805
After police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of theft, she had to prove her own innocence (coloradosun.com)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
147 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20251030114314/https://coloradosun.com/2025/10/28/flock-camera-police-colorado-columbine-valley/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

Yeah, really my question should have been about encrypted footage and my 5th amendment to protecting the password to the footage.

Hopefully no one needs to test this to find out.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    The question for smartphones has been tried in court IIRC. Basically, police can compel you to unlock your phone with biometrics, but cannot compel you to unlock it if it's a password, and the difference is your fingerprint is something you have, whereas a password is something you know. Your fingerprint is subject to the fourth amendment and your password is subject to the fifth.

    So when it comes to video footage, the password is protected, so they'd need to break the encryption or the password, they couldn't compel you to reveal it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent