Utah's state Supreme Court has upheld a court of appeals ruling, finding in the State v. Valdez that the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination allows criminal suspects...
Utah Supreme Court says suspects can refuse to hand over phone passwords to the police | Other state Supreme Courts disagree and the case would wind up before the US Supreme Court::undefined
5A protections SHOULD cover divulging passwords or being forced to supply biometrics as a password.
Now, if the police/feds can take fingerprints obtained at booking and use a 3d printer to simulate that finger and then use that fake finger to open a lock, then I dont think 5A would protect that. Thats just crafty detective work.
Yeah biometrics historically haven’t been protected by the 5th amendment. I have seen other people argue that not supplying the password if the police obtain a warrant can result in obstruction of justice charges. I like to think it wouldn’t. They have the phone and a warrant it’s up to them to figure it out, a person doesn’t have to point out where they hide things in their home to police.
…Exactly. The laws in the USA don’t really reflect modern digital technology that well. Many of our legislators don’t understand the tech and the government is so divided that getting anything to pass seems impossible.
If one had a warrant then you just force the suspect to give over. Just like forcing them to give fingerprints. Isn’t the whole discussion moot if they have a warrant?
So when you offer a path to get into the phone without a warrant it’s just like breaking into a “house” without a warrant. Technically easy - just go through the window or use the fingerprint from booking. It if we agree with due process either is wrong.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@lemmy.world
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
5A protections SHOULD cover divulging passwords or being forced to supply biometrics as a password.
Now, if the police/feds can take fingerprints obtained at booking and use a 3d printer to simulate that finger and then use that fake finger to open a lock, then I dont think 5A would protect that. Thats just crafty detective work.
Yeah biometrics historically haven’t been protected by the 5th amendment. I have seen other people argue that not supplying the password if the police obtain a warrant can result in obstruction of justice charges. I like to think it wouldn’t. They have the phone and a warrant it’s up to them to figure it out, a person doesn’t have to point out where they hide things in their home to police.
But if you don’t open the safe, they can destroy it to retrieve the contents. They could destroy your phone too in the process.
…Exactly. The laws in the USA don’t really reflect modern digital technology that well. Many of our legislators don’t understand the tech and the government is so divided that getting anything to pass seems impossible.
How is your “crafty detective work” really any different than sneaking in through a window even though you don’t have a search warrant?
I never said they wouldnt have a warrant, I dont understand the comparison
If one had a warrant then you just force the suspect to give over. Just like forcing them to give fingerprints. Isn’t the whole discussion moot if they have a warrant?
So when you offer a path to get into the phone without a warrant it’s just like breaking into a “house” without a warrant. Technically easy - just go through the window or use the fingerprint from booking. It if we agree with due process either is wrong.
removed by mod