5 ms·

Judge forces US Capitol rioter to unlock laptop seized by FBI

21 points by veganjay 5y ago

veganjay 5y ago
I recall a supreme court decision that law enforcement cannot force someone to offer their password, as it is a violation of the 5th ammendment: https://techcrunch.com/2019/11/21/court-police-suspects-passwords/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/11/21/court-police-suspects-pass... However, in this most recent case, it was not a password used to unlock the phone but facial recognition: > The judge granted the Justice Department's request to place Capitol riot defendant Guy Reffitt in front of his laptop so they could use facial recognition to unlock the device And apparently this is not protected by the same ruling, which is interesting.
- Arnt 5y ago
  The police couldn't compel you to reveal secrets (all or some) and a password is a such a secret. But your face is not. Should the judge say: Because the face could be used for a task that is often performed using a secret, it is a secret in the sense of the law?
- HWR_14 5y ago
  The fifth amendment provides blanket protection from forcing you to divulge any information that can be used to convict you of a crime. This includes passwords. It also means that people can be forced to testify if given immunity to the crimes they will confess to (this is what freed Bill Cosby recently). There is no such protection covering other evidence (although a warrant may be required). The police can force you to give up DNA, fingerprints and to stand still and be photographed. Whether the information in either case is used to unlock a computer or a safe, is shown to witness or matched against samples is irrelevant.
h2odragon 5y ago
> undercuts falseclaims from Trump and prominent Republican lawmakers that the rioters weren't armed I don't recall anyone claiming that; many of those people were carrying openly. I do recall claims that they didn't use their firearms, which is a different thing altogether.
- joshstrange 5y ago
  > I don't recall anyone claiming that I guess this really comes down to your definition of "anyone" because I've certainly seen a number of comments alleging this and Ron Johnson has said "It wasn't an armed insurrection" which, again, depends on your definition or on how pedantic you want to be.
  - zibzab 5y ago
    We can turn this around and ask if the gathering could be called peaceful when people were armed - even if they did not use them. Keep in mind that open carry it not permitted in DC and "visitors" are not allowed to carry guns in the capitol.
    - joshstrange 5y ago
      Totally agree, I mean the Oath Keepers had guns stashed across the Potomac to use and to your point the fact they were armed in violation of DC is damning enough. The whole things was a tinder box and we are lucky the death count was as low as it was. I saw tweets as early as the day after Jan 6th saying that certain people would attempt to rewrite history but I honestly thought "Surely not, not for something like this" but here we are...
  - h2odragon 5y ago
    I'd agree with "armed" but not "insurrection", myself. I recall pictures of dudes toting rifles. iirc it was 1997 that I sat out on the Mall in DC for a day or two pushing pamphlets; I wore a sword at the time and no one had an issue with it.
    - joshstrange 5y ago
      I mean they were chanting "Hang Mike Pence", tried to stop the certification of votes, and fought with and injured officers inside the capitol. That meets my bar for "a violent uprising against an authority or government". Also sword + handing out pamphlets != gun + breaking into the capitol. EDIT: removed "and directly killed at least 1 officer" due to reply.
theandrewbailey 5y ago
Lesson: typing passwords isn't such an inconvenience after all.
jl2718 5y ago
It seems to me that there may be legitimate public interest in absolute transparency whenever agencies conduct activities or investigations of a political nature.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  As far as I know, to the degree it doesn't compromise the investigation (e.g. reporting that person X turned on his co-conspirators before they can be arrested), there is transparency in this case. Is there something you are worried is insufficiently covered.
  - jl2718 5y ago
    Oh I’m not talking about this particular incident. {{current_administration}} is obviously right, and I don’t need to know anything else. I’m talking about all the things that {{rival_party}} did. They’re terrible.
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      You truly are enlightened and above the political fray. I am so happy you pointed out how smart you are. Truly, you added something to the conversation.

21 points by veganjay 5y ago

I recall a supreme court decision that law enforcement cannot force someone to offer their password, as it is a violation of the 5th ammendment: https://techcrunch.com/2019/11/21/court-police-suspects-passwords/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/11/21/court-police-suspects-pass... However, in this most recent case, it was not a password used to unlock the phone but facial recognition: > The judge granted the Justice Department's request to place Capitol riot defendant Guy Reffitt in front of his laptop so they could use facial recognition to unlock the device And apparently this is not protected by the same ruling, which is interesting.

Arnt 5y ago
The police couldn't compel you to reveal secrets (all or some) and a password is a such a secret. But your face is not. Should the judge say: Because the face could be used for a task that is often performed using a secret, it is a secret in the sense of the law?
HWR_14 5y ago
The fifth amendment provides blanket protection from forcing you to divulge any information that can be used to convict you of a crime. This includes passwords. It also means that people can be forced to testify if given immunity to the crimes they will confess to (this is what freed Bill Cosby recently). There is no such protection covering other evidence (although a warrant may be required). The police can force you to give up DNA, fingerprints and to stand still and be photographed. Whether the information in either case is used to unlock a computer or a safe, is shown to witness or matched against samples is irrelevant.

h2odragon 5y ago

> undercuts falseclaims from Trump and prominent Republican lawmakers that the rioters weren't armed I don't recall anyone claiming that; many of those people were carrying openly. I do recall claims that they didn't use their firearms, which is a different thing altogether.

joshstrange 5y ago
> I don't recall anyone claiming that I guess this really comes down to your definition of "anyone" because I've certainly seen a number of comments alleging this and Ron Johnson has said "It wasn't an armed insurrection" which, again, depends on your definition or on how pedantic you want to be.
- zibzab 5y ago
  We can turn this around and ask if the gathering could be called peaceful when people were armed - even if they did not use them. Keep in mind that open carry it not permitted in DC and "visitors" are not allowed to carry guns in the capitol.
  - joshstrange 5y ago
    Totally agree, I mean the Oath Keepers had guns stashed across the Potomac to use and to your point the fact they were armed in violation of DC is damning enough. The whole things was a tinder box and we are lucky the death count was as low as it was. I saw tweets as early as the day after Jan 6th saying that certain people would attempt to rewrite history but I honestly thought "Surely not, not for something like this" but here we are...
- h2odragon 5y ago
  I'd agree with "armed" but not "insurrection", myself. I recall pictures of dudes toting rifles. iirc it was 1997 that I sat out on the Mall in DC for a day or two pushing pamphlets; I wore a sword at the time and no one had an issue with it.
  - joshstrange 5y ago
    I mean they were chanting "Hang Mike Pence", tried to stop the certification of votes, and fought with and injured officers inside the capitol. That meets my bar for "a violent uprising against an authority or government". Also sword + handing out pamphlets != gun + breaking into the capitol. EDIT: removed "and directly killed at least 1 officer" due to reply.

theandrewbailey 5y ago

Lesson: typing passwords isn't such an inconvenience after all.

jl2718 5y ago

It seems to me that there may be legitimate public interest in absolute transparency whenever agencies conduct activities or investigations of a political nature.

HWR_14 5y ago
As far as I know, to the degree it doesn't compromise the investigation (e.g. reporting that person X turned on his co-conspirators before they can be arrested), there is transparency in this case. Is there something you are worried is insufficiently covered.
- jl2718 5y ago
  Oh I’m not talking about this particular incident. {{current_administration}} is obviously right, and I don’t need to know anything else. I’m talking about all the things that {{rival_party}} did. They’re terrible.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    You truly are enlightened and above the political fray. I am so happy you pointed out how smart you are. Truly, you added something to the conversation.