- Reddit just banned the NBA Streams subreddit 5 Months Ago
- How to watch ‘Drunk History’ for free 5 Months Ago
- Netflix’s ‘Unit 42’ soars on the chemistry of its unlikely lead partners 5 Months Ago
- How to watch ‘Good Trouble’ for free Today 7:00 AM
- It’s time for Pete Buttigieg to claim his status as Short King Today 6:30 AM
- The best foreign-language TV shows on Netflix Today 6:00 AM
- Hasan Minhaj explains why your internet sucks in ‘Patriot Act’ episode, puts it on DVD Monday 8:41 PM
- Hackers got control of Dylan Sprouse’s Twitter account, posted offensive content Monday 7:38 PM
- Twitch is suing the trolls who flooded the platform with porn and Christchurch shooting footage Monday 6:55 PM
- Cat filter turns Pakistani politicians’ press conference into frisky business Monday 6:12 PM
- Couple calls for boycott of dog walker app Wag! after their dog was abducted Monday 5:07 PM
- Trump gets banned from SeekingArrangement because he’s not a ‘real sugar daddy’ Monday 4:17 PM
- InfoWars accidentally sent child porn to lawyers representing Sandy Hook parents Monday 4:12 PM
- Sticker warns men changing diapers about ‘feminization of the American male’ Monday 4:10 PM
- The genius way Genius caught Google allegedly stealing lyrics Monday 3:03 PM
A judge in California has ruled that U.S. law enforcement can no longer force individuals to unlock mobile phones that are protected by biometrics, Forbes reports.
Officers involved in the case, which surrounded an alleged extortion crime carried out over Facebook, attempted to obtain a search warrant that would allow them to search a property in Oakland and to open up any phone found within by using suspects’ faces, fingerprints, or eyes.
Although a person cannot be forced to enter a password, biometrics have, until now, been considered fair game.
The ruling, made by magistrate judge Kandis Westmore, argued that the warrant was “overbroad” and failed to focus on a particular person or device.
Westmore further stated that even with a warrant, forcing a suspect to unlock their device was akin to self-incrimination, something the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is designed to protect against.
“If a person cannot be compelled to provide a passcode because it is a testimonial communication, a person cannot be compelled to provide one’s finger, thumb, iris, face, or other biometric feature to unlock that same device,” Westmore wrote.
Investigators could, Westmore added, use other methods “that do not trample on the Fifth Amendment” in order to obtain the information they needed for the case.
While the decision could be overturned at any point by a district court judge, Forbes’ Thomas Brewster states that the ruling goes “further to protect people’s private lives from government searches” than any previous ruling.
Those concerned about having the contents of their phone accessed by law enforcement are encouraged to choose a strong and unique alphanumeric code over biometric options.
- Consumer protection services falter during government shutdown
- Your smart TV is selling your data
- Government shutdown causes security certificates on federal sites to lapse
Mikael Thalen is a tech and security reporter based in Seattle, covering social media, data breaches, hackers, and more.