Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Iphone The Courts Crime Government IOS Privacy Security

Florida Court Says Suspected Voyeur Must Reveal His iPhone Passcode To Police (bbc.com) 184

Posted by BeauHD from the constitutional-protections dept.
A Florida appeals court has reversed a decision by a previous judge and ruled that a suspected voyeur can be made to reveal his iPhone passcode to police. "The defendant was arrested after a woman out shopping saw a man crouch down and aim what she believed was a smartphone under her skirt," reports BBC: Store CCTV captured footage of a man crouched down, holding an illuminated device and moving it towards the victim's skirt, according to court documents published by news site Courthouse News. Aaron Stahl was identified by law enforcement officers who reviewed the footage, according to court documents. After his arrest, Mr Stahl initially agreed to allow officers to search his iPhone 5, which he told them was at his home. However, once it had been retrieved by police - but before he had revealed his passcode - he withdrew consent to the search. The trial court had decided that Mr Stahl could be protected by the Fifth Amendment, which is designed to prevent self-incrimination. However, Judge Anthony Black's formal opinion to the court quashed the decision. Judge Black referred to a famous Supreme Court case, Doe v US 1988, in which Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that a defendant could be made to surrender a key to a strongbox containing incriminating documents but they could not "be compelled to reveal the combination to his wall safe." "We question whether identifying the key which will open the strongbox - such that the key is surrendered - is, in fact, distinct from telling an officer the combination," wrote Judge Black. "More importantly, we question the continuing viability of any distinction as technology advances."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Florida Court Says Suspected Voyeur Must Reveal His iPhone Passcode To Police More

Florida Court Says Suspected Voyeur Must Reveal His iPhone Passcode To Police

Comments Filter:

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @05:53PM (#53479499)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Judge fucked up. (Score:5, Funny)

      by sexconker ( 1179573 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @05:53PM (#53479507)

      This judge isn't qualified to practice law in the United States.

      Agreed. That's why he's practicing law in Florida.

    • Re:Judge fucked up. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @06:14PM (#53479653)

      Fifth amendment violation. This judge isn't qualified to practice law in the United States.

      -jcr

      To further highlight the fucking idiot behind the bench referencing legal precedent:

      "could be made to surrender a key... but could not be compelled to reveal the combination..."

      A passcode is a fucking combination, moron.

      • Re:Judge fucked up. (Score:5, Informative)

        by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @06:33PM (#53479803)

        The Judge didn't refer to the legal precedent in the 1988 case, he merely referred to the 1988 case and then *disagreed* with the precedent set down in that case by saying he saw no distinction between identifying a key or identifying a combination - the combination he refers to is the combination of the safe in the 1988 case, not the passcode to the iPhone. He then equates the passcode to the combination.

        Legal precedent can be overturned, its not set in stone forever more, and thats what this Judge is trying to do here - overturn the precedent in the 1988 case by saying there is no longer a distinction between the physical key and the ephemeral combination.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by TWX ( 665546 )
          In the 1988 case that established precedent, Stevens as cited in the article summary above and presumably by the appeals court judge, wrote for the dissent, in fact the case was 8-1 and he was the only dissenter.

          I very much doubt that this will be overturned on appeal. First, the case establishing precedent is fairly recent. Second, the subject at hand is similar enough to where it's easy to draw parallels if the electronic device as a container can be compared to the physical container that the strong

          • Re:Judge fucked up. (Score:5, Informative)

            by Ed Tice ( 3732157 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @08:14PM (#53480433)
            I went and re-read the 1988 case before posting. (Yeah I'll get modded into oblivion for that). Seems that the judge has it right here and the summary is just flamebait. The 1988 case determined that one can not be compelled to make statements that are "testimonial in nature." The judge here is saying that giving the passcode is not "testimonial in nature." There is no precedent on whether or not the passcode for your phone is "testimonial in nature." What was decided in 1988 is that a letter authorizing the receiving bank to release any records that they may or may not have is not testimonial in nature. References to the key vs combination is only in a dissent and not relevant here. There's nothing in the judge's ruling that contradicts 1998 DOE. The case from 1998 was pretty clear. You can be compelled to do things that are "non-testimonial in nature" and a letter authorizing the release of bank records that may or may not exist is non-testimonial. We now have a new type of evidence and the courts will have to make a new determination about what is testimonial vs non-testimonial wrt that new type of evidence. I am not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV. This is not legal advice.

            • Re:Judge fucked up. (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Macdude ( 23507 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2016 @01:38AM (#53481675)

              You have the right to remain silent. It's not illegal to exercise that right. The judge is wrong.

              • The "right to remain silent" is from the Miranda warning. The Fifth Amendment says "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself", and that has been taken to mean that you cannot be forced to confess to a crime, not that you can't be required to provide specific evidence asked for.

        • And this is why we have Stare Deceis, so the moron from Flatbush doesn't change the law until the Supreme Court says "change the interpretation of the law, the old one is invalid"
          • Nobody is changing the interpretation of the law. There isn't precedent wrt whether or not giving up your password is "testimonial in nature." The trial judge has ruled that it is not " testimonial in nature" and therefore must be revealed. The decision is consistent with 1998 DOE which drew identical conclusions about another type of evidence. An appeals court may reverse and decide that the two are not analogous enough and your phone password is testimonial in nature but it would be the appeals court

            • Re:Judge fucked up. (Score:4, Insightful)

              by rtb61 ( 674572 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @09:49PM (#53480877) Homepage

              The real problem is it places a legal status on your memory, that you are now committing a criminal act if you can not remember something. This is not a key or any other object it is an act of memory and not something that can be legally forced. Really with proper understanding of cerebral functionality and the provable plasticity of memory, how it can be changed by external and internal factors and as such only be considered some what reliable, even challenged false statements becomes questionable, letting alone demanding recollection as if the person is a machine with those memories permanently accurately engraved in space for all time, well, at least up until the time of death, well, at least for current legal practice.

              • The real problem is it places a legal status on your memory.

                Next on the horizon - a script that wipes specific data, (including itself and any log files that indicate it ever existed), when more than a specified amount of time passes after the last successful login.

                Next after that - making root access to a personal device illegal.

                • Next after that - making root access to a personal device illegal.

                  It isn't already? I had assumed that rooting e.g. an Android device was considered circumvention and unlawful under the DMCA because codecs exist somewhere on the device.

                  If you mean "any personal device," okay not yet.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                It's a bit more nuanced than that. The burden of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt". The prosecution would have to show that you knew the key at the time of being asked for it, or perhaps at the time of arrest, beyond a reasonable doubt.

                That could be rather difficult. Say you were using the phone, saw the cops and immediately locked it. They could claim that you must know the password because you had recently used it, but what if you just changed it and in the stressful period after being arrested forgot th

        • And who will pay? (Score:5, Informative)

          by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @07:24PM (#53480171) Homepage Journal

          The Judge didn't refer to the legal precedent in the 1988 case, he merely referred to the 1988 case and then *disagreed* with the precedent set down in that case by saying he saw no distinction between identifying a key or identifying a combination - the combination he refers to is the combination of the safe in the 1988 case, not the passcode to the iPhone. He then equates the passcode to the combination.

          Legal precedent can be overturned, its not set in stone forever more, and thats what this Judge is trying to do here - overturn the precedent in the 1988 case by saying there is no longer a distinction between the physical key and the ephemeral combination.

          So you're saying that the supreme court can make a ruling that is on point in a specific matter, and sometime later an appeals court judge can decide that legal precedent might be overturned, and we should ask the supreme court once again "is this still your opinion"?

          Here I thought that the supreme court was the court of final appeal!

          And furthermore, it takes on the order of $2 million to mount a supreme court challenge, so this appeals court judge effectively just dropped a bill for that amount that the defendant *has* to pay, in order to stay out of jail. The defence relied on a supreme court decision, but it turns out that in general we can no longer do this.

          And finally, suppose the defendant simply says "I forgot the passcode - it's been so long, and I haven't typed it in, that it's just escaped my memory". The judge can disbelieve the defendant and put him in contempt of court, but otherwise there's basically no crime that the defendant can be charged with for making this statement.

          • The Judge didn't refer to the legal precedent in the 1988 case, he merely referred to the 1988 case and then *disagreed* with the precedent set down in that case by saying he saw no distinction between identifying a key or identifying a combination - the combination he refers to is the combination of the safe in the 1988 case, not the passcode to the iPhone. He then equates the passcode to the combination.

            Legal precedent can be overturned, its not set in stone forever more, and thats what this Judge is trying to do here - overturn the precedent in the 1988 case by saying there is no longer a distinction between the physical key and the ephemeral combination.

            So you're saying that the supreme court can make a ruling that is on point in a specific matter, and sometime later an appeals court judge can decide that legal precedent might be overturned, and we should ask the supreme court once again "is this still your opinion"?

            Here I thought that the supreme court was the court of final appeal!

            The circumstances in the new case must be different enough or at the very least you must have a different argument. For example in Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court held that as long as the separate facilities for the separate races were equal, segregation did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs in Brown vs Board of Education asserted that this system of racial separation, while masquerading as providing separate but equal treatment of both white and black Americans, instead perpetuate

          • Take the sentence and sue the Government after the fact. The Pacific Legal Fund, EFF, and plenty of others may help with the case. Depending on the circumstances, they may even do so pro bono (I do not work for either so that statement is not worth much).

            Unfortunately, the way to prove that the system is unjust is to allow the system to pursue their unjust cases. Historically this is how change occurs, often most effectively by expediting the injustice and not by years of appealing. It is your right and

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Calydor ( 739835 )

            To be fair, asking the Supreme Court now and then after a few judges have been swapped out "Is this still your opinion?" is kind of valid. Otherwise we end up with a decision from the 1800s about horse carriages affecting how we use a matter teleporter in the 25th century.

  • I'm confused (Score:3)

    by networkBoy ( 774728 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @05:53PM (#53479501) Journal

    Did TFS just say that the judge who ordered the defendant give up the passcode cite a case where a court found that a defendant could not be compelled to give up the combo to a safe as precedent?

    • Yes, you read it the same way I did. The appeals court judge in this case said he failed to see the distinction and disagreed with the earlier supreme court ruling. So he wants the higher courts to reconsider, apparently.

      • Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Insightful)

        by networkBoy ( 774728 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @06:09PM (#53479621) Journal

        so if my lockscreen is an animation of a combo lock that you drag back and forth to enter the unlock code...

        Would that make this judge's head explode?

        • Maybe the trick is to make a swipe code that's like a complex street fighter move that can't be mimicked by your typical policeman...
          left-right-left-right-hold-circle counterclockwise up while holding the power button...

        • so if my lockscreen is an animation of a combo lock that you drag back and forth to enter the unlock code...

          Would that make this judge's head explode?

          Not at all. The judge isn't saying that the passcode is somehow different from a combination. Exactly the opposite. He's saying that the distinction between a key and a combination is a distinction without a difference, that the focus of the fifth amendment is to prohibit people from being required to give testimony about their acts, not to keep them from being required to give the government access to their "papers". Unless your password is a description of your crime, or the location of the body, or somet

          • so, taking this forward to protect ones self, how can you make it so that the police, even if in possession of the passcode can not de-encrypt the data?

            • so, taking this forward to protect ones self, how can you make it so that the police, even if in possession of the passcode can not de-encrypt the data?

              Well, I think the best protection is to avoid committing crimes. Barring that, the old method is to keep incriminating data only in your head. Don't write it down, don't transmit it, don't store it.

              • Except I fear that we're going to start seeing cases where what was once legal is no longer so.
                In cases like that you may well become a criminal through no action of your own.

                • Except I fear that we're going to start seeing cases where what was once legal is no longer so. In cases like that you may well become a criminal through no action of your own.

                  Start? Hah! I think you haven't been paying attention.

                  However, in spite of the fact that the criminalization all sorts of obscure things has been going on for generations, I don't think it's actually getting worse. Most of the really obnoxious laws on the books are never enforced, because of the hue and cry that would be raised if they were. Ultimately, the final defense is the outrage of your fellow citizens.

                  But don't forget that there's another side... you do actually want a lot of the criminal laws t

            • There are supposedly systems where you can set multiple passcodes, and if the wrong one is entered, it will either present an alternate store of data or wipe the device/partition.

              TrueCrypt had a kind of similar mode in that you could set up a secret internal volume, where if you mounted the external volume and not the internal one and wrote any data to it that happened to map over the internal one, it would corrupt it.

              plausible deniability [wikipedia.org]

      • Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Ungrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @06:25PM (#53479749) Journal

        Yes, you read it the same way I did. The appeals court judge in this case said he failed to see the distinction and disagreed with the earlier supreme court ruling.

        And the Supremes were right and this judge wrong.

        The portion of the Fifth that protects against self-incrimination is the US Constitution's answer to "Who will guard the guardians?" It's a practical measure to oppose torturing confessions out of people.

        It's difficult to get a cop to bust another cop for torturing a suspect to force inforation out of him. But if forcing information out of a suspect means everything "tainted" by what he said is thrown out as evidence, torturing a suspect becomes, not just useless, but counter-productive. This is far more effective at reducing the use of rubber hoses, bright lights, kidney punches, and sleep deprivation on accused criminals that just a prohibition on doing so. (For starters, it's not good for career advancement if you blow a big case by getting all the evidence thrown out, including that which WASN'T, but MIGHT HAVE BEEN, developed from what the accused had said.)

        "The judge says tell us the password." "I won't." What "or else" is next? It's pretty clear that forcing the password out of someone who doesn't want to turn it over is extracting info that might produce evidence to use against him. Fifth Amendment clear and simple.

      • Yes, you read it the same way I did. The appeals court judge in this case said he failed to see the distinction and disagreed with the earlier supreme court ruling. So he wants the higher courts to reconsider, apparently.

        The quote from the Supreme Court is in a single-judge dissent, and the eight-judge majority agreed with the appeals court judge in this case (albeit, in a footnote, responding to Stevens' dissent, because it wasn't actually a real issue in that case).

        Subby's summary is not just misleading, it's blatantly wrong.

    • From TFA:

      Black concluded, “Unquestionably, the State established, with reasonable particularity, its knowledge of the existence of the passcode, Stahl’s control or possession of the passcode, and the self-authenticating nature of the passcode. This is a case of surrender and not testimony.”

      So the response from the defendant should be either:
      a) I decline to answer that question on the grounds it may be used to incriminate me
      b) I'm sorry I have no recollection of that passcode (Thank you Oliver North)
      or c) give it to them, then challenge the entire chain of evidence from the phone as poison fruit of constitutional violation.

      Personally I would go with a or d)
      give them the wrong passcode and claim that while I was under such stress I must have made an error.

      -nB

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by uncqual ( 836337 )

        Do keep in mind that making a false statement to a investigator can be a serious charge in of itself -- esp. a Federal investigator. Ask Martha Stewart about that.

        I assume that this defendant had already tried (a) -- whether or not he is allowed to do that in this case is the very question the court seems to be answering.

        (b) would be a false statement if you really hadn't forgotten it. Admittedly it would be hard to prove that your statement was false -- but if you eventually "remembered" it and/or bragged

        • I assume that this defendant had already tried (a) -- whether or not he is allowed to do that in this case is the very question the court seems to be answering.

          I agree with you, but in fact I kept it on the list as option A because he can continue with that defense. It is valid, even if one judge says it isn't. Upon contempt of court charges you then have a deprivation of liberty claim:

          nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

          as you can say that the CoC charge is actually tantamount to bypassing due process of the initial charge because you would not accede your constitutional rights.

        • If I forget my password on my Iphone and guess it incorrectly 11 times in a row it wipes itself out... Sometimes I do forget passcodes.

          • Yup.

            Not sure if they'd be clueless enough to allow you to enter 10 bad combinations, but if they let you, then you're home free.

        • No, (d) is the correct answer. You've then got 4 possible lines of defence:

          (i) I tried to comply but I guess I forgot.
          (ii) Maybe the phone has a problem and corrupted the data.
          (iii) Maybe the police or some 3rd party changed the code.
          (iv) Maybe this phone isn't actually my phone, it's a similar phone that has been switched.

          (d) throws a lot of obfuscation into the mix that should be enough to get him off.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by uncqual ( 836337 )

            That depends on the jury. Which depends on how much you have to spend on Jury Consultants. Good Luck.

            (ii) Any evidence that this, and only this, phone mysteriously exhibited this problem? If not, Good Luck.
            (iii) Any evidence this happened? With rare exceptions, at least one member of the jury doesn't assume, without evidence, that all LEO's are crooks. Good Luck!
            (iv) Yes -- if you have a partial jury where every member (before being called for jury duty) was intent on finding you "not guilty". How many peop

      • Is it illegal to refuse to speak to anyone but your lawyer? I suspect it isn't but don't really know.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by uncqual ( 836337 )

      At first glance, I don't think that Doe v. United States 487 U.S. 201 (1988) is very persuasive in this case -- to either side.

      The government wanted to access records of Doe's financial activities at foreign banks. Those banks, complying with their own laws, refused to do so without Doe's consent. The government then got a court order requiring Doe to sign consent directives so the foreign banks would reveal what, if anything, they knew of Doe's activities. Doe refused to sign the consent directives and the

    • No. That's just the flamebait summary. The judge ruled that giving up your passcode is "non-testimonial in nature" and therefore allowed. The original 1988 case provided other examples of non-testimonial actions such as participating in a lineup wearing certain clothes and/or providing a blood sample that are also considered non-testimonial in nature.

  • Live by the sword (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    This is what you get for deciding that the Constitution is a "living document", and that a judge's opinion can be substituted for the plain wording of the 5th Amendment.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • They've completely misread the intent (Score:5, Insightful)

    by the_skywise ( 189793 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @06:01PM (#53479569)

    BS the technology makes the wording irrelevant.

    Stevens point was that if there's a key the police can find, they're entitled to use it. That includes finding the passcode on a sticky note or getting Apple to unlock the phone.

    They are NOT allowed to compel a suspect to regurgitate words locked in his head... EVER... TECHNOLOGICAL REASONS BE DAMNED.

    The Florida Supreme Court justices should be disbarred for such flimsy rationale.

    • The Florida Supreme Court justices should be disbarred for such flimsy rationale.

      Appellate court, but yes...

    • Even taking technology into account, the password isnt the key, it's the key's key. The password is used to unlock the stronger asymmetric encryption used to protect the more efficient, but less secure symmetric key.

      It's closest analogy would having a defendant have to say where he hid the key to his lockbox. THAT, would never be approved.

      • Re:They've completely misread the intent (Score:4, Insightful)

        by the_skywise ( 189793 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @06:15PM (#53479663)

        No - Steven's point is the compelling of the combination/password from the suspect.

        The only way to compel such evidence IS torture no matter how you slice it because the suspect hasn't been convicted.

        In much the same way you can't compel a person to confess to murder. You can cajole, talk, intimidate for a few hours but ultimately you can't hold the person with no other evidence (EG Where'd you hide the body?!?!). it doesn't have anything to do with the technological reasons - even if all locks were combination locks now (and that's the courts rationale) it doesn't change Steven's ruling.

        • Stevens' point was a dissent, so did not establish any legal precedent. You may agree with it, hell he may even be right. But until the SCotUS decides a case and says that he's right, there is no precedent for the lower courts to follow on this matter.

          The reason Stevens' statement was even included in TFA was because the Florida judge was basically saying "this is the argument of the losing side in this SCotUS case, so we will hold that the opposite of Stevens' argument is the correct decision." That

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by uncqual ( 836337 )

        Actually, in general, I think if the police can convince the court that the defendant does know the location of the key, they can force him to surrender it.

        However, the open question that gets litigated sometimes is the case where revealing the location of the key would do more than reveal the key, it would also reveal that the suspect was guilty because only the guilty party would know where the key was. The argument goes that, in this case, revealing the knowledge of the location of the key would be self-

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by uncqual ( 836337 )

      No, actually, Steven's opinion (which was a dissent so has no legal weight) was that the defendant could be compelled to surrender the key but not to communicate the combination (a.k.a. password). The former was a physical object so surrendering it was not "testimonial" in nature. The latter, Stevens apparently believed, was testimonial due to Doe having to reveal a piece of information held only in his mind. See upstream comment [slashdot.org] for more detail.

  • I am not sure, but when a similar case was discussed here before. I believe you could be compelled to decrypt a computer, if the police could show that knew you were hiding evidence of a crime. Well, at least that was what was said about opening a safe. You could be compelled, if the police could show the court proof that you were concealing evidence.

    So, they could not go fishing for evidence. They had to know the evidence exists and to some extent its content. That maybe true in this case....

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by edjs ( 1043612 )

      If the court can demonstrate that it is a device for which you know or have access to the password or key, they can compel you to reveal it. The thinking is that they've already proven you have access to the contents, and that your giving over the password/key does not further incriminate you.

      If they haven't established that you can access the device, then your handing over the password/key is what establishes that fact and counts as incriminating yourself.

  • Pics... (Score:5, Funny)

    by malditaenvidia ( 4015209 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @06:09PM (#53479623)
    or it didn't happen.

  • This should be obvious.

    A key is what you have, but a passcode or combination is what you know.

    You might HAVE a kilo of cocaine. Anyone can simply see that and the law allows for evidence to be seized if it's in plain sight or with a warrant.

    You KNOW what crime you might have committed, which is why you can't be compelled to testify against yourself.

    Having a key seized is very different than requiring you to divulge what you know.

    Obviously.

  • We need an international secret sharing service. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by anwyn ( 266338 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @08:03PM (#53480373)
    I do not like Voyeurs but this could set a precedent that would be used against everyone

    Some one can make a lot of money by setting up an secret sharing service so that you do not actually know your password.

    The company would be owned and operated offshore in many countries some of which will not honor US warrants.

    When you start the service a strong password would be setup using the technique of cryptographic secret sharing, so that the password is split on servers in many countries many of which do not honor US warrants.

    You also have a authentication password totally controlled by you that proves that you are you.

    When you want to use your password, you send a authenticated message to the servers, and your password is reassembled from the parts using encrypted communications by a computer program, so that you never see the password. You could have redundancy so that sabotage at one server would not cause it to break. You could set it up so that it takes M out of N servers to cooperate to get your password, where M is less than N. You could also mix in yourself in the sharing algorithm so that you have one small piece of the password so that the servers can not reconstruct the real password without your help. But your piece would not be enough to reconstruct the real password. Thus, the servers could not pretend to do something without your consent.

    When you are detained, your lawyer causes a delay. (Any Lawyer who can not cause a delay is incompetent.) During the delay, a canary tells the servers that you are being coerced, and the servers stop cooperating until you can prove that you are free again.

    Use defensive formulation! You bought the service because you were afraid of being coerced by criminals and foreign governments, not because you wanted to evade US laws!

    In any case you never had the password.

  • That the judge in this case is a blithering idiot and this will likely get overturned on appeal, the overall lesson here is this:

    Don't store anything on your damn Smartphone that might be used against you. Treat it like the Police own the phone and they're letting you borrow it for a while. Assume that any and all applications you put on it are there to spy on you or report your behavior in some form or another. If you plan on doing anything questionable, don't take it with you.

    I use mine to do text messa

  • What a laughable conclusion by Judge Black (Score:3)

    by Bartles ( 1198017 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @10:37PM (#53481061)

    So the SC has ruled you have to give a physical key, but not a combination. Very clear. Black comes to the conclusion that a combination to a phone is actually more like a physical key, than a combination to a lock. Ludicrous. The distinction is that a search warrant does not ever allow the government access to information stored in the mind.

  • Waterboard, torture, hold him in contempt, make him watch the new ghostbusters reboot over and over again, the View? How do you force him to do it, other than just stick him in jail for contempt?

  • Let's take this to its logical extreme. Stipulate that the 5th amendment and no other right protects a password known by an individual and they may be compelled to reveal passwords. Further lets ignore if the person claims to have forgotten the password.

    How could individuals wishing to protect their privacy arrange that? Easy. Store a password which is not feasible to memorize or plausibly not memorize in a mutable state; the act of seizing the physical embodiment of the password either destroys it or p

Slashdot Top Deals

If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some.

Close