, but logging in with biometrics often isn’t considered protected “testimonial” evidence. In the words of one federal appeals court decision, it requires “no cognitive exertion, placing it firmly in the same category as a blood draw or fingerprint taken at booking.”

    it’s unbelievable that there is a distinction in US caselaw between giving up your biometrics and giving up your password, and your essentially unchangeable biometrics are somehow the one you’re probably obliged to give to the cops if they ask. just an incredibly goofy system

    • SteleTrovilo@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      24 days ago

      Law enforcement has been collecting fingerprints for over 100 years now, and the history of using fingerprints for other reasons goes even further back.

      The error here is that we decided to start using an easily obtainable piece of data as a “lock” on our phones and computers. For many reasons, it’s better to use a password or PIN.

    • tyler@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      24 days ago

      The MyColorado FAQ explicitly states that an officer cannot take your phone, even if they think your digital ID is fraudulent. This whole article is a ton of fear mongering. Digital IDs do not require you to give your phone to anyone, they do not require you to unlock (unless it’s a state specific app), and even if its a state specific app the cops aren’t allowed to take it anyway.

      • alyaza [they/she]@beehaw.orgOPM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        24 days ago

        The MyColorado FAQ explicitly states that an officer cannot take your phone, even if they think your digital ID is fraudulent. This whole article is a ton of fear mongering.

        no offense but: even if you were to grant the notion that this is an exaggerated problem–cops are not well known for their rigorous adherence to the law or proper legal procedure. they routinely fuck up and violate civil liberties, up to and including murdering people for arbitrary reasons. and unless police are held accountable (which they almost never are for a variety of systemic reasons), what a state says they cannot do is effectively meaningless. it’s just words on a screen, really.

        • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          23 days ago

          I would agree with you if we’re talking about something like the ability to search a car, where the cop is not allowed to without the owner’s permission (assuming no probable cause or warrant). In that case the cop usually figures out a loophole to manufacture probable cause or manipulate the owner into agreeing to a search. And then there’s nothing a lawyer or judge can do later, because it’s the cop’s word vs yours.

          But if we’re talking about a law that actually says the cop cannot take your phone no matter what, and they do, then any public defender would be able to point it out and the judge would certainly have to enforce it. I can’t think of a way the cop would abuse their power because, in this case they don’t have it.

          I could be convinced based on the actual wording of the law, though.

        • tyler@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          18 days ago

          It doesn’t really matter if they do take your phone in the end anyway. If it’s that clear cut illegal then anything they manufacture as evidence wouldn’t be admissible in court…no matter what.

    • ravhall@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      24 days ago

      If you have an iPhone, you tap the power button 5 times to make an emergency call, after that cancel it and the PIN is required to open the phone.