
Cops used dead man’s finger in attempt to access his phone - lnguyen
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/Cops-used-dead-man-s-finger-in-attempt-to-access-his-phone-It-s-legal-but-is-it-okay-_167262017
======
lsh
Concerning the dead man's privacy, it doesn't matter, he's dead. What matters
is the appearance of decency and respect in death because it matters to the
family. The article makes me wonder if the police walked up during the funeral
and messed with the corpse, but I really doubt that was the case. There is no
dignified death. Death ceremonies are performed for the living.

~~~
falcolas
And yet desecrating the dead is almost universally panned, because of its
effect on the living. Is using a dead person's finger to unlock their phone
desecration? The deceased's family seems to think so.

~~~
mc32
How would this be different from using someone’s fingerprints to identify
them, if they had no ID on them or any other ID method? Is that desecration
too?

~~~
larkeith
My understanding is that, generally, the purpose of identification is to find
living relatives. It's a matter of respect - identification allows for
appropriate rites to be provided, while this is taking advantage of the fact
that the dead have no rights to use the prints for their own purposes.

~~~
mc32
Ok, but respect of disrespect is not the same as desecration, which is what
was being argued. Just because we don’t like something does not mean we dress
it up as something else.

~~~
larkeith
True, desecration is too strong a word in my opinion. I'm not familiar enough
with other cultures and religions to say whether that would be true for
everyone.

------
mabbo
I feel the funeral home ought to have said "no" pretty quickly and plainly
here. There was no warrant, the funeral home is private property and the cops
were there explicitly to try to get evidence from a corpse.

I'm sure it is quite important for the police to do their job, but the funeral
home is hired by the family and should, within reason, do only what the family
says should be done with the body.

Let the police get a warrant if it's so important.

~~~
craftyguy
They stated early in the article that a warrant is not needed because "there's
no expectation of privacy for the dead."

I strongly disagree with this, since it's not just the privacy of the owner
locked away on a phone, but also the privacy of the people they have
interacted with. It takes at least two to make a conversation, and suddenly if
one dies then the other's messages are available for collection without a
warrant?

~~~
tbyehl
The State's right to do whatever they want to a corpse certainly ends once
they no longer have possession of the corpse.

More importantly, what the police did here was execute a search upon the
funeral home. That their purpose was to temporarily seize a corpse shouldn't
be any different than if they were looking for documents.

~~~
jessriedel
Society has long treated human bodies very differently than mere documents.

~~~
larkeith
Which makes it all the more disconcerting that they would appear to have less
legal protections, at least in this case.

------
LeoPanthera
Important detail from the article: It didn't work.

~~~
Herald_MJ
I found this interesting too. Does anyone know a reason why it didn't work?

~~~
wl
You can't unlock an iPhone with a fingerprint more than eight hours after the
last unlock.

------
tmwed
of course they did. why is this news?

