Police can’t demand you reveal your phone passcode then tell a jury you refused • Hacker News Board

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

#611

Post by oohaargh » Wed, Oct 27, 2021, 12:08 AM UTC

perl4ever wrote: post #521

oohaargh wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a hilariously weird take on how rights work. I don't want to tar all Americans with the same brush, but I think only someone from the US could possibly have come up with this

Remember "the French don't have a word for entrepreneur"? Snopes apparently debunked it, however, I was always inclined to believe it happened and was deliberate irony. I hope your comment is in the same vein.

You really think of human rights as an exclusively American idea?

I'm not surprised you can't see what my comment is getting at

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

#612

Post by hackmiester » Thu, Oct 28, 2021, 3:36 AM UTC

mekal wrote: post #444

steelframe wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With iPhones you can say, "Hey Siri, whose phone is this?" That will disable biometric unlock.

I just tried this with my iphone 11, just out of curiosity... Siri ratted me out and my face still unlocked it.

Be sure not to look at your phone when you test it!

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

#613

Post by hackmiester » Thu, Oct 28, 2021, 3:36 AM UTC

jakelazaroff wrote: post #589

steelframe wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm running iOS 15.0.2 on an iPhone 12 Pro. The response I got was, "I believe this iPhone belongs to Bob," where "Bob" is my first name. Then Face ID was disabled, and the only way I could unlock my phone was with my passcode.

Also running iOS 15.0.2. This did not disable biometric unlock. Don’t mess with Siri, just hold down the power button and either volume button simultaneously for a few seconds.

Be sure not to look at your phone when you test it! If it sees your face and unlocks before the command is processed, it doesn't work.

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

#614

Post by quacked » Fri, Oct 29, 2021, 2:38 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #293

quacked wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The police job attracts most people who do not have a college degree, are white, and lean into conservative/justice-heavy politics. Many of those people are bullies. That doesn't mean anything about people that do not have a college degree, or white people, or conservative/justice-heavy politics, it just means something about the police job and the people who agree to take it. We're looking at probability of (white A…

> The police job attracts most people who do not have a college degree, are white, and lean into conservative/justice-heavy politics. 12.4% of police officers are black, compared to 11.9% of the US population. "White" is slightly over-represented as well. Both of these are mainly a result of "Other" and especially "Asian" being significantly under-represented. The primary disparity is by sex. 84.5% of police are male…

Despite the fact that racial proportions match up fairly well with the population, I still have a very hard time believing that personal politics and intelligence/education levels match up with the population as well.

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

#615

Post by andrewxdiamond » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 6:04 PM UTC

oohaargh wrote: post #609

andrewxdiamond wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ideologically, this is exactly how the US Bill of Rights works. The rights listed in the Bill of Rights are unalienable, natural, and apply regardless of your citizenship status. Of course this is weird from another country’s perspective, but it is the mentality that many Americans take because to us, it is right.

It really isn't exactly how it works though - correct me where I'm going wrong here, because I've just read all these responses and feel I must be going insane. The ideology is that human beings ought to have some intrinsic rights. The Bill of Rights is an attempt to codify those rights in the context of how _the US government_ can interact with people (regardless of their citizenship). The idea that a UK citizen has…

It works that way to say that these rights are _above_ the US government. The government isn’t “granting” them, and it can’t take them away. The bill of rights is descriptive, not prescriptive.

The side effect here is that technically, according to US lore, the situation you describe with the UK is correct. And it’s kindof how US citizens think.

You have the right to protest your government. You have the right to say whatever you want. You have the right to defend yourself. You may not agree, but that’s what US lore says, and it feeds a lot of our international behavior.