The use of our footprint as a system of protection for our devices has been one more suitable for our day to day, innovations since it makes that we can save time remembering and typing passwords, but if you’re a criminal and you are in United States you may not be the most recommended.
This due to the fact that the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects all citizens of forced self-incrimination, which makes the devices with access code are protected by law, but that protection does not apply if your device is equipped with a means of access through the fingerprint.
The devices are updated, laws apparently do not
This debate emerged after a criminal investigation that currently takes place in Virginia, United States. The case of David Baust, accused of trying to strangle his girlfriend, where the public prosecutor ensures that your smartphone has a video a camera that was in one of the rooms where David fought with his girlfriend.
The intention was to force the defendant to give your iPhone passcode, but lawyers are protected in the fifth amendment that protects this practice which is to disseminate knowledge to his self-incrimination, this is how the prosecution took a new turn in the case when applying for the Unlocking the device through the footprint, It is not protected by the aforementioned fifth amendment.
With this, the judge ruled that the accused can be compelled to provide its footprint, but not the access code, providing footprint is comparable to request a DNA test, a wrench, or a letter, as the law allows citizens to be forced to resign These physical elements in the case of criminal investigations.
With this we can see that at least in the United States, a fingerprint sensor does not provide the same type of legal protection make a password, for simpler than this. This served to make the case go ahead, since so far there is no other kind of evidence that charged to David Baust.