Forced thumb phone unlock, self incrimination?

[bradly1101]

The case of a California woman who was ordered to unlock an iPhone using her fingerprint is raising questions about whether compelling a person to unlock their smartphone could infringe on their right against self-incrimination.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/federal-judge-orders-woman-unlock-iphone-fingerprint/story?id=38813344

 

[alcoholbob]

And that's why I don't use that function and only use the passcode

No one can extract something from your brain, or you can just claim you forgot it.

 

[Spacehead]

And that's why I don't use that function and only use the passcode

No one can extract something from your brain, or you can just claim you forgot it.

She should have just used her last name as a code. Who would ever get that right? :biggrin:


Yeah it's been my understanding that you can be compelled to hand over a physical key(or thumb) but not something you know, like a password or combination to a lock.

 

[Spungo]

And that's why I don't use that function and only use the passcode

No one can extract something from your brain, or you can just claim you forgot it.

Or if you enter the wrong password too many times, it wipes the entire phone.

 

[Jerem]

And that's why I don't use that function and only use the passcode

No one can extract something from your brain, or you can just claim you forgot it.

This guy is claiming to have forgotten his. It isn't working too well for him so far.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-months-after-not-handing-over-his-passwords/

 

[bradly1101]

This guy is claiming to have forgotten his. It isn't working too well for him so far.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-months-after-not-handing-over-his-passwords/

Yeah, the option to give up your password would be difficult if you had something to hide, like a child pornographer, but what if you had nothing to hide, yet were targeted in a wide net or purely by mistake? I know, sue their ass for false imprisonment if they hold you for not cooperating.

The self-incrimination ramifications need a decision from on high when it comes to protected data.

 

[Spungo]

The self-incrimination ramifications need a decision from on high when it comes to protected data.

What do you think this is, America? America is dead. Long live Soviet Union! Government trumps all. Privacy and private property rights are the bane of our statist empire.

 

[Ken g6]

Requiring a thumbprint to unlock a phone doesn't surprise me at all. You can already be required to give fingerprints; then the police could mock up a thumb and use that to unlock the phone. Skipping that step is merely for expediency, since the thumbprint unlock won't work after 24-48 hours.

Requiring passcodes I find a lot more worrisome.

 

[DrPizza]

What the hell is the difference between evidence on a phone and evidence in a safe? If there's a court order for it, there's a court order. Open the safe, or unlock the phone.

 

[DrPizza]

What the hell is the difference between evidence on a phone and evidence in a safe? If there's a court order for it, there's a court order. Open the safe, or unlock the phone. If you had a booby-trapped safe that would burn the contents if someone tried to open it, then you could be ordered to open it. If you didn't open it, they should toss you in jail in contempt of court until you decided to open it. Likewise, if she doesn't want to unlock her cell phone, toss her in jail for contempt until she's willing to.

 

[Bird222]

Someone want to explain to me why the 5th amendment doesn't protect against this? Let the government get its evidence against me without my help.

 

[Sonikku]

What the hell is the difference between evidence on a phone and evidence in a safe? If there's a court order for it, there's a court order. Open the safe, or unlock the phone. If you had a booby-trapped safe that would burn the contents if someone tried to open it, then you could be ordered to open it. If you didn't open it, they should toss you in jail in contempt of court until you decided to open it. Likewise, if she doesn't want to unlock her cell phone, toss her in jail for contempt until she's willing to.

The 5th amendment should provide protection from self incrimination. The Bill of Rights should not be ignored in the name of pursuing suspects.

 

[Blackjack200]

You can be compelled to turn over evidence against yourself. A thumbprint is not testimony or evidence of a crime. I don't see a constitutional issue here.

 

[Sonikku]

I'm talking about the guy being detained indefinitely without trial without so much as a charge against him because he refused to provide a password to a hard drive. I should have made that more clear.

 

[Blackjack200]

Oh, okay. But if you're in contempt they usually hold you until you're not in contempt anymore. I didn't read the story, so I can't say if it was fair in this case.

 

[maddogchen]

Requiring a thumbprint to unlock a phone doesn't surprise me at all. You can already be required to give fingerprints; then the police could mock up a thumb and use that to unlock the phone. Skipping that step is merely for expediency, since the thumbprint unlock won't work after 24-48 hours.

Requiring passcodes I find a lot more worrisome.

why won't a thumbprint unlock work after 24-48 hours?

 

[RampantAndroid]

The 5th amendment should provide protection from self incrimination. The Bill of Rights should not be ignored in the name of pursuing suspects.

I mean, the reality here is that technology is ahead of the bill of rights (or more specifically, the SCOTUS cases/precedent) - the closest analogy I can think of is that you buried evidence and won't say where. Otherwise, the phone is basically a safe - an oxy acetylene torch in past solved the problem. These days....well, it's harder.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Requiring a thumbprint to unlock a phone doesn't surprise me at all. You can already be required to give fingerprints; then the police could mock up a thumb and use that to unlock the phone. Skipping that step is merely for expediency, since the thumbprint unlock won't work after 24-48 hours.

Requiring passcodes I find a lot more worrisome.

I don't see the distinction. Unlock is unlock whether it's a door, a safe or a phone. There's no difference between locking a device with a code or with a thumbprint just like there's no difference between locking a door with a keyed lock or a combination lock.

 

[DrPizza]

I don't see the distinction. Unlock is unlock whether it's a door, a safe or a phone. There's no difference between locking a device with a code or with a thumbprint just like there's no difference between locking a door with a keyed lock or a combination lock.

The distinction between a code and a thumbprint is that one is something in the mind. If you don't think there's a distinction, you're not on the side with most court rulings. You can be compelled to give fingerprints. You can be compelled to unlock physical safes. You can be compelled to open your mouth to provide a swab for a DNA sample. Those are not self-incrimination.

Self-incrimination doesn't mean "unlock something." Unless I'm mistaken, keys can be compelled, but combinations cannot be.

edit: searched, best I can find: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/487/201
Dissenting opinion included this: (Justice Stephens)

He may in some cases be forced to surrender a key to a strongbox containing incriminating documents, but I do not believe he can be compelled to reveal the combination to his wall safe—by word or deed.

So, a thumb print - more like a key than like a combination.