• randompasta@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    92
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    That’s why passwords are safer in this situation. Cops can’t compel you to reveal it.

      • MindTraveller
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        48
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I miss when crypto nerd meant cryptography nerd

        • lengau@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          It still does. People who like cryptocurrency are crypto bros (regardless of gender).

            • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              5 months ago

              I don’t really know how you misunderstood his post in order to correct you, but I’ll try.

              He’s saying crypto nerds like cryptography and crypto bros are cryptocurrency shills.

              • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                Ah, I see. The confusion happened because crypto nerd absolutely does not mean that to the casual public anymore, as bemoaned in the parent comment, and I didn’t realize he was insisting there is still a distinction.

                I really don’t have a leg to stand on with that topic because I always put “libertarian” in scare quotes.

                The thing is, however, that a lot of the crypto nerds are also crypto bros. Or at least, they’re who the crypto bros were trying to be, the guys who were mining Bitcoin when it was worth $0.13, but those two people sound exactly alike on the Internet on their shared interest because they’re both trying to sell you the coins.

    • AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      62
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yeah, unfortunately, this isn’t a new thing, just upholding the old standard. I explicitly avoid fingerprint and face recognition features because of this. Your fingerprint and your face are legally considered what you are, so things like 5th amendment right to avoid self incrimination don’t apply, but passwords and PINs are legally considered what you know, so you can’t be forced to divulge.

      • mkwt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        ·
        5 months ago

        The wrinkle in this case is that the thumb print giver was in parole. The conditions of parole stated that failure to divulge phone pass codes on phones could result in arrest and phone seizure “pending further investigation”. The parole conditions didn’t say anything about forcible thumb print taking.

        So the logic here seems to be:

        • If he had agreed to unlock the phone then the result would be the same.
        • If he refused to unlock the phone, that is a legitimate grounds for arrest. Fingerprinting is a routine part of being arrested, so there’s really no harm if it’s done on a phone in a patrol car. Either way, the result would end up about the same.
        • lengau@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          5 months ago

          Yeah that’s even less than what the standard is. That’s just saying “you have to do what’s in the conditions of your parole, and we won’t accept sneaky technicalities.”

          But I suppose “appeals court rules that you have to obey the terms of your parole” is far less ragebaity.

          • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            5 months ago

            The real story here is how terms of parole are often ridiculous and contribute heavily to our high recidivism rate. Not to mention stripping away rights.

            • thrawn@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Not arguing in favor of them, with how awful the police and oftentimes court systems are, I’m not surprised to hear parole ones are bad too. But what about them contribute to reoffending?

              (I’m too lazy to check myself right now, and maybe the answer will help others too? Plus it might vary in jurisdictions)

              • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                I wasn’t referring to the parole officers per se, just the parole stipulations. For example, a common one is that you must be employed. But then you also must make your regularly scheduled meetings with your parole officer, which are scheduled during working hours. The parole board will determine your address (usually as a stipulation of release, usually with family) but the parole office will be on the other side of the city. Public transit is unreliable, if you miss your bus you go to prison.

                I had a friend of a friend who was getting released to a halfway house. Never saw the light of day. When they released his clothes to him, that he got arrested in seven years previously, they found Marijuana seeds in the pockets. Not bud, seeds. That’s a parole violation, instant back to prison for 3 more years, minimum. The parole officer who was there told me about it (was also the officer of my friend, who I was giving a ride to).

        • AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Any time a cop has the legal authority to access the contents of your phone, you can be compelled to provide your fingerprint or face to unlock it if that will work. If your phone doesn’t have those features enabled and relies on a PIN, they can’t force you to tell them that outside of some unusual circumstances like parole obligations because you agree to those. They can still access your phone, but only to the extent that they can without the PIN. In this case, cops had the required authority because of his parole obligations, but they’d be equally able to force you to unlock by fingerprint or face if they got your phone as part of a search warrant and I think if you’re arrested but only if your phone is relevant evidence. Maybe even if it’s not, but I’m less sure about that.

      • Albbi
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        5 months ago

        I just have lockdown mode enabled from the power menu so that it forces pass code login instead of allow fingerprint login.

        Never been pulled over or talked to a cop (other than family members) in my life.

      • Scratch@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        5 months ago

        Android: Search settings for “Lockdown” and enable “Show lockdown option”

        When needed hold the power button and the lockdown option will appear alongside the standard power menu options.

        IOS: Hold the Lock button and either volume button to show the power off screen. Cancel out and FaceID will be disabled until you use your pin to unlock the phone.

        • Bahalex@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          5 months ago

          You can also spam the power button on IOS. It should pop up the same menu as holding the power button. You can cancel, but it requires a password to get back into the phone.

        • irish_link@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          5 months ago

          Not sure about Android but IOS you can actually use FaceID for all the things you want like password managers, log into PayPal, and other biometric features but have it disabled to unlock the phone. It’s what I do, you don’t need to spam anything. Just use a pin to unlock.

          • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            5 months ago

            I’ve never understood people who are happy to give their biometrics to fucking PayPal and every other random company. Just use a password for everything.

            • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              15
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              You don’t “give” your *biometrics to any of them. Your biometric data is used to encrypt and store each services password hash or auth token on your device.

              *At least when it comes to login authentication. Nothing stopping them from acquiring your biometric data from a hundred data brokers.

            • irish_link@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              That’s a fair point, I don’t want my info given to every private company out there. However the idea of the biometrics (if you take it at face value [no pun intended]) is that the biometrics are stored on the chip in your device. Then the password or authorization is then granted based on approval from that.

              It’s not like you can grab another phone and try to log into said service with your biometrics.

              • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                I 100000% guarantee there is a backdoor that allows someone (at least the nsa, probably various companies) to get that data.