Suspects Can Be Forced to Provide Smartphone Passcodes, Rules New Jersey Supreme Court

[thisisnotmyname]

What data can possibly reside on your phone to make it worth more than $500 (or whatever a used smartphone could be worth)?
All "data" created on the phone is automatically uploaded to one cloud or the other so it should not be that.
If you're thinking banking details, I really hope that it's not in the clear if someone gets into your phone. All my banking details are secured by external "BankID" with 10-digit passcode, my phone alone gives no access to any valuables (banking, stocks, nothing).
Identity theft? There's nothing on my phone that can't easily be accessed directly via online databases, nobody would go through the trouble of trying to steal my phone to get that data.

Some of us create and can have intellectual property worth millions. Some of us have access to critical systems. Some of us have banking and investment apps with funds many orders of magnitude more than the value of a phone.

The thread I replied to was stating that the security of access wasn't important and that only activation lock so someone can't gain value from the hardware itself was important. That's wrong. It's not a big deal if I lay out ~$1400 for another phone, my data in the wrong hands would be much more painful.

 

[bollman]

It would be a gigantic misstake to run around with such valuable information/access/whatever and rely solely on the security of your phone.
I cannot believe that anyone with access to such power and/or wealth would be so stupid as to rely on one single layer of security.
I for one certainly is not. Access to my banking, my stocks, systems at work and so on is secured by at least one more layer.

 

[compwiz1202]

Doorlocks only keep honest law-abiding people out.

They wouldn't even think of trespassing. Locks stop random thieves just looking for money. Anyone targeting your home for exact stuff In it will get in eventually.

 

[compwiz1202]

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.

So take something to wipe a part of your memory or give you temporary memory loss> Better might be to have some random person not linkable to you change it to something random and not tell you. Or have some app that can do that and forget what it changed it to. Or maybe instead of another code wiping your phone, it would encrypt specific data, hide it and bring up a clean version of your device.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

It would be a gigantic misstake to run around with such valuable information/access/whatever and rely solely on the security of your phone.
I cannot believe that anyone with access to such power and/or wealth would be so stupid as to rely on one single layer of security.
I for one certainly is not. Access to my banking, my stocks, systems at work and so on is secured by at least one more layer.

Then it seems you agree with me that the security of the information is much more important than protecting against resale of the device. That contradicts what you said here...

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.

...as many of us do in fact have much more than holiday pics.

 

[Treq]

Trump hasn’t pardoned even 5% of what Obama did. But nice attempt anyway.

Nice Whataboutism but no one mentioned Obama. Of course Obama didn't need to pardon any of his administration or campaign. He ran a pretty clean, honorable, administration. Trump is a criminal and surrounds himself with criminals, so he had to go easy on his buddies. In that respect trump is soft on crime... was my point.

 

[bollman]

Then it seems you agree with me that the security of the information is much more important than protecting against resale of the device. That contradicts what you said here...
...as many of us do in fact have much more than holiday pics.

But the point was that the information is still not accessible and therefor still protected! The subject of this entire thread is that law enforcement possibly can force you to unlock your phone and the entire discussion revolves around people not wanting police to have access to their precious data.

My point is that the real risk to most people is theft. The biggest deterrent is the resale value of an activation-locked phone. Banking info, stocks and whatnot is in the huge majority of cases protected by another level of security. That level does not interest law enforcement since they can acquire that information easily from the "source". What interests law enforcement is incriminating evidence in the images/sounds/communications and its logs (photos, audio, texts and other messaging apps) which is among the few things actually protected solely by the security of the phone.
This information on the other hand is of no value to a potential thief. They want quick cash for a stolen phone. Should you have no security at all on your phone, they would try your banking app (and fail). Thieves are not interested in your texts or Messenger contacts, they want your money. Police wants your communication and have no interest in your banking details or important work-system access.

 

[theprizerevealed]

The essence of the argument "what do you have to hide?" depends entirely on the prejudices [and extremely importantly their 'vested interests'] (political, social, intellectual, religious & economic) of the person posing that question. As power shifts through time to those whose prejudices differ substantially due to the vagaries of human history; those in jeopardy of livelihood, limb,freedom or life vary also. That is why the American Constitution included an amendment about protecting Americans from search and seizure.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[Amazing Iceman]

If you do not unlock your door then they kick it in. If you don't unlock your phone then they hope the hackers can unlock it.

Interesting that in Florida, the new Hurricane code requires exterior doors to open out instead of opening in.
This makes it more difficult for Law Enforcement to force their way in.
They can always break a window and use tear gas to purge everyone out of the house.

 

[theprizerevealed]

Interesting that in Florida, the new Hurricane code requires exterior doors to open out instead of opening in.
This makes it more difficult for Law Enforcement to force their way in.
They can always break a window and use tear gas to purge everyone out of the house.

To the contrary, it helps them. You can't block a door with something if it can be pulled open instead of being pushed inward. What's with all the pro-police fog of lies being pushed in this thread?
[automerge]1597453108[/automerge]