5 ms·

The rate at which law enforcement attempts to chip away at Constitutional Rights to pursue agendas is frightening. Perhaps it's always been this way, and I've o

The rate at which law enforcement attempts to chip away at Constitutional Rights to pursue agendas is frightening. Perhaps it's always been this way, and I've only recently started to notice it.

artemonster 5y ago
Right for privacy is not a right to obstruct justice.
- jimbob45 5y ago
  That’s some spicy doublespeak you’ve got there.
  - artemonster 5y ago
    No, but really. For instance, in germany there are super strict policies regrding privacy on your workplace - i.e your employer cannot spy/monitor your activities under veil of security or productivity. That said, if you are a systematic slacker the employer may use some of that said spying to prove that you are slacker in exceptional (and well founded) cases and court will accept that evidence. Seems like a working system for me. Employers still are not allowed to spy, slackers still can get punished, no apocalypse, no slippery slopes.
    - andrew_ 5y ago
      We're not talking about Germany. The parent article is clearly speaking about a situation within the United States.
- LeifCarrotson 5y ago
  The fifth amendment reads: > No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself If you could compel someone to testify against themself, that would surely expedite justice. But we've decided that's not actually just.
  - 8note 5y ago
    We're certainly compelled to have evidence collected from our stuff. You aren't compelled to say where to look, but you are compelled to let them look. Unlock this computer vs tell me your password. The password could contain "I did the murder and I buried the body under the bus stop" which is clearly testimony, but unlocking and changing the password to something the government asks you to seems well within range
- andrew_ 5y ago
  A distressing response. The 5th Amendment is pretty clear that the right to not self-incriminate paramount, and does not mention obstruction of justice in any clause. The issue seems to be subjective views on what self-incrimination is and that it's viewed as a grey area, and that makes me uneasy.
- twirlock 5y ago
  That's actually exactly the trade-off. There are limits on what pigs get to do. That's the entire point of civil rights.
alistairSH 5y ago
Which Constitutional right is being chipped away? The test for whether something is protected by the 5th has generally been "is it testimony, or is it something that just is?" Fingerprints, other biometrics, and physical keys are all things that just are. No testimony involved. Not protected. The government can compel you to provide them. Passcodes and combinations are something you know. They're protected. I'm certainly open to changing the law to protect biometrics, but I don't see anything in the reporting on this case that indicates it's any different than preceding cases in the last 10 years that dealt with fingerprints.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Fingerprints, other biometrics, and physical keys are all things that just are For nontrivial biometrics (and facial locking may not usually meet this) the act of unlocking is testimonial (as it demonstrates both the specific action and your knowledge thereof) as much as a password is. A command to “unlock this device with <biometric method>” is different than a command to simply provide, say, a fingerprint.
  - function_seven 5y ago
    What about an order to "place your right thumb on this little circle", where the "little circle" just so happens to be the phone they seized from you? You're not revealing any knowledge about the specific action—they're directing you to do it. For the face scenario, an order to look directly at the camera is similar. You're not testifying that this laptop is indeed yours, or that you have access. The laptop is going to respond to your stare however it was already configured to do so.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > What about an order to "place your right thumb on this little circle", where the "little circle" just so happens to be the phone they seized from you? Right, it doesn't, for instance, reveal that as a combination of quirks of the sensor and how I trained it, it only unlocks with my left index finger at a slight angle and a particular rolling motion, and moreover, doesn't reveal that I know that to be the case.

The rate at which law enforcement attempts to chip away at Constitutional Rights to pursue agendas is frightening. Perhaps it's always been this way, and I've only recently started to notice it.

artemonster 5y ago

Right for privacy is not a right to obstruct justice.

jimbob45 5y ago
That’s some spicy doublespeak you’ve got there.
- artemonster 5y ago
  No, but really. For instance, in germany there are super strict policies regrding privacy on your workplace - i.e your employer cannot spy/monitor your activities under veil of security or productivity. That said, if you are a systematic slacker the employer may use some of that said spying to prove that you are slacker in exceptional (and well founded) cases and court will accept that evidence. Seems like a working system for me. Employers still are not allowed to spy, slackers still can get punished, no apocalypse, no slippery slopes.
  - andrew_ 5y ago
    We're not talking about Germany. The parent article is clearly speaking about a situation within the United States.
LeifCarrotson 5y ago
The fifth amendment reads: > No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself If you could compel someone to testify against themself, that would surely expedite justice. But we've decided that's not actually just.
- 8note 5y ago
  We're certainly compelled to have evidence collected from our stuff. You aren't compelled to say where to look, but you are compelled to let them look. Unlock this computer vs tell me your password. The password could contain "I did the murder and I buried the body under the bus stop" which is clearly testimony, but unlocking and changing the password to something the government asks you to seems well within range
andrew_ 5y ago
A distressing response. The 5th Amendment is pretty clear that the right to not self-incriminate paramount, and does not mention obstruction of justice in any clause. The issue seems to be subjective views on what self-incrimination is and that it's viewed as a grey area, and that makes me uneasy.
twirlock 5y ago
That's actually exactly the trade-off. There are limits on what pigs get to do. That's the entire point of civil rights.

alistairSH 5y ago

Which Constitutional right is being chipped away? The test for whether something is protected by the 5th has generally been "is it testimony, or is it something that just is?" Fingerprints, other biometrics, and physical keys are all things that just are. No testimony involved. Not protected. The government can compel you to provide them. Passcodes and combinations are something you know. They're protected. I'm certainly open to changing the law to protect biometrics, but I don't see anything in the reporting on this case that indicates it's any different than preceding cases in the last 10 years that dealt with fingerprints.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Fingerprints, other biometrics, and physical keys are all things that just are For nontrivial biometrics (and facial locking may not usually meet this) the act of unlocking is testimonial (as it demonstrates both the specific action and your knowledge thereof) as much as a password is. A command to “unlock this device with <biometric method>” is different than a command to simply provide, say, a fingerprint.
- function_seven 5y ago
  What about an order to "place your right thumb on this little circle", where the "little circle" just so happens to be the phone they seized from you? You're not revealing any knowledge about the specific action—they're directing you to do it. For the face scenario, an order to look directly at the camera is similar. You're not testifying that this laptop is indeed yours, or that you have access. The laptop is going to respond to your stare however it was already configured to do so.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > What about an order to "place your right thumb on this little circle", where the "little circle" just so happens to be the phone they seized from you? Right, it doesn't, for instance, reveal that as a combination of quirks of the sensor and how I trained it, it only unlocks with my left index finger at a slight angle and a particular rolling motion, and moreover, doesn't reveal that I know that to be the case.