Feds Can't Force You to Unlock Your iPhone with Finger or Face, Judge Rules

Post by pc86 » Tue, Jan 15, 2019, 1:33 PM UTC

cerebellum42 wrote: post #237

mrunkel wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. It's encrypted data. You can't even see where the files are. I can only surmise that this means that they scanned the content of the hard drives and found data sequences that matched some file hashes of known child pornography.

If that's the case, why do they even need the drive to be decrypted? All they'd have to prove is that the drive was not owned by anyone other than the accused and could then say that there was CP saved onto this drive by the guy. If they matched the hashes to data on the drive, the files are already on there unencrypted. Could be some space left by a now-deleted unencrypted partition, or maybe some leftover data in a…

Post by pc86 » Tue, Jan 15, 2019, 1:48 PM UTC

sonnyblarney wrote: post #68

gigatexal wrote: post #36

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…

Post by general8bitso » Tue, Jan 15, 2019, 1:52 PM UTC

6nf wrote: post #250

derekp7 wrote: post #9

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…

Individuals can also 'train' for polygraphs, basically learning to spoof the readings. So really you just can't rely on polygraphs for anything at all.

Post by pc86 » Tue, Jan 15, 2019, 1:53 PM UTC

darkpuma wrote: post #96

sathackr wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Mugshot photographs are constitutional, no? Suppose the face biometrics were poorly implemented, such that holding a printout of the mugshot were sufficient to defeat the facial recognition. Would doing that violate the 5th amendment? What if the face biometrics are better than that, but they can still be defeated by a very carefully constructed 3d model of the suspects head, created from data taken from numerous mug…

Post by stef25 » Tue, Jan 15, 2019, 1:59 PM UTC

Buge wrote: post #215

5ML wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fear I'll be barbecued for asking, but I must: What's the alternative? I am a privacy advocate and understand that the law can (and likely will) abuse a forced decryption law. However, the story you linked is about a _police officer_ who was suspected of child pornography. His sister reported him to the police and 'content stored on the encrypted hard drive matched file hashes for known child pornography content'.…

>His sister reported him to the police and 'content stored on the encrypted hard drive matched file hashes for known child pornography content'. If that's evidence enough to hold him in jail indefinitely then it's evidence enough to convict him. So convict him using it. There's no need to force him to self-incriminate. If it's not evidence enough then the alternative to this is do good police work that doesn't requir…