41–50 of 615 posts
Meanwhile, in the UK: https://www.hcsolicitors.co.uk/news/giving-the-police-your-p... If a judge authorises a notice, under RIPA, you can be served a 2 year sentence for failing to disclose your phone's passcode.
So after serving the 2 year sentence, can they ask you again for the pass code?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right to remain silent vs. a court order to provide access to evidence.
Yeah but that access has to come from your brain; doesn't it therefore fall under the 5th amendment that you have the right to remain silent and something something self-incrimination? I mean I'm trying to think of other instances of getting access to evidence, and the only things I can think of is companies having to provide certain administrative documentation that may not even be their own. But that's probably me…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right to remain silent vs. a court order to provide access to evidence.
Yeah but that access has to come from your brain; doesn't it therefore fall under the 5th amendment that you have the right to remain silent and something something self-incrimination? I mean I'm trying to think of other instances of getting access to evidence, and the only things I can think of is companies having to provide certain administrative documentation that may not even be their own. But that's probably me…
Say, for example, you were a low level drug dealer and the court wanted evidence from your phone to convict your boss/supplier/whoever. They could compel you to unlock your phone, but could not use the evidence on it against you, only against your supplier, thanks to the 5th Amendment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So far it has held up in the court of appeals, but there's another hearing upcoming. Note that a defendant is in a much stronger position if they have maintained complete silence even before the password is requested - you can't just clam up halfway through a conversation.
> you can't just clam up halfway through a conversation Why?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the police are aware of this “feature”, that’s an easy contempt and destruction of evidence charge among others. I’d recommend just not doing it.
Agreed. That's why I believe it might be super handy if every or at least many phones had this in place so that you don't really stand out. At least every phone using an alternate OS. If all the mainstream operating systems had this I would expect an arms race between the OS devs and the forensics device devs. As a side note, this would not necessarily be only used for law enforcement authorities. It could be that an…
Sortof off topic question. I've never owned a smart phone but might get one soon assuming I can find a decent one that will run grapheneOS. Is there an app that can be given permission to intercept the unlock code and upon receiving the panic/under duress code, discretely put the phone into a "parental controls" configuration that sandboxes all your data and only presents the storage you want the law enforcement chil…
I don't know - but 1password absolutely does have this! Useful if you're in a scenario where you don't have the American version of human rights. You can hide stuff for a period of time
It's good to know it exists.
The sad thing is, however, that even just knowing a name/identity is enough for motivated entities to "pull the thread" and go fishing on the internet for whatever they want.
Hmmmm... I was under the impression this was already the case. I remember reading about this a while ago when I was learning that they can force you to provide a fingerprint or face-scan.
Which is messed up. That said, biometric unlock is identification, NOT authorization; if you have secrets on your phone, do not use biometrics. They are a low to medium security convenience. Second, of course, don't keep evidence of crimes on your phone. And final tip, on an iphone, hitting the lock button on the side five times rapidly will disable the biometric unlock until the passcode has been filled in. It also…
Also, if you have accomplices in your crimes make sure they don't keep evidence of your involvement on their phones.
The Fifth Amendment covers self-incrimination. It doesn't cover incrimination against others.
A prosecutor can grant one of your accomplices immunity to prosecution based on any evidence found on their phone about their crimes, and then it is fine under the Fifth Amendment to force them to unlock their phone and then use any evidence of your crimes found on their phone against you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. That's why I believe it might be super handy if every or at least many phones had this in place so that you don't really stand out. At least every phone using an alternate OS. If all the mainstream operating systems had this I would expect an arms race between the OS devs and the forensics device devs. As a side note, this would not necessarily be only used for law enforcement authorities. It could be that an…
You might not stand out but it would still be contempt of court. Not turning over evidence with a constitutional defense is easier to defend in court than malicious fake-compliance.
If courts want this data, they can issue a subpoena and follow due process. Law enforcement can pound sand all day long if they are trying to circumvent due process.
Using this feature with armed phone thieves would not be a legal risk unless you are filming them in their home. Even then I would be happy to accept any legal risk when interacting with outlaws.
Meanwhile, in the UK: https://www.hcsolicitors.co.uk/news/giving-the-police-your-p... If a judge authorises a notice, under RIPA, you can be served a 2 year sentence for failing to disclose your phone's passcode.
So after serving the 2 year sentence, can they ask you again for the pass code?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plausible deniability.
Are you joking? This is the exact opposite of plausible deniability. This feature requires premeditated user action to hide evidence in an attempt to mislead law enforcement. It is illegal.