SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the something-you-have,-something-you-are,-something-you-know dept.
FBI is quietly waging a different encryption battle in a Los Angeles courtroom. The authorities obtained a search warrant compelling the girlfriend of an alleged Armenian gang member to press her finger against an iPhone that had been seized from a Glendale home. The phone uses Apple's fingerprint identification system for unlocking. It's a rare case were prosecutors have demanded a person provide a fingerprint to unlock a computer, but experts expect such cases to become more common.
In a Circuit Court decision in Virginia 2014, the judge ruled that a criminal defendant cannot use Fifth Amendment protections to safeguard a phone that is locked using his or her fingerprint. According to Judge Steven C. Fucci, a criminal defendant can't be compelled to hand over a passcode to police officers for the purpose of unlocking a cellular device, law enforcement officials can compel a defendant to give up a fingerprint. The Fifth Amendment states that "no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," which protects memorized information like passwords and passcodes, but it doesn't protect fingerprints in the eyes of the law. Frucci said that "giving police a fingerprint is akin to providing a DNA or handwriting sample or an actual key, which the law permits. A passcode, though, requires the defendant to divulge knowledge, which the law protects against.
In other words fingerprints are bad security. On the other hand... maybe some fingers like 9 out of 10, instead can trigger a silent self-destruct?
(Score: 3, Informative) by davester666 on Tuesday May 03 2016, @06:51AM
We're already WAY past this, with this story (sorry, it's from slashdot) https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/04/27/2357253/child-porn-suspect-jailed-indefinitely-for-refusing-to-decrypt-hard-drives [slashdot.org]
A man not charged with anything is in jail for 7 months and counting for contempt of court for not failing to fulfill an all-writs warrant to unlock his phone and computer. Because he MIGHT have child porn on those devices.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Tuesday May 03 2016, @06:54AM
er s/for not failing/for failing/
doh.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday May 03 2016, @07:02AM
Because he MIGHT have child porn on those devices.
No, not for the potential child-porn, but for the alleged contempt of court. But after one month, isn't it conceivable he already forgot his complex password, and therefore cant be forced to reveal it anymore?
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 4, Insightful) by davester666 on Tuesday May 03 2016, @07:10AM
He's not in jail for the child porn, or even charged with having any. Someone thinks they saw some on his screen, and now the gov't has decided that it is appropriate to use an 'all-writs' warrant to compell him to help them with their search of his equipment to see if he has any. And some wacked-out judge agrees with this.
The next logical step is to hand a suspect an 'all-writs' warrant to help the police by compelling the person to write out a confession to a crime.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @07:38AM
For the legally challenged this is of course just the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution. In what way is imprisoning someone who refuses to testify against themselves (Fifth Amendment) by giving up their password allowing the accused to enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial? Either they should charge him with some kind of crime and start his trial or let him go. Or he needs to find a lawyer to bring this to court.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by davester666 on Tuesday May 03 2016, @08:34AM
That's just it. He hasn't been charged with anything, so there is no right to a speed and public trial.
He's in jail for not doing what a judge wants him to do, which is is merely difficult to get the same judge to reconsider, and nearly impossible to get another judge to overturn.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @02:29PM
So basically he got kidnapped? And the ransom demanded is some information.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Tuesday May 03 2016, @05:17PM
It works like this. It's a time honored method of law enforcement. So don't complain.
You are accused of being a witch and charged with witchcraft and consorting with the devil.
The court has ordered you to be tried by dunking in order to determine if there is any validity to the charges.
The trial by dunking will show one of two results:
1. You survive the dunking, thus proving beyond all doubt you are a witch and should be burned.
2. You drown and thus the charges are dismissed.
At this point, even if he does unlock the phone, this allows the evidence to be planted.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 4, Informative) by compro01 on Tuesday May 03 2016, @10:29AM
You think that line actually still matters? That bit has been basically irrelevant since the 70s, when they found that 5 years was perfectly fine and that basically any length of time would be fine so long as the accused was not prejudiced by the delay.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @07:20AM
It's for the child porn, second only to terrorist for shitty hypothetical to justify curbing civil protections ("what if the phone contains the location of a 7 year old girl who is gang raped by albino Chihuahuas, huh? You're a monster if you don't try to save her) AND daring to contradict a judge (really kids, don't do this unless you have a taste for masochism).
They let Judith Miller out after 85 days, and that was a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY, so it's possible pedophiles have eclipsed terrorist as public enemy #1.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @07:23AM
We need better checks and balances on judges to prevent them from arbitrarily abusing their powers, clearly.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday May 03 2016, @07:54AM
I'm not justifying to keep that guy in prison, just clarifying that the problem here is not to detain a suspect, but the despotic nature of the laws concerning contempt in court [abolish-alimony.org]. (That was just the first link I found, not sure how well reasoned the write-up is. I found some good arguments about it in the past, but didn't bother to do more than coarse reading this time.)
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday May 03 2016, @02:48PM
Not legally because of it, but pretty clearly logically because of it.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 4, Informative) by FakeBeldin on Tuesday May 03 2016, @07:36AM
No need to apologise, just link to the SN story: https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=16/04/28/1516203 [soylentnews.org].
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:12AM
Sorry, I did poke around for the soylent article, but did not find it.