Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Police can’t demand you reveal your phone passcode then tell a jury you refused

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 615 posts

Re: Police can’t demand you reveal your phone passcode then tell a jury you refused

#301

Post by pdimitar »

lr4444lr wrote: post #290
pdimitar wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely, if I travel with a company laptop and I am asked to unlock it I'll outright refuse and cite that I can and will be sued by my employer if I unlock it, and will direct the airport security to my employer's legal team. I don't want to open myself up for litigation so I'll definitely put up a fight in this case.

Your employer has no grounds to sue you with no tangible damages. Unlocking your computer for an airport security meat head isn't gonna compromise your employer's trade secrets.

They might have no grounds per se but when they make you sign a contract stating that they do, then they do. I shouldn't have signed it, I know, but I haven't planned on traveling anyway so didn't care at the time.

Re: Police can’t demand you reveal your phone passcode then tell a jury you refused

#302

Post by RansomStark »

kspacewalk2 wrote: post #78
pdimitar wrote: post #53

Formally the police can't demand a lot of stuff. Informally, they'll put you in a room and tell you that they have the legal right to keep you anywhere from 24 to 72 hours in there and they definitely can make you reconsider during that period -- to put it very mildly. Hint: some cops are really good in the skill of inflicting pain to people without lasting medical trace to prove it afterwards. Until there's true acc…

>Hint: some cops are really good in the skill of inflicting pain to people without lasting medical trace to prove it afterwards. Sorry, I don't buy that this happens with any kind of frequency in the 21st century United States, such that a person could reasonably expect this to happen to them. Do you have more than ambiguous innuendo to back up this claim?

Didn't the Chicago PD run a black site a fee years back... Found it: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/201...

Re: Police can’t demand you reveal your phone passcode then tell a jury you refused

#303

Post by mschuster91 »

xadhominemx wrote: post #245
mschuster91 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Technically airport security can't make you unlock your phone in many countries as well but I've known two former colleagues who were "convinced" to do so in the airport's back room; the one where problematic passengers are held for 8-24h. Which is why I refuse to travel outside of the Schengen area. Even if I'd really like to visit the US one day once corona passes, there is absolutely no way I'll consent to essen…

> Which is why I refuse to travel outside of the Schengen area That’s really a crazy mindset man. The US receives ~100m foreign visitors annually. There is nothing special about you, they don’t care about your Facebook profile. Worst comes to worst, you just refuse to unlock your device and they deport you back to where you came from.

> Worst comes to worst, you just refuse to unlock your device and they deport you back to where you came from.

Who says they won't image my device using yet-unknown zero day exploits, or that I get it back at all? And I'd still be out thousands of dollars in travel costs.

Re: Police can’t demand you reveal your phone passcode then tell a jury you refused

#304

Post by dnautics »

kingcharles wrote: post #276
dnautics wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

file under "other" reasons. To be sure, the governments don't want to keep getting sued so they start putting in policies to mitigate damage, but it is a source of inefficiency. It's also too easy for state and locals to float bonds and go into debt to cover these things, push the payoff problem to a future generation of voters/future generation of immigrants into the city. If there were a real hammer up against thei…

Getting sued is just seen as a cost of business for the government. Having sued and won against the government I have seen that 99% of the time they do not change policy to avoid getting sued again. I'm currently suing the government for violating the Constitution in a case they already lost a couple of years ago and didn't fix the problem and just kept committing the violations.

You're right most of the time. But eventually some things change. I never said it was efficient as it is.

Re: Police can’t demand you reveal your phone passcode then tell a jury you refused

#305

Post by cogman10 »

63 wrote: post #62
pdimitar wrote: post #53

Formally the police can't demand a lot of stuff. Informally, they'll put you in a room and tell you that they have the legal right to keep you anywhere from 24 to 72 hours in there and they definitely can make you reconsider during that period -- to put it very mildly. Hint: some cops are really good in the skill of inflicting pain to people without lasting medical trace to prove it afterwards. Until there's true acc…

It's crazy to me the amount that people who have never dealt with the cops think "I'll just show them x legal code so they can see they don't have the right to do that." Turns out, they don't care. For minor infractions, they'll use whatever intimidation and coercion they want, then make you feel lucky for letting you out because they didn't feel like prosecuting. In most circumstances, the word of the person with th…

You can't talk yourself out of being arrested. This is why the advice of "keep your mouth shut" is the best advice out there.

https://oakleylawky.com/am-i-being-detained-6-questions-you-...

Re: Police can’t demand you reveal your phone passcode then tell a jury you refused

#306

Post by withinboredom »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #225
withinboredom wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's about Due Process. It doesn't matter if you are guilty, you still have the same rights as someone who is not guilty.

That's not how it works: you're [supposedly] not guilty until conviction and so, like all not guilty people, have the same rights. But, on conviction your rights are severely curtailed if the sentence is custodial. So I guess you could say "It doesn't matter if you are later found guilty [...]" to be consistent with the presumption of innocence.

Yeah, I could have been more clear. Thanks!

Re: Police can’t demand you reveal your phone passcode then tell a jury you refused

#307

Post by mschuster91 »

auganov wrote: post #296
mschuster91 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Technically airport security can't make you unlock your phone in many countries as well but I've known two former colleagues who were "convinced" to do so in the airport's back room; the one where problematic passengers are held for 8-24h. Which is why I refuse to travel outside of the Schengen area. Even if I'd really like to visit the US one day once corona passes, there is absolutely no way I'll consent to essen…

> Which is why I refuse to travel outside of the Schengen area. Just one data point: A few days ago was pulled over in Germany, I assume, for travelling on foreign plates from a small (Schengen area) country. Initially we thought we must have broken some traffic rule we weren't aware of. But it seemed more like an immigration check. Asked for passports, searched the car and asked a lot of questions. Didn't even check…

Schengen traffic stops (allowed on/near transit highways and train lines, as well as either 20 or 50km next to national borders) exist, indeed, but the cops do not have the right (or the equipment) to acess your digital devices. They are only allowed to search you and your vehicle for contraband (e.g. guns, drugs) and people without a legal status (visa, perma residence, citizenship).

Re: Police can’t demand you reveal your phone passcode then tell a jury you refused

#308

Post by jaytaylor »

ashtonkem wrote: post #300
dahart wrote: post #128

> this case turns on one of the most fundamental protections in our constitutional system: an accused person’s ability to exercise his Fifth Amendment rights without having his silence used against him. A very interesting tidbit I learned here on HN a couple years back — the Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that you have to declare out loud an intent to invoke your Fifth Amendment rights, if you haven’t been formally arre…

Then there’s the absurd case where a defendant was found to have not invoked his 5th amendment rights by saying “I want a lawyer dawg”. The court, with laughably straight faces, decided that he might have been asking for a dog lawyer. Courts can be shockingly corrupt.

I was skeptical, but a quick web search verified that this 100% happened - recently even, in 2017.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/11/02...

> The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that the suspect was, in fact, asking for a “lawyer dog,” ..

That's bad, dawg.

Re: Police can’t demand you reveal your phone passcode then tell a jury you refused

#309

Post by aksss »

ashtonkem wrote: post #300
dahart wrote: post #128

> this case turns on one of the most fundamental protections in our constitutional system: an accused person’s ability to exercise his Fifth Amendment rights without having his silence used against him. A very interesting tidbit I learned here on HN a couple years back — the Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that you have to declare out loud an intent to invoke your Fifth Amendment rights, if you haven’t been formally arre…

Then there’s the absurd case where a defendant was found to have not invoked his 5th amendment rights by saying “I want a lawyer dawg”. The court, with laughably straight faces, decided that he might have been asking for a dog lawyer. Courts can be shockingly corrupt.

What case is that, and what court?

Re: Police can’t demand you reveal your phone passcode then tell a jury you refused

#310

Post by warkdarrior »

lelanthran wrote: post #34
emilfihlman wrote: post #10

But wait, does this say that another court order can compel you to unlock it anyways? That doesn't seem logical at all.

> But wait, does this say that another court order can compel you to unlock it anyways? If a court can compel speech, then they may as well go ahead and compel the suspect to confess. There's no difference, once the courts compel speech.

It does not make sense to compel someone to confess, because that presumes the person is guilty. But it may make sense to compel someone to share factual information ("the PIN is 1234") or to provide access to information.
Post reply on HN