Another
swing of he pendulum?
Maeve
Allsup reports:
The government may compel individuals to unlock devices using biometrics during the execution of a search warrant without violating the individual’s Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights, a federal court in Kentucky ruled Thursday.
The federal government sought to obtain a search warrant to seize evidence on cellphones, computers and other electronic devices found on the premises that contain evidence of, or were the instruments of, alleged crime. That warrant also sought authorization to force all individuals present to provide biometrics to unlock devices.
The
opinion joins other opinions that the government can compel biometric
access when executing a search warrant. What the government can’t
do — at least not in the Eastern District of Kentucky — is compel
biometric access to all devices by all individuals who might just
happen to be on the premises or in the area where there is evidence
of a crime or other devices that might be involved in an alleged
crime. As Magistrate Judge Stinnett framed the questions the court
grappled with this way:
First, is capturing the physical characteristics of an individual, such as a fingerprint, a search? If so, then second, what standard or burden must the government meet to capture such physical attributes of an individual incident to a search warrant?
The
first question was easily answered that yes, capturing biometric
characteristics is a search. Then how does the Fourth Amendment
apply to searching the devices that may belong to non-targets of a
warrant? The court applies the reasonable suspicion standard and
concluded that
the United States may only compel individuals present during warrant execution to provide biometric markers to unlock electronic devices where the United States has reasonable suspicion that such an individual has committed a criminal act that is the subject matter of the warrant, and reasonable suspicion that the individual’s biometrics will unlock the device.
The
case is Favorite
In re Search Warrant No. 5165,
2020 BL 246200, E.D. Ky., No. 5:20-MJ-5165, 7/2/20.
Is this a
useful ‘bad example?’
National
security law: Hong Kong internet firms ‘will have to comply’ with
police requests
… Under
the new national
security law Beijing
has imposed on Hong Kong, police no longer have to seek court orders
before requiring internet users or “relevant service providers”–
believed to cover social media platforms and also firms – to remove
information or help with an investigation.
Allow
me to provoke some thought. Worth reading!
How
Cyberinsurance Is Responding to Ransomware: An Interview with Ken
Suh, Mark Singer, and Marcello Antonucci
Is
our education system falling behind?
Study:
Only 18% of data science students are learning about AI ethics
Amid
a growing backlash over AI‘s racial and gender biases, numerous
tech giants are launching their own ethics initiatives — of dubious
intent.
The
schemes are billed as altruistic efforts to make tech serve humanity.
But critics
argue their
main concern is evading regulation and scrutiny through “ethics
washing.”
At
least we can rely on universities to teach the next generation of
computer scientists to make. Right? Apparently not, according to a
new survey of
2,360 data science students, academics, and professionals by software
firm Anaconda.
Only
15% of instructors and professors said they’re teaching AI ethics,
and just 18% of students indicated they’re learning about the
subject.
(Related)
Why
China's Race For AI Dominance Depends On Math
Forget
about “AI” itself: it’s all about the math, and America is
failing to train enough citizens in the right kinds of mathematics to
remain dominant.
The
joy of anti-social distancing?
No comments:
Post a Comment