3 ms·
The case you're referencing has nothing to do with how the password is provided and rather with the fact that the existence of the evidence was a foregone concl
by Repulsion9513 2y ago
The case you're referencing has nothing to do with how the password is provided and rather with the fact that the existence of the evidence was a foregone conclusion.
(Of course, if it was really a foregone conclusion then the question remains why they needed access to that evidence)
- Jerrrry 2y agoIt doesn't negate, innately, that the action is literally compelling the defendant to incriminate himself with his own actions/words, not his bio-metrics. If the crux is literally that his compulsion is moot to the establishment of the evidence, then it both begs the question you had mentioned - why is it needed - and raises the obvious comparison of a murderer who has confessed to his crimes being compelled to divulge the location of a body. In that comparative example, the location could contain more incriminating evidence. So I guess make your passwords incriminating or make sure you have multiple domains/spans of crimes all unrelated in the same virtual place.