The legal situation is more complex and nuanced than the headline implies, so the article is worth reading. This adds another ruling to the confusing case history regarding forced biometric unlocking.
The legal situation is more complex and nuanced than the headline implies, so the article is worth reading. This adds another ruling to the confusing case history regarding forced biometric unlocking.
This has been a theory for awhile, just not sure it was a specifically ruled precedent. The notion being similar to how they can force fingerprinting but not testimony. Access to a physical lock or location you can’t simply say ‘stay put’ but they can’t force you to divulge a password and mce it’s a though in your mind.
Also, really ng on biometrics is terrible, quick but immutable keys are a big no-no.