Technology

59086 readers

3311 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

299

Utah Supreme Court says suspects can refuse to hand over phone passwords to the police | Other state Supreme Courts disagree and the case would wind up before the US Supreme Court (www.techspot.com)

submitted 10 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

46 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Utah Supreme Court says suspects can refuse to hand over phone passwords to the police | Other state Supreme Courts disagree and the case would wind up before the US Supreme Court::undefined

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 34 points 10 months ago (3 children)

5A protections SHOULD cover divulging passwords or being forced to supply biometrics as a password.

Now, if the police/feds can take fingerprints obtained at booking and use a 3d printer to simulate that finger and then use that fake finger to open a lock, then I dont think 5A would protect that. Thats just crafty detective work.

[–] AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yeah biometrics historically haven't been protected by the 5th amendment. I have seen other people argue that not supplying the password if the police obtain a warrant can result in obstruction of justice charges. I like to think it wouldn't. They have the phone and a warrant it's up to them to figure it out, a person doesn't have to point out where they hide things in their home to police.

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

But if you don't open the safe, they can destroy it to retrieve the contents. They could destroy your phone too in the process.

[–] AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

...Exactly. The laws in the USA don't really reflect modern digital technology that well. Many of our legislators don't understand the tech and the government is so divided that getting anything to pass seems impossible.

[–] Phlogiston@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

How is your “crafty detective work” really any different than sneaking in through a window even though you don’t have a search warrant?

[–] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I never said they wouldnt have a warrant, I dont understand the comparison

[–] Phlogiston@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

If one had a warrant then you just force the suspect to give over. Just like forcing them to give fingerprints. Isn’t the whole discussion moot if they have a warrant?

So when you offer a path to get into the phone without a warrant it’s just like breaking into a “house” without a warrant. Technically easy - just go through the window or use the fingerprint from booking. It if we agree with due process either is wrong.

[–] Decoy321@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

It is not, because the issue is whether police CAN compel someone to give their password.

From the article:

When [Valdez] was arrested, the police found a cell phone in his pocket and obtained a search warrant for its contents. However they were unable to crack the password and Valdez refused to provide it when asked. The police were never able to search the phone.

Further down, italics added by me to emojis the important bit.

He was convicted in the jury trial, which was reversed by the court of appeals that agreed Valdez had a right under the Fifth Amendment to refuse to provide his passcode, and that the state violated that right when it used his refusal against him at trial.

Lastly, I want to add one important distinction. Fingerprints are physical characteristics, while passwords are personal information. Fingerprints are distinct from passwords in that you have fingerprints, but know a password. You can only get one of them off a dead guy.

[–] Scirocco@lemm.ee 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's pretty well established that any biometric can just be taken from you

facial recognition is super easy and it won't be hard to force your thumb onto the sensor.

This is also the case for things like blood draw for blood alcohol testing.

The only unlock key that's (probably) truly yours is something inside your brain.

[–] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

Being well established and being valid are two different things.