Reply to post: Re: It's not encrypted...

Oz opposition folds, agrees to give Australians coal in their stockings this Christmas

ROC

Re: It's not encrypted...

I just read of a recent case ruling determined that biometric keys such as fingerprints could be used to unlock a phone, but NOT passwords.

https://www.techrepublic.com/article/biometrics-and-the-law-police-try-to-unlock-phone-with-dead-mans-fingerprint/

This is still being argued case-by-case (more for living suspects) in various US jurisdictions (state and national courts). it does seem to be more acceptable in cases of immediate aftermath of a crime with high likelihood of probable cause.

But then there is also the 4th Amendment protecting from "unreasonable" search/seizure of private papers, but that does allow "reasonable" (for a warrant), so that could be argued case-by-case as to what's reasonable I suppose.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019