5 ms·

Meanwhile, in the UK: https://www.hcsolicitors.co.uk/news/giving-the-police-your-pin-or-password-to-your-phone https://www.hcsolicitors.co.uk/news/giving-the-po

Meanwhile, in the UK: https://www.hcsolicitors.co.uk/news/giving-the-police-your-pin-or-password-to-your-phone https://www.hcsolicitors.co.uk/news/giving-the-police-your-p... If a judge authorises a notice, under RIPA, you can be served a 2 year sentence for failing to disclose your phone's passcode.

soco 5y ago
I think the difference is from where the request comes - from the police during interrogation, or from the judge during trial.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  The difference is also that the UK doesn't have a Fifth Amendment, and their right to remain silent is subtly but importantly different.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - teh_klev 5y ago
    Indeed, in England and Wales: "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence." In Scotland it's different: "You are not obliged to say anything but anything you do say will be noted down and may be used in evidence. Do you understand?"[1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence#Scotland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence#Scotland
    - zarzavat 5y ago
      The English right is much misunderstood. What it is referring to is a situation where you rely on some evidence that you could have fabricated, the prosecution is entitled to point out that you had the opportunity to fabricate it. For example, you claim you were at your friend's house at the time of the crime, but you didn't mention this to the police at the time of the arrest so that they can go and interview your friend to corroborate your alibi. A jury may take from this that your alibi is not very convincing, because you may have arranged this alibi with your friend between arrest and trial. In neither England nor the US can someone be convicted based on silence alone. Silence isn't evidence. It is simply the lack of evidence.
      - bhelkey 5y ago
        You and the parent comment are referring to the same situation. > the prosecution is entitled to point out that you had the opportunity to fabricate it. In the US, the prosecution is NOT entitled to point out that you didn't say this at the scene of the crime. This is part of what we mean in the US when we say right to remain silent.
  - clarkmoody 5y ago
    The intent of the Bill of Rights is that all humans have those rights, and the document restrains the federal government concerning them. So the people in the UK have the right against self-incrimination, but the state systematically violates it.
    - oohaargh 5y ago
      This is such a hilariously weird take on how rights work. I don't want to tar all Americans with the same brush, but I think only someone from the US could possibly have come up with this
      - andrewxdiamond 5y ago
        Ideologically, this is exactly how the US Bill of Rights works. The rights listed in the Bill of Rights are unalienable, natural, and apply regardless of your citizenship status. Of course this is weird from another country’s perspective, but it is the mentality that many Americans take because to us, it is right.
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        > The rights listed in the Bill of Rights are unalienable, natural, and apply regardless of your citizenship status. It's quite clear this isn't the actual policy of the US, though, given the existence of Guantanamo Bay.
        andrewxdiamond 5y ago
        I agree, I think it’s increasing important to separate the “people of the US” from the “US Government.” The sentiment of the average citizen is much more inline with the ideals of the nation than the Nation itself is
        perl4ever 5y ago
        The only requirement of an abstract definition is that it be comprehensible and internally consistent. It is clearly not consistent to criticize Americans for violating inalienable human rights while claiming that inalienable human rights are a concept that does not exist for non-Americans.
- ajb 5y ago
  Not quite - the police have to ask a judge for authorisation, but it's not during a trial, so there is no opportunity for anyone to oppose it. It's just that there is a formal record so if the system is abused, there is evidence of the fact, extent and who is responsible.
  - TameAntelope 5y ago
    From a legal constraint point of view yes, but from a physical laws of the universe, a cop can do whatever he pleases in that room, alone, with you, and say anything he likes about what transpired. Cameras? Malfunctioning, those buggers. Your lawyer? You waived that right, you said you were innocent and didn't need one. Phone? Well the officer explained very nicely the situation and you decided to do your best to help. Not sure why you're alleging misdeed now, when you handed your unlocked phone over without prompting...
andi999 5y ago
So after serving the 2 year sentence, can they ask you again for the pass code?
- ChrisKnott 5y ago
  You can't be convicted again for refusing to provide it, if that's what you mean
- mrsuprawsm 5y ago
  Yes.
- dylan604 5y ago
  This isn't double jeopordy. If you rob a bank and serve the time for that crime, you don't get a free pass to rob more banks later because you've already served once. You get sentenced per crime.
cmpb 5y ago
In the US that would be a (search?) warrant which also comes from the judge during a police investigation and authorizes the police to get your phone's passcode under threat of prison time. This particular case is different because the police did not get a warrant and instead just asked the guy to disclose (without a warrant), which he refused to do, then they tried to use that against the guy in court, which is a violation of the US constitution.
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  Only some states have ruled that the state can force you to reveal your password. Others have ruled that the 5th amendment protects you and your passwords.
- thehappypm 5y ago
  No, a search warrant does not mean you need to hand over passwords.
  - nerdponx 5y ago
    How does this work with physical things, like a safe locked with a passcode, or a closet locked with a key?
    - colonwqbang 5y ago
      They'll just break it open if you won't do it for them?

soco 5y ago

I think the difference is from where the request comes - from the police during interrogation, or from the judge during trial.

ceejayoz 5y ago
The difference is also that the UK doesn't have a Fifth Amendment, and their right to remain silent is subtly but importantly different.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- teh_klev 5y ago
  Indeed, in England and Wales: "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence." In Scotland it's different: "You are not obliged to say anything but anything you do say will be noted down and may be used in evidence. Do you understand?"[1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence#Scotland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence#Scotland
  - zarzavat 5y ago
    The English right is much misunderstood. What it is referring to is a situation where you rely on some evidence that you could have fabricated, the prosecution is entitled to point out that you had the opportunity to fabricate it. For example, you claim you were at your friend's house at the time of the crime, but you didn't mention this to the police at the time of the arrest so that they can go and interview your friend to corroborate your alibi. A jury may take from this that your alibi is not very convincing, because you may have arranged this alibi with your friend between arrest and trial. In neither England nor the US can someone be convicted based on silence alone. Silence isn't evidence. It is simply the lack of evidence.
    - bhelkey 5y ago
      You and the parent comment are referring to the same situation. > the prosecution is entitled to point out that you had the opportunity to fabricate it. In the US, the prosecution is NOT entitled to point out that you didn't say this at the scene of the crime. This is part of what we mean in the US when we say right to remain silent.
- clarkmoody 5y ago
  The intent of the Bill of Rights is that all humans have those rights, and the document restrains the federal government concerning them. So the people in the UK have the right against self-incrimination, but the state systematically violates it.
  - oohaargh 5y ago
    This is such a hilariously weird take on how rights work. I don't want to tar all Americans with the same brush, but I think only someone from the US could possibly have come up with this
    - andrewxdiamond 5y ago
      Ideologically, this is exactly how the US Bill of Rights works. The rights listed in the Bill of Rights are unalienable, natural, and apply regardless of your citizenship status. Of course this is weird from another country’s perspective, but it is the mentality that many Americans take because to us, it is right.
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        > The rights listed in the Bill of Rights are unalienable, natural, and apply regardless of your citizenship status. It's quite clear this isn't the actual policy of the US, though, given the existence of Guantanamo Bay.
        andrewxdiamond 5y ago
        I agree, I think it’s increasing important to separate the “people of the US” from the “US Government.” The sentiment of the average citizen is much more inline with the ideals of the nation than the Nation itself is
        perl4ever 5y ago
        The only requirement of an abstract definition is that it be comprehensible and internally consistent. It is clearly not consistent to criticize Americans for violating inalienable human rights while claiming that inalienable human rights are a concept that does not exist for non-Americans.
ajb 5y ago
Not quite - the police have to ask a judge for authorisation, but it's not during a trial, so there is no opportunity for anyone to oppose it. It's just that there is a formal record so if the system is abused, there is evidence of the fact, extent and who is responsible.
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  From a legal constraint point of view yes, but from a physical laws of the universe, a cop can do whatever he pleases in that room, alone, with you, and say anything he likes about what transpired. Cameras? Malfunctioning, those buggers. Your lawyer? You waived that right, you said you were innocent and didn't need one. Phone? Well the officer explained very nicely the situation and you decided to do your best to help. Not sure why you're alleging misdeed now, when you handed your unlocked phone over without prompting...

andi999 5y ago

So after serving the 2 year sentence, can they ask you again for the pass code?

ChrisKnott 5y ago
You can't be convicted again for refusing to provide it, if that's what you mean
mrsuprawsm 5y ago
Yes.
dylan604 5y ago
This isn't double jeopordy. If you rob a bank and serve the time for that crime, you don't get a free pass to rob more banks later because you've already served once. You get sentenced per crime.

cmpb 5y ago

In the US that would be a (search?) warrant which also comes from the judge during a police investigation and authorizes the police to get your phone's passcode under threat of prison time. This particular case is different because the police did not get a warrant and instead just asked the guy to disclose (without a warrant), which he refused to do, then they tried to use that against the guy in court, which is a violation of the US constitution.

colinmhayes 5y ago
Only some states have ruled that the state can force you to reveal your password. Others have ruled that the 5th amendment protects you and your passwords.
thehappypm 5y ago
No, a search warrant does not mean you need to hand over passwords.
- nerdponx 5y ago
  How does this work with physical things, like a safe locked with a passcode, or a closet locked with a key?
  - colonwqbang 5y ago
    They'll just break it open if you won't do it for them?