6 ms·

Actually this is a case for 5th amendment. Police can confiscate your phone on a judge's order, but no judge can compel you to give up your password if it's pro

Actually this is a case for 5th amendment. Police can confiscate your phone on a judge's order, but no judge can compel you to give up your password if it's protected under 5th amendment (i.e. self-incrimination).

ringaroundthetx 9y ago
I've seen that fall apart in the US too. The defendant tried arguing 4th amendment privacy protections over the information obtained in property that implicated him, but the judge said that didn't apply unless he admitted to owning the property which would equally incriminate him if he did, haha. very narrow protection
- splintercell 9y ago
  Has any such case ever gone to Supreme Court?
  - ringaroundthetx 9y ago
    Nothing similar to the one I was mentioning. Always evolving protections around computational and digital properties.
openasocket 9y ago
The consensus of the courts is that providing a password is not considered self-incrimination. Self-incrimination means testifying against yourself. It specifically doesn't cover, say, providing a key to police so they can unlock your door and search your house (assuming they have a valid search warrant). If you had a safe that police had a warrant to search, you would have to open it for them, that is not considered self-incrimination. The courts have largely reached the consensus that unlocking or decrypting a device is like providing a lock to open a door, or opening a safe, and is not like providing testimony against yourself.
- 627467 9y ago
  Is this the US you are talking about? I though the consensus was that when using biometrics you can be legally compeled to unlock but not when it is a password.
  - openasocket 9y ago
    I may have over-stated how firm this is on legal grounds, as the supreme court has not ruled on this scenario specifically and two appeals courts have made contradictory conclusions. But, there is clear precedent showing that you can absolutely be compelled to decrypt something in certain circumstances. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_Stat... for some reading. Generally, the Fifth Amendment provides protections against producing documents only if the very act of producing them would be incriminating. The relevant term is the foregone conclusion doctrine. The government has to show evidence that the documents they want you to produce exist and that you are able to produce them. For more information, see http://federalevidence.com/blog/2013/january/applying-foregone-conclusion-exception http://federalevidence.com/blog/2013/january/applying-forego... The interpretation in favor of allowing the government to compell encryption under this doctrine would be that the government simply has to prove that the encrypted data exists and that you are able to unlock it, and they have to limit the scope of their search to specific documents.

ringaroundthetx 9y ago

I've seen that fall apart in the US too. The defendant tried arguing 4th amendment privacy protections over the information obtained in property that implicated him, but the judge said that didn't apply unless he admitted to owning the property which would equally incriminate him if he did, haha. very narrow protection

splintercell 9y ago
Has any such case ever gone to Supreme Court?
- ringaroundthetx 9y ago
  Nothing similar to the one I was mentioning. Always evolving protections around computational and digital properties.

openasocket 9y ago

The consensus of the courts is that providing a password is not considered self-incrimination. Self-incrimination means testifying against yourself. It specifically doesn't cover, say, providing a key to police so they can unlock your door and search your house (assuming they have a valid search warrant). If you had a safe that police had a warrant to search, you would have to open it for them, that is not considered self-incrimination. The courts have largely reached the consensus that unlocking or decrypting a device is like providing a lock to open a door, or opening a safe, and is not like providing testimony against yourself.

627467 9y ago
Is this the US you are talking about? I though the consensus was that when using biometrics you can be legally compeled to unlock but not when it is a password.
- openasocket 9y ago
  I may have over-stated how firm this is on legal grounds, as the supreme court has not ruled on this scenario specifically and two appeals courts have made contradictory conclusions. But, there is clear precedent showing that you can absolutely be compelled to decrypt something in certain circumstances. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_Stat... for some reading. Generally, the Fifth Amendment provides protections against producing documents only if the very act of producing them would be incriminating. The relevant term is the foregone conclusion doctrine. The government has to show evidence that the documents they want you to produce exist and that you are able to produce them. For more information, see http://federalevidence.com/blog/2013/january/applying-foregone-conclusion-exception http://federalevidence.com/blog/2013/january/applying-forego... The interpretation in favor of allowing the government to compell encryption under this doctrine would be that the government simply has to prove that the encrypted data exists and that you are able to unlock it, and they have to limit the scope of their search to specific documents.