5 ms·

In the UK you have to hand your password over on command

by sampli 3y ago

jmprspret 3y ago
Same in a number of Australian states. You can face up to 10yrs jail time if you don't give it up iirc
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  Isn't that a violation of the right to silence? "Australia has no constitutional protection for the right to silence,[4] but it is broadly recognized by State and Federal Crimes Acts and Codes and is regarded by the courts as an important common law right and a part of the privilege against self-incrimination" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_Australia
- jay-barronville 3y ago
  I’m an American, so this doesn’t apply to me, but the idea that someone could be forced, by their government, to self-incriminate is absurd to me.
  - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    I’m an American. Americans are forced by their government to self-incriminate all the time and are sitting in jail for it. Here's a computer to explain it to you: https://chat.openai.com/share/532f399a-80d4-4973-9508-67f0f092808b https://chat.openai.com/share/532f399a-80d4-4973-9508-67f0f0... And the references used. I even checked them myself: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/21-4442/21-4442-2023-11-21.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/21... https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/22-4593/22-4593-2023-10-12.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/22... This one in particular is great because apparently the 5th amendment doesn't apply if you're not an English speaker and don't understand the extreme subtleties of the law, such that you can be compelled to incriminate “To qualify for the Fifth Amendment privilege, a communication must be testimonial, incriminating, and compelled.” The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination thus only protects a defendant from being compelled to provide “testimonial” evidence, meaning that the communication “must itself, explicitly or implicitly, relate a factual assertion or disclose information.” Indeed, the Supreme Court has explicitly distinguished between “the use of compulsion to extort communications from a defendant” and merely “compelling a person to engage in conduct that may be incriminating,” such as providing samples of one’s voice, handwriting, or physical appearance, all of which are constitutionally permissible." Note, these are only the ones that were appealed. Land of the free baby
    - DiscourseFan 3y ago
      None of this is "forced." If you are being interrogated by police without a lawyer, its because you are either a) and idiot, or b) not well educated about the American legal system (which means you probably received a poor education or you're a migrant). What this decision opens up is different from what you cited: here, we are not dealing with physical compulsion to speak or write or produce any kind of communication, which is severely delimited with the presence of a lawyer (or even the mention of one to the police), we are dealing with police, who've already seized some object which contains personal communication (much like safe), and the legal right to remain silent on the code to unlock it. Now if, for previous physical objects which would contain communications that were locked with a code, there was case precedence where that code was legally demanded by police, and granted by a court, then you might have an argument.
      - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
        Let me put a finer point on it: It does not matter what the constitution says police are going to do whatever they want no matter what, and case law proves that that’s exactly what they will, and will continue to do You seem to be continuing to operate under the assumption that America works underneath the rule of law universally applied. It doesn’t, it never has. As you so clearly reinforced my original point, the only way that you can actually have those rights apply to you is by either being smart or rich, and most people are neither
      - kelnos 3y ago
        I think you're being overly harsh toward people who might speak to police without realizing the implications. Getting arrested or even detained is a high-stress experience, and judgment and decision-making skills suffer in those types of situations. Beyond that, cops are trained to manipulate people into believing that either a) they are required to talk (despite being read their Miranda rights), or b) that talking actually will work out better for them in the long run than staying silent.
    - jay-barronville 3y ago
      To be clear, I was responding to the commentary about the UK and Australia. That said, even though America doesn’t have a perfect record on this, our Fifth Amendment rights are generally effective at protecting us from forced self-incrimination. We at least have the luxury of the Supreme Court that may hear and adjudicate our cases if our Fifth Amendment rights are violated. > Americans are forced by their government to self-incriminate all the time and are sitting in jail for it. “all the time” ← Can you please quantify that? I genuinely don’t believe it happens enough to justify your assertion. (I’d love to be corrected with some data if I’m wrong.) All in all, I think it’s a mistake to expect a perfect system. Compared to the rest of the world, our Constitution is a massive luxury; Americans are beyond lucky. I can either focus on the fact that the overall system isn’t perfect or I can appreciate—i.e., not take for granted—the fact that we even have the codified set of rights that we do. P.S. I personally know folks from Third World countries whose family members were executed for having the “wrong” opinion. We really do take a lot for granted here in America.
  - actionfromafar 3y ago
    What if they present a phone you have never seen before and claim it’s yours. Or if you truly don’t know your own code for some reason.
semanticist 3y ago
It’s important to note that it’s not just ‘on command’, it’s on issuing a Section 49 order under the RIP Act, which has conditions and doesn’t like automatically result in you being locked up if you refuse (the police have to apply to a court to enforce it, and you have a chance to defend yourself). This law firm’s site has a good summary: https://www.reeds.co.uk/insight/section-49-ripa-2000-trending-now-police-custody-suite-near/ https://www.reeds.co.uk/insight/section-49-ripa-2000-trendin... The reason I say it’s important to note this is that the UK police absolutely will over represent these powers to bully you into voluntarily handing over unlock codes and passwords. Unless there’s a S49 notice, they’re just asking and you have every right to say ‘no thanks’, and even if they do issue one you can require your day in court to force the issue.
- masfuerte 3y ago
  If they stop you on entry to the UK they can compel you to unlock any devices you are carrying. They are entitled to whatever data they find on the devices but they are not allowed to use the credentials on the devices to access remote services. However, the secret services have a long track record of ignoring the rules so I wouldn't trust them not to.

In the UK you have to hand your password over on command

by sampli 3y ago

In the UK you have to hand your password over on command

jmprspret 3y ago

Same in a number of Australian states. You can face up to 10yrs jail time if you don't give it up iirc

hutzlibu 3y ago
Isn't that a violation of the right to silence? "Australia has no constitutional protection for the right to silence,[4] but it is broadly recognized by State and Federal Crimes Acts and Codes and is regarded by the courts as an important common law right and a part of the privilege against self-incrimination" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_Australia
jay-barronville 3y ago
I’m an American, so this doesn’t apply to me, but the idea that someone could be forced, by their government, to self-incriminate is absurd to me.
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  I’m an American. Americans are forced by their government to self-incriminate all the time and are sitting in jail for it. Here's a computer to explain it to you: https://chat.openai.com/share/532f399a-80d4-4973-9508-67f0f092808b https://chat.openai.com/share/532f399a-80d4-4973-9508-67f0f0... And the references used. I even checked them myself: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/21-4442/21-4442-2023-11-21.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/21... https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/22-4593/22-4593-2023-10-12.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/22... This one in particular is great because apparently the 5th amendment doesn't apply if you're not an English speaker and don't understand the extreme subtleties of the law, such that you can be compelled to incriminate “To qualify for the Fifth Amendment privilege, a communication must be testimonial, incriminating, and compelled.” The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination thus only protects a defendant from being compelled to provide “testimonial” evidence, meaning that the communication “must itself, explicitly or implicitly, relate a factual assertion or disclose information.” Indeed, the Supreme Court has explicitly distinguished between “the use of compulsion to extort communications from a defendant” and merely “compelling a person to engage in conduct that may be incriminating,” such as providing samples of one’s voice, handwriting, or physical appearance, all of which are constitutionally permissible." Note, these are only the ones that were appealed. Land of the free baby
  - DiscourseFan 3y ago
    None of this is "forced." If you are being interrogated by police without a lawyer, its because you are either a) and idiot, or b) not well educated about the American legal system (which means you probably received a poor education or you're a migrant). What this decision opens up is different from what you cited: here, we are not dealing with physical compulsion to speak or write or produce any kind of communication, which is severely delimited with the presence of a lawyer (or even the mention of one to the police), we are dealing with police, who've already seized some object which contains personal communication (much like safe), and the legal right to remain silent on the code to unlock it. Now if, for previous physical objects which would contain communications that were locked with a code, there was case precedence where that code was legally demanded by police, and granted by a court, then you might have an argument.
    - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
      Let me put a finer point on it: It does not matter what the constitution says police are going to do whatever they want no matter what, and case law proves that that’s exactly what they will, and will continue to do You seem to be continuing to operate under the assumption that America works underneath the rule of law universally applied. It doesn’t, it never has. As you so clearly reinforced my original point, the only way that you can actually have those rights apply to you is by either being smart or rich, and most people are neither
    - kelnos 3y ago
      I think you're being overly harsh toward people who might speak to police without realizing the implications. Getting arrested or even detained is a high-stress experience, and judgment and decision-making skills suffer in those types of situations. Beyond that, cops are trained to manipulate people into believing that either a) they are required to talk (despite being read their Miranda rights), or b) that talking actually will work out better for them in the long run than staying silent.
  - jay-barronville 3y ago
    To be clear, I was responding to the commentary about the UK and Australia. That said, even though America doesn’t have a perfect record on this, our Fifth Amendment rights are generally effective at protecting us from forced self-incrimination. We at least have the luxury of the Supreme Court that may hear and adjudicate our cases if our Fifth Amendment rights are violated. > Americans are forced by their government to self-incriminate all the time and are sitting in jail for it. “all the time” ← Can you please quantify that? I genuinely don’t believe it happens enough to justify your assertion. (I’d love to be corrected with some data if I’m wrong.) All in all, I think it’s a mistake to expect a perfect system. Compared to the rest of the world, our Constitution is a massive luxury; Americans are beyond lucky. I can either focus on the fact that the overall system isn’t perfect or I can appreciate—i.e., not take for granted—the fact that we even have the codified set of rights that we do. P.S. I personally know folks from Third World countries whose family members were executed for having the “wrong” opinion. We really do take a lot for granted here in America.
- actionfromafar 3y ago
  What if they present a phone you have never seen before and claim it’s yours. Or if you truly don’t know your own code for some reason.

semanticist 3y ago

It’s important to note that it’s not just ‘on command’, it’s on issuing a Section 49 order under the RIP Act, which has conditions and doesn’t like automatically result in you being locked up if you refuse (the police have to apply to a court to enforce it, and you have a chance to defend yourself). This law firm’s site has a good summary: https://www.reeds.co.uk/insight/section-49-ripa-2000-trending-now-police-custody-suite-near/ https://www.reeds.co.uk/insight/section-49-ripa-2000-trendin... The reason I say it’s important to note this is that the UK police absolutely will over represent these powers to bully you into voluntarily handing over unlock codes and passwords. Unless there’s a S49 notice, they’re just asking and you have every right to say ‘no thanks’, and even if they do issue one you can require your day in court to force the issue.

masfuerte 3y ago
If they stop you on entry to the UK they can compel you to unlock any devices you are carrying. They are entitled to whatever data they find on the devices but they are not allowed to use the credentials on the devices to access remote services. However, the secret services have a long track record of ignoring the rules so I wouldn't trust them not to.