91–100 of 294 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The judicial branch and the legislature have also been quite hostile to the 4th during that period. Its absolutely not a problem isolated to the executive.
Thank you, Antonin "Emails aren't Papers" Scalia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the police can force you to unlock a safe, they should also be allowed to force you to unlock a phone. But, unlocking a phone should come with a lot of paper work and checks and balances to ensure that it's done only when really required?
My understanding is that if you are in possession of a key to a safe then law enforcement or the court can compel you to produce the key. But if the safe has a combination, then the court cannot make you give up the combination as that may be self incriminating. Not to mention the practical aspects of trying to compel someone to give up a secret. What if they claim to have forgotten the combination? What if they actu…
> Stick to a strong alphanumeric passcode that you won’t be compelled to disclose. I can imagine this having value against criminals as well. The number of people willing to beat a password out of a victim is smaller than the number of people willing to hold a victim up against the wall for a second to press their finger to a reader.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
they can detain you for a limited amount of time, but they can confiscate your devices for an indefinite period.
Well, you couldn't trust the device after they returned it. So losing it isn't a problem. The best option is not carrying devices across borders. Have whatever you need online somewhere. Securely encrypted, of course. Buy a device at destination. And discard it before return. That's accepted best practice for security-conscious firms. They'll provide devices and online storage. If you must carry a device in transit,…
I won't believe this ruling is safe until it goes thru higher levels. The Executive Branch has over the past 2 decades has shown a large propensity for attempts to disregard the 4th and 5th amendments, and I see no change in this posture or the attempts to subvert them with the current political climate.
NEVER use a fingerprint or an iris scan for a password. That's insane!
Just don't do it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It won't stand because it's not pragmatic. The issue around 'passwords being in your mind' is interesting, but they'll move past it. If you have evidence of a crime on your phone, it must be part of the process. There's nothing remotely unlawful about search of property so long as there is merit, oversight, warrant etc.. Ultimately, this will be no different than searching your car. Now, the cops doing it without a w…
The issue arises when the knowledge of the password itself is incriminating. The 5th amendment prohibits forced self incrimination. Forcing a suspect to divulge information that is directly incriminating will not stand constitutional review, regardless of the nature of the information. You have the right to remain silent.
Or what if a suspects fingerprint was taken without his consent by the police, and compared against a fingerprint taken from the murder weapon? Is that self incrimination?
I'm not seeing the "self incrimination" angle for face or fingerprint scans here. For classical passwords yes, but not for biometrics.
Relevant excerpt: > “The undersigned finds that a biometric feature is analogous to the 20 nonverbal, physiological responses elicited during a polygraph test, which are used to determine guilt or innocence, and are considered testimonial.” So it's analogous to a passcode because you're divulging something stored by your body, as opposed to e.g. a metal key which is artificial. Tangentially related, it's astounding t…
They're considered a valid tool for coercion.
Stupid criminals who watch too much TV think they work and some cop comes in and says he failed a lie detector test and they confess.
In that way they actually do work.
Assuming all you want is a confession but if the person actually provides evidence of their own guilt they so be it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let’s hope the Supreme Court hears it and it stands.
It won't stand because it's not pragmatic. The issue around 'passwords being in your mind' is interesting, but they'll move past it. If you have evidence of a crime on your phone, it must be part of the process. There's nothing remotely unlawful about search of property so long as there is merit, oversight, warrant etc.. Ultimately, this will be no different than searching your car. Now, the cops doing it without a w…
I agree, the physical phone itself should be part of discovery. Authorities should be allowed to physically disassemble the phone and inspect its insides or run forensic tests on it.
The content on the phone is a matter of interpretation, subject to proper decryption. It is just an idea, no different from decoding ideas in somebody's journal. It makes no sense to talk about discovery of this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought that polygraphs were not accepted as evidence in court, but are still used by some government and private agencies. Also, just curious, have they been discredited as in that double-blind trials show no more than a 50/50 chance of being correct (i.e., flipping a coin)? Or is it that a high enough percentage of people will fail them even if innocent, or pass them even if guilty? The thing I don't like about t…
> have they been discredited as in that double-blind trials show no more than a 50/50 chance of being correct? Yes. The reading of polygraphs is very subjective and it's been found that they reflect only whether the person administering the test thinks the subject is guilty.
Of course whether a polygraph can frighten an innocent person enough to falsely confess is another matter, but if the subject is guilty and understands how polygraphs (don't) work, they can deceive the person administering the test very easily. There is no shortage of spies that have passed polygraphs regularly and reliably with flying colors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It won't stand because it's not pragmatic. The issue around 'passwords being in your mind' is interesting, but they'll move past it. If you have evidence of a crime on your phone, it must be part of the process. There's nothing remotely unlawful about search of property so long as there is merit, oversight, warrant etc.. Ultimately, this will be no different than searching your car. Now, the cops doing it without a w…
The problem with forcing someone to reveal a secret (e.g. a password), is that ultimately, there's no way to prove that someone actually knows the password. If I say that I forgot the password, and a judge throws me in jail for contempt of court, I could rot there forever. There is absolutely no way for me to ever prove that I truly forgot the password. You can't prove a negative. With fingerprints or face scanning,…