611
Suspects can refuse to provide phone passcodes to police, court rules
(arstechnica.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2023
611 points (99.4% liked)
Technology
55690 readers
3087 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Thought this was already established precedent.
Nope, each state is doing its own thing and the 5th ammendment is being trampled in a few of them. Biometrics and passwords are being forced and this is an amazing ruling for 5A advocates like myself.
SC needs to rule on it, but preferably not THIS supreme court
But biometrics have never been covered by the 5th amendment. Police collect facial photos and fingerprints and have done so for years. On top of that any DNA you unknowing leave at a police station can be used as evidence (strand of hair, spit on the rim of a water glass). I would never recommend commiting a crime but if you do and have evidence of it on your phone don't use biometrics.
Forcing someone to press on their phone to unlock it via fingerprunt is a lot different than just collecting data.
IMO, forced/coerced biometrics to unlock a device SHOULD be covered by 5A
Exactly. If the hair I leave behind or my spit on the rim of a glass can unlock my phone, that sucks but those are public things I’ve left behind. Unless I leave my fingers behind on the officers desk, forcing me to unlock my phone with them should be should be a violation of my rights.
Sometimes "crimes" are not crimes at all.
And sometimes you've done absolutely nothing wrong but prosecutors will use any information they can get their hands on as evidence of a crime, because they don't give a single fuck if they lock up a person they know full well is innocent for the rest of their lives, all they care about is a "win" in court.
You're right. I know your response may seem implausible, but prosecutors have fought against the release of known innocent people.
It's not even that they'll try to get a win. It's that they can refuse to simply honor justice in its most fundamental forms.
Central park 5 comes to mind
Cops have also been known to use "parallel construction" in order to launder evidence that would otherwise be considered inadmissible. It's fucked.
How come there are never 3A advocates? What if I'm really against allowing soldiers to quarter in private homes?
Edit: I probably subconsciously stole this joke from someone/somewhere in case anyone thinks I'm trying to claim it as my own.
Relevant XKCD
Are you aware of https://explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/496:_Secretary:_Part_3
Sorry, but can somebody explain the ending to me?
I'm sure if the government was doing it's damnedest to house soldiers in our apartments, there'd be more people against it. Unfortunately they're just doing their best to jail anyone they don't like.
I dunno, how many Jan. 6'ers got convicted by the contents of their phones? :)
Most of them were broadcasting their crimes, and their co-conspirators, live on Facebook. Prosecutors didn't have to look hard.
"well, this possible violation of the 5th could have similar results as this other time when i liked the results so.....????? should we????"
My understanding was that most of them got got because their cell companies knew where they were, not because of the contents of their phones
But also, I'd rather let every Jan Sixer go free than imprison one innocent person because they looked up textiles.com two years ago and found out how to make meth
Not in a post Trump supreme court era it isnt
I'll keep saying it; The Supreme Court is conservative, not partisan. They owe Trump nothing and have had a few surprising decisions lately.
I don't trust them a bit, but neither do I trust they'll always make the wrong call.
I don’t think that’s right. A group that very strongly believes in the Republican Party and its agenda and values would still be definitively partisan. Partisan has always been used in the context of following party lines, not necessarily one person.
But you can trust they will make the wrong call after geting a very expensive vacation and a few dufflebags of money.
Hey, thanks, that's a useful (and probably fairly accurate) distinction and I'm happy to find that a positive shift in my viewpoint, if minor. The corruption might be a really big problem or it might be one guy who's an aberration for being wildly outside the court's norms, really unclear on that part. But I needed a solid reminder that it's not quite yet another ruined and hypocritical institution we once held dear.
If you believe this, I'm not sure you've been paying attention.
The Federalist Society is 100% in bed with the Republican party, and they have chosen essentially every SCOTUS pick by a Republican President since (at least) George W. Bush.
They also stacked our federal courts during Trump's tenure.
To suggest it's not partisan is naive.