Minnesota Supreme Court Says Unlocking A Phone With A Fingerprint Isn't A Fifth Amendment Issue

Furnished content.


When it comes to the Fifth Amendment, you're better off with a password or PIN securing your device, rather than your fingerprint. Cellphone manufacturers introduced fingerprint readers in an effort to protect users from thieves or other unauthorized access. But it does nothing at all to prevent law enforcement from using their fingerprints to unlock seized devices.The US Supreme Court hasn't seen a case involving compelled production of fingerprints land on its desk yet and there's very little in the way of federal court decisions to provide guidance. What we have to work with is scattered state court decisions and the implicit understanding that no matter how judges rule, a refusal to turn over a fingerprint or a password is little more than a way to add years to an eventual sentence.The Minnesota Supreme Court has issued the final word on fingerprints and the Fifth Amendment for state residents. In upholding the appeals court ruling, the Supreme Court says a fingerprint isn't testimonial, even if it results in the production of evidence used against the defendant. (h/t FourthAmendment.com)From the ruling [PDF]:

Although the Supreme Court’s distinction between the testimonial act of producing documents as evidence and the nontestimonial act of producing the body as evidence is helpful to our analysis, the act here—providing the police a fingerprint to unlock a cellphone—does not fit neatly into either category. Unlike the acts of standing in a lineup or providing a blood, voice, or handwriting sample, providing a fingerprint to unlock a cellphone both exhibits the body (the fingerprint) and produces documents (the contents of the cellphone). Providing a fingerprint gives the government access to the phone’s contents that it did not already have, and the act of unlocking the cellphone communicates some degree of possession, control, and authentication of the cellphone’s contents. See Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 36. But producing a fingerprint to unlock a phone, unlike the act of producing documents, is a display of the physical characteristics of the body, not of the mind, to the police. See Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 763.Because we conclude that producing a fingerprint is more like exhibiting the body than producing documents, we hold that providing a fingerprint to unlock a cellphone is not a testimonial communication under the Fifth Amendment.

The district court concluded that compelling Diamond’s fingerprint would not violate his Fifth Amendment privilege because “[c]ompelling the production of [Diamond’s] fingerprint or thumbprint would not call upon the use of [his] mind. It is more akin to providing a key to a lockbox.” Accordingly, it ordered Diamond to “provide a fingerprint or thumbprint as deemed necessary by the Chaska Police Department to unlock his seized cell phone.”Diamond continued to object to providing the necessary fingerprint for unlocking the phone. Nevertheless, he finally unlocked the cellphone with his fingerprint in court after being held in civil contempt and warned of the possibility and consequences of criminal contempt.

0 comments, click here to add the first

EU's Highest Court Says Privacy Activist Can Litigate Against Facebook In Austria, But Not As Part Of A Class Action

Furnished content.


Last November we reported on the legal opinion of one of the Advocates General that advises the EU's top court, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). It concerned yet another case brought by the data protection activist and lawyer Max Schrems against Facebook, which he claims does not follow EU privacy laws properly. There were two issues: whether Schrems could litigate against Facebook in his home country, Austria, and whether he could join with 25,000 people to bring a class action against the company. The Advocate General said "yes" to the first, and "no" to the second, and in its definitive ruling, the CJEU has agreed with both of those views (pdf). Here's what Schrems has to say on the judgment (pdf):

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) confirms that Max Schrems can litigate in Vienna against Facebook for violation of EU privacy rules. Facebook's attempt to block the privacy lawsuit was not successful.However, today the CJEU gave a very narrowly definition of the notion of a "consumer" which deprives many consumer from consumer protection and also makes an Austrian-style "class action" impossible.

If a multinational knows that they cannot win a case, they try to find reasons so that a case is not admissible, or they try to squeeze a plaintiff out of the case by inflating the costs.. Facebook wanted to ensure that the case can only be heard in Dublin [where its EU headquarters are located], as Ireland does not have any class action and litigating even one model claim would cost millions of Euros in legal fees. In this case we'd have a valid claim, but it would be basically unenforceable.

The ECJ's finding has caused outrage among consumer groups that have campaigned for years for the [European] Commission to propose legislation allowing for EU-level class action lawsuits involving complainants from different member states. They argue that collective redress will make it easier and cheaper for consumer to sue.

Facing a lawsuit, which questions Facebook's business model, is a huge risk for the company. Any judgement in Austria is directly enforceable at Facebook's Irish headquarter and throughout Europe.

The data subject shall have the right to mandate a not-for-profit body, organisation or association which has been properly constituted in accordance with the law of a Member State, has statutory objectives which are in the public interest, and is active in the field of the protection of data subjects' rights and freedoms with regard to the protection of their personal data to lodge the complaint on his or her behalf

We're rolling out a new privacy center globally that will put the core privacy settings for Facebook in one place and make it much easier for people to manage their data

Germany is threatening curbs on how Facebook amasses data from millions of users in what would be an unprecedented intervention in the social network's business model.Andreas Mundt, head of Germany's main antitrust agency, the Federal Cartel Office, said Facebook could be banned from collecting and processing third-party user data as one possible outcome of an investigation that in December concluded the US technology group was abusing its dominant market position.

0 comments, click here to add the first