Once rebooted, you need to enter your PIN to unlock the phone (and the SIM as well). Before that it is not possible to unlock the phone with biometric credentials (face ID or fingerprint).
As far as I’m aware, police can force you to hand over your biometric credentials (they can hold the phone to your face to unlock it when you have face ID enabled, or can move your finger to the fingerprint sensor). But they can’t force you to reveal the PIN number.
Sadly, in this world you accomplish nothing for being nice and considerate. If you want to leave an impact (anything - a new invention, a new product, a new idea, anything with impact to contemporary culture) you have to bully yourself to the top, including stealing ideas and screwing people over, as well as to exploit people. All “great” people who accomplished something did that: Gates (Microsoft), Jobs (Apple), Musk (Tesla, Twitter), Bezos (Amazon), Thiel (PayPal, Palantir), Zuckerberg (Meta), Huffman (Reddit), as well as many politicans. It’s a personality treat.
Here is a video that explains the issue, albeit it focuses on designers:
Are you saying all laws are futile? Otherwise what is different with this law that makes it futile?
I do not say that all laws are futile. The difference with this particular measurement is that it is odd to me, that a no-weapon zone is being established, as it is quite unusual that Germans carry around weapons in general. At least not where I live. People carrying around weapons of any kind is just not a thing here.
There are other laws, speed restrictions for instance. I get that there is a necessity to enforce such thing, as people have cars and tend to drive faster than they should. Speeding with a car is more common than carrying a weapon. That’s why this law makes sense, as it adresses the issue right there. Speeding doesn’t have an underlying issue that causes drivers to speed.
The thing what makes it futile in my opinion is that a restriction in carrying weapons does not solve the underlying issues (the root causes of socio-economic inequality, among others) that probably lead to harming others with knives. It’s just treating the symptoms, not the root cause.
This would be the use case, where you would break the law, when entering such restriction zone. Unless, of course, your skin tone has the right shade, as police unfortunately does things like racial profiling. If pale, you were on your way to a cooking party - if darker-skinned, you luckily were caught in the act!
Fair enough, I didn’t think of that. What you described is the intended use for pocket knives, MacGyver style.
What I thought of when writing my comment were kind of hunting knives. No one needs that inside an urban environment.
The question is: why would anyone carry a knife in the first place? I can’t think of any reason. Personally, such law wouldn’t have any impact on me, because I don’t carry a knife with me. I can see the intention with such law, and it probably might help to percieve a more secure enviroment.
If someone wanted to do some stabbing inside a party district, such law wouldn’t stop them - unless one has to pass through a security checkpoint (which to my knowledge are not a thing).
This is a futile attempt to establish safety, and it is done so that it can be claimed that something has been done.
If some person has the intention to do any harm to others, this person would not be stopped by any restriction to carry any weapon.
The real issues lay much deeper: A growing number of refugees and asylum seekers that want to work, but are prohibited to do so, but at the same time these are competing in an already tight housing market. Raising costs of living, growing inequality, growing envy and a part of the population which is on the brink of shiftig into a nazi movement, with a growing resentment to foreign people. It takes more than putting up a sign that says that weapons are forbidden beyond this point to solve these problems.
Also, in Germany there is no reason ever to walk around with waepons. Compared to other parts of the world it is pretty safe here.
Putting up a sign that states that weapon are forbidden would have the same impact as putting up a sign that forbids wild fires in the forest or flooding near a body of water.
I don’t know how the procedere would be executed, but I imagine that police could have the phone present during an interrogation and try to nlock it there (possibly by making you to look at the phone to unlock it, if the phone has been set up to unlock this way). Once unlocked, it would be sufficient to have a peek into the camera roll or messages, until the phone locks again. I don’t know about the law, but I can imagine that if a police officer had a look into your phone, even briefly, it may be held against the one who is being interrogated.