Your phone is not, but the knowledge in your head to unlock your phone should be protected. You can put your diary in a safe and your combination to get in, is protected, because it is in your head.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Suspects Can Be Forced to Provide Smartphone Passcodes, Rules New Jersey Supreme Court
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Your phone is not, but the knowledge in your head to unlock your phone should be protected. You can put your diary in a safe and your combination to get in, is protected, because it is in your head.
That's not accurate. There are so many examples of completely peaceful protestors having their first amendment rights violated. Seeing a video of one looter being arrested doesn't mean that the police are only arresting or assaulting looters. The most memorable video I've seen is one where a journalist is talking into a camera on a sidewalk and a cop starts shooting rubber bullets at her and her cameramen. That violates just about every aspect of the first (free speech, free press, redress of grievances). It's something you'd expect to see out of Hong Kong.
Well, a warrant would be required.
000 Destruct 0
Attachments
Is this a thing yet? This is so smart. If I haven’t logged into my phone for 3 days I’m probably dead already. lol
i still dont understand why a criminal should have all his life on a phone... i mean, we have pc's from decades more than smartphones but i never heard of judges/cops that asked a criminal to unlock his pc. now, how to dont think that all these news are only to force hi-tech bigs to give a backdoor to governments...
Last edited:
No. Your "standard" front door usually keeps most bad guys out, there is no need for reinforced vault door with time lock, neither is military grade security on your phone.
In the case of your home, the thieves want what's inside your house to sell, not your door.
In the case of your phone, it's your phone they want, not your holiday pics. Activation lock is what makes your phone worthless to thieves, and they know it.
I don't know about you but my phone is MUCH less valuable than the data within it.
I think they can try it like 10 times and it will wipe the device. Problem solved.
There have been far too many documented incidents of the rights of even peaceful protestors being violated to be making statements like this. It's great trying to paint those you may disagree with as criminals and miscreants, right up until you're the one being disagreed with.
Sure, but when you lose the key, you're not thrown in jail indefinitely for contempt. You just hire a locksmith.
Or how about adding an “auto wipe” feature on a specific passcode being entered.
That could be construed as destroying evidence. Even if there is nothing incriminating on the phone, it is still a crime, and you would do time for that crime even if you never committed the original one your were accused of.
Classic "think of the children" argument used to erode rights and liberties for purposes which have very little to do with the children.
This is why Apple should add a feature called erase code that when entered will give you a spinning wheel of death then reboot in factory reset.
Compelling a suspect to unlock a smartphone doesn't violate Fifth Amendment rights, New Jersey's Supreme Court ruled today (via NorthJersey.com), adding a new argument to the ongoing debate on whether those arrested can be forced to unlock their devices with biometrics or passcodes.
Courts around the United States have been split on the issue, with some determining that suspects cannot be forced to unlock an iPhone, while others have said it's not a rights violation. Most of these arguments have focused on biometric smartphone unlocking methods like Touch ID and Face ID, but New Jersey says that a criminal defendant can be forced to provide a passcode.
In the NJ case, prosecutors wanted access to two iPhones owned by former Essex County sheriff Robert Andrews, accused of secretly working with a street gang. Andrews argued that requiring him to provide a passcode would be a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, but the court rejected the argument and said that it only applies when the accused is "compelled to make a testimonial communication that is incriminating."
Fifth Amendment rights do not protect suspects from producing documents to use as evidence in cases, and the court considered the iPhone's text and phone call content to be documents.
The court, which was split on the decision 4 to 3, said that even if the passcodes were considered testimony, there was already evidence that there were texts and telephone exchanges between the sheriff and an alleged drug dealer, enacting a "foregone conclusion exception" to the Fifth Amendment because the state already knows about the texts. By providing the passcodes, Andrews would not be providing information the government is not already aware of. The full ruling with additional context is available from the NJ courts website [PDF].Andrews' attorney, Charles Sciarra, called the court's ruling a "major defeat to the United States Constitution."The New Jersey Supreme Court ruling could have an impact on future court cases involving locked smartphones, and courts will continue to come to different conclusions on the issue of smartphone unlocking until the United States Supreme Court steps in and clarifies how constitutional rights and precedents apply to new technologies.
Note: Due to the political or social nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Political News forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.
Article Link: Suspects Can Be Forced to Provide Smartphone Passcodes, Rules New Jersey Supreme Court
What if this guy backed up to iCloud? All the feds need is the phones IMEI number which can be obtained through his cellular carrier. And you don't need to unlock the phone because if it's on at all, it's chatting with a celll tower somewhere... And the feds definitely have that capability to find that particular tower. Then obtain a search warrant to Apple.
This is getting complicated..Thanks Apple for guiding the law who now confuses us..
Ya, ideally, that would be a perfect solution, but why you go to the customer first, i'll never know.. Particularly when it's easier if the data is also stored somewhere else which can be got at better... Instead, this is reversed.
They may be wasting their time either way, but at least they would know its not in one location before coming to customer.
Ya, ideally, that would be a perfect solution, but why you go to the customer first, i'll never know.. Particularly when it's easier if the data is also stored somewhere else which can be got at better... Instead, this is reversed.
They may be wasting their time either way, but at least they would know its not in one location before coming to customer.
May be I was not clear.
"I think it is a good thing." -This is a feeling. I feel positive about it.
"Forcing someone to give up password is still forced testimony" - This is a legal point, irrelevant to how I feel.
If I were ordered to unlock my phone I would use "the Hillary defense". When interviewed by the FBI about her use of private email servers she responded 39 times that she "couldn't remember" the answer to their questions.
www.cnn.com
Clinton FBI interview: 39 times she didn't recall | CNN
Hillary Clinton told the FBI I do not recall or remember 39 times in interviews with the FBI about her private email servers. CNN's Evan Perez reports.
That would be destruction of evidence (which, generally, is itself a crime), and the court may very well end up assuming that you did so in order to hide exactly the incriminating evidence the prosecutor is after.
Much better to forget your passcode. (Don't just "forget", though. That would be illegal as well.) Keeping in mind, of course, that the court may have no problem holding you indefinitely for contempt if they don't actually believe you.
Funny how the court doesn't actually have to prove someone committed a crime in order to hold them indefinitely.