Judge puts man in jail for refusing to unlock cellphones

[Prepper]

Another thing you could do is to set your password to something incriminating, such as "yes I did murder that person, it is all true, guilty as charged". Giving up the password would then be forcing you to testify against yourself.

 

[MMArtist]

In MA you now need a specific warrant for electronic devices; no fishing trips.

I.E. - "We have a witness saying he sent a text, we want access to texts and pictures" - "Sorry, you get a warrant for texts but NOT pictures".

Im sure that is followed to a T.

 

[Squire]

It's like the Black Mirror episode with John Hamm where they copy your personality with an implant, then interrogate it to confession, then punish it (and you) for you remaining silent.

 

[Broc]

This is the first case I recall hearing that did not involve a border crossing and the victim claims they can't remember the password (which was always going to be my defense if it happens to me). So..... I think I need a new plan.

Enter wrong password 4 times, reset phone to factory default. Or get locked out for several minutes.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

You don't think there are clear 5th Amendment implications to this?

In one case, the court rules that a woman could be compelled to unlock a computer and the contents of the computer could be used as evidence, but the fact that she could unlock the computer could not be introduced or used to prove she had used that particular laptop - and such would have to be established by other means if the prosecution wanted to use that, and not just the contents of the laptop, as part of the case.

 

[dcmdon]

this is one of those areas where the right shows how it can bejust as f***ed up and corrupt as lefties....Lawr and order republicans loathe the 4th.

Law and order conservatives are no friends of liberty. Not at all.

 

[W.E.C]

So let me get this straight, minor M/V infraction (civil), small amount of marijuana (pretty much legal now or a simple civil offense in most places) and thrown in jail because the guy won’t let them in his phone? Wtf??

Let’s just say for the sake of argument that this guy is a closet homosexual, and has incriminating photos or messages in his phone that are private to him and him alone, he doesn’t want it to get out, it’s nobody else’s business and his phone has zero to do with the civil charges mentioned according to the story.

But, we still have career criminals walking around free everywhere dealing, stealing and killing, but this poor bastard is in the can because he values his personal property and privacy??

This country is so f**ked up right now. lol

Another w.t.f. Is wrong with Florida entry.

 

[Peicemaker]

Florida... I swear, that level of sustained heat and humidity is actually detrimental to the average person's mental health. Including the fuzz, apparently. After all, it is illegal to fart in public after 6 pm on thursday down there. They also found it necessary to put into law that it is, in fact illegal to fornicate with a porcupine.
FLORIDA!

 

[weekendracer]

There is not enough information in that article for me to make a determination either way. For all I know, the guy has a history of illegal activity (drug trafficking) and the phone may indeed contain evidence. Getting the warrant was the procedural correct way to get it. The guy knows there's evidence against him and he's bucking the warrant.

 

[rommel]

There is not enough information in that article for me to make a determination either way. For all I know, the guy has a history of illegal activity (drug trafficking) and the phone may indeed contain evidence. Getting the warrant was the procedural correct way to get it. The guy knows there's evidence against him and he's bucking the warrant.

I agree, we as society should selectively apply our constitutional rights only to people who are innocent. If the cops think you are guilty then you should forfeit them. All suspects should be considered guilty til proven innocent.
I also believe that the cops failed miserably in this case. They should have gotten warrents to search his house, work, computer and possibly his friends house. We certainly do not want him to get away with anything. What could go wrong with trusting the cops.
/Sarc

On the serious side, I would sincerely appreciate that you do not give away my constitutional rights because some guy MAY have a history of drug trafficking. This is a very slippery slope and you are allowing the police to determine how far they can probe.

This guy may be guilty and he may be hiding something, but he is protecting me at the same time. For that, I support him. I would much rather see this guy get away with something than this fishing expedition succeed. My true freedom and security lies with less power to the police.

 

[weekendracer]

I agree, we as society should selectively apply our constitutional rights only to people who are innocent. If the cops think you are guilty then you should forfeit them. All suspects should be considered guilty til proven innocent.
I also believe that the cops failed miserably in this case. They should have gotten warrents to search his house, work, computer and possibly his friends house. We certainly do not want him to get away with anything. What could go wrong with trusting the cops.
/Sarc

On the serious side, I would sincerely appreciate that you do not give away my constitutional rights because some guy MAY have a history of drug trafficking. This is a very slippery slope and you are allowing the police to determine how far they can probe.

This guy may be guilty and he may be hiding something, but he is protecting me at the same time. For that, I support him. I would much rather see this guy get away with something than this fishing expedition succeed. My true freedom and security lies with less power to the police.

No slippery slope, the current state of what is needed dictates a warrant to search cell phones. They got said warrant. What am I missing that's in the 5 lines of the article that has everyone up in arms?

 

[Freddy B]

Law and order conservatives are no friends of liberty. Not at all.

People who abide with sh!tt!ng on the Constitution are not conservatives.

 

[rommel]

the current state of what is needed dictates a warrant to search cell phones.

That is our fundamental difference. We have differing opinions on what is needed. Unfortunately for me, your opinion jeapodizes my freedom. But if you feel better that they lock up this guy instead of protecting the remainder of the 350 million peoples' constitutional rights then there is not much I can say.

 

[rommel]

The piece you missed was that the driver was stopped for a traffic violation and he refused the cops to search his car. So the cops decided to circumvent his protection and bring in a biased investigator who could never be cross examined (the dog) and that still was not enough for them. They had to get a warrent for something unrelated to the original stop.
That type of policing scares the crap out of me

 

[Chevy 2 65]

The piece you missed was that the driver was stopped for a traffic violation and he refused the cops to search his car. So the cops decided to circumvent his protection and bring in a biased investigator who could never be cross examined (the dog) and that still was not enough for them. They had to get a warrent for something unrelated to the original stop.
That type of policing scares the crap out of me

End the thread.

 

[milktree]

In one case, the court rules that a woman could be compelled to unlock a computer and the contents of the computer could be used as evidence, but the fact that she could unlock the computer could not be introduced or used to prove she had used that particular laptop - and such would have to be established by other means if the prosecution wanted to use that, and not just the contents of the laptop, as part of the case.

Let me rephrase that to see if I understand it:

The state could compel her to unlock the laptop, but because they'd compelled her, they couldn't claim it was her laptop, or that she knew the information on it?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Let me rephrase that to see if I understand it:

The state could compel her to unlock the laptop, but because they'd compelled her, they couldn't claim it was her laptop, or that she knew the information on it?

Close. They could not use the fact that she was able to unlock it to prove it was a laptop that she had used. I think there was an issue of multiple family members having physical access, so proving who used it could be useful to the persecution.

The problem is some courts have ruled that producing an encryption password is "non testimonial" and thus not covered by the 5th.

 

[milktree]

Close. They could not use the fact that she was able to unlock it to prove it was a laptop that she had used. I think there was an issue of multiple family members having physical access, so proving who used it could be useful to the persecution.

The problem is some courts have ruled that producing an encryption password is "non testimonial" and thus not covered by the 5th.

WTF? If it's non-testimonial, how is it useful to the prosecution?

Are they really saying that *knowing* a password (proving that something does belong to you, or you could have been there) is *also* non-testimonial?

That's some seriously twisted logic. It's like a mix of 1984 and Cosmic Encounters (for the '80s board game geeks)

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The claim is that it is no different than being ordered to open a safe. The difference is a safe can be forced open if the target refuses.

One court concluded that knowing a password was testimonial, and the solution was forcing the subject to unlock the computer but banning the persecution from introducing any testimony or evidence that she was the person who was able to unlock the computer.

A solution is to have thousands of dummy files encrypted with discarded passwords along with your real files, with the later encrypted using a variety of passwords. This will make it impossible for you, or any court, to provide you have, or have not, revealed all your encryption passwords.

 

[JohnZ]

The claim is that it is no different than being ordered to open a safe. The difference is a safe can be forced open if the target refuses.

One court concluded that knowing a password was testimonial, and the solution was forcing the subject to unlock the computer but banning the persecution from introducing any testimony or evidence that she was the person who was able to unlock the computer.

A solution is to have thousands of dummy files encrypted with discarded passwords along with your real files, with the later encrypted using a variety of passwords. This will make it impossible for you, or any court, to provide you have, or have not, revealed all your encryption passwords.

What we need is an encryption scheme that has two passwords: one decrypts the files normally for you to use. The other turns the data into something innocuous: your honor, the file named Drug deals 2018 contains the following text: Mary had a little lamb...

 

[Dennis in MA]

Interesting case. I can see both sides of the argument. I may not AGREE with both sides, but I can see them.

F'rinstance, let's say the guys wanted to search his home. He refuses to open it. They get a warrant. He STILL refuses to open it. Do they charge him with not opening his front door or do they just bust it down???? Seems a similar situation here. There is alleged software out there to break down the cell phone's front door - go pay for it and use it. Think of it as a battering ram.

 

[firestorm]

No slippery slope, the current state of what is needed dictates a warrant to search cell phones. They got said warrant. What am I missing that's in the 5 lines of the article that has everyone up in arms?

They got a warrant and can search the physical phone they have in evidence. But why should he have to provide incriminating evidence against himself that only lives in his head (The password)? Same as if they had searched his car and found a notebook full of gibberish, would he be sitting in prison until he agreed to provide the cypher so they could decrypt it all?

 

[Qwikdraw45]

Or, you avoid all of this, and don't keep anything on your phone (computer, tablet, etc.)
I don't use my phone for anything that could be compromised if I lost the phone (other than needing phone number contacts, and the robo-callers already seem to have all of those anyway!). As for emails, posts on NES, etc. someone can always hack it, so why say/leave anything that will be used against you?

 

[firestorm]

Or, you avoid all of this, and don't keep anything on your phone (computer, tablet, etc.)
I don't use my phone for anything that could be compromised if I lost the phone (other than needing phone number contacts, and the robo-callers already seem to have all of those anyway!). As for emails, posts on NES, etc. someone can always hack it, so why say/leave anything that will be used against you?

So you might as well give up your rights? If you have nothing to hide then whats the problem? Bad plan, just because you feel you don't have anything incriminating on your phone you think they won't find something? Those cute pics of your kid in the pool, kiddie porn. That joke name you put in your contacts for someone, drug reference we better go find them and take their door.

Or perhaps don't shit on someone for refusing to allow the government to do whatever they feel like just because.

 

[Nick Leduc]

Or, you avoid all of this, and don't keep anything on your phone (computer, tablet, etc.)
I don't use my phone for anything that could be compromised if I lost the phone (other than needing phone number contacts, and the robo-callers already seem to have all of those anyway!). As for emails, posts on NES, etc. someone can always hack it, so why say/leave anything that will be used against you?

Riley v. California - Wikipedia

Read the details of this case. They used his phone contacts that were labeled "My House" to get a search warrant for whatever was at the residence attached to the # listed.

 

[rommel]

Same as if they had searched his car and found a notebook full of gibberish, would he be sitting in prison until he agreed to provide the cypher so they could decrypt it all?

Unfortunately, I think the answer to this queation will be yes from now on. This whole case reminds me of the Iphone case where they guy from San Bernandino shot up some place. The question on hand became a small national debate whether the government had the right to force Apple to break into the phone. iirc half this country seemd ok giving up their privacy all in the name for (false) security. I was shocked to just how far this country has fallen.

Maybe it is me, but I fear not, bad guys or terrorists. I fear a police state and I do not want to give law enforcement one inch. I think they already have too much power. I do not care what crimes the guy in this thread did or did not do. I care what the outcome of this power struggle is. I have learned that I am not the type of person who is going to petition to change and fight the powers that be. Instead, I come here and hopefully make a strong enough argument where I can change or challenge someones belief system to the point that they at least can understand why protecting the guy in this thread is really protecting my family and my future.

 

[weekendracer]

The piece you missed was that the driver was stopped for a traffic violation and he refused the cops to search his car. So the cops decided to circumvent his protection and bring in a biased investigator who could never be cross examined (the dog) and that still was not enough for them. They had to get a warrent for something unrelated to the original stop.
That type of policing scares the crap out of me

What I'm saying is the author left out of the article the 3 months this guy may have been watched and they decided to move forward and arrest him. Then again, it could have been a fishing expedition. But the first sentence is just as likely as the second one. The article is full of absolutely zero facts and I'm not basing an opinion on a 'journalist' who put no research into this article.

 

[firestorm]

Unfortunately, I think the answer to this queation will be yes from now on. This whole case reminds me of the Iphone case where they guy from San Bernandino shot up some place. The question on hand became a small national debate whether the government had the right to force Apple to break into the phone. iirc half this country seemd ok giving up their privacy all in the name for (false) security. I was shocked to just how far this country has fallen.

Maybe it is me, but I fear not, bad guys or terrorists. I fear a police state and I do not want to give law enforcement one inch. I think they already have too much power. I do not care what crimes the guy in this thread did or did not do. I care what the outcome of this power struggle is. I have learned that I am not the type of person who is going to petition to change and fight the powers that be. Instead, I come here and hopefully make a strong enough argument where I can change or challenge someones belief system to the point that they at least can understand why protecting the guy in this thread is really protecting my family and my future.

I'm afraid that you might be right. Courts seem to be going further and further towards the individual having few to no rights, or finding ways to say that you aren't covered by the rights they say you do have. "Sure, you have a right against self incrimination, but this isn't covered by that so you go to jail until you incriminate yourself"

 

[firestorm]

What I'm saying is the author left out of the article the 3 months this guy may have been watched and they decided to move forward and arrest him. Then again, it could have been a fishing expedition. But the first sentence is just as likely as the second one. The article is full of absolutely zero facts and I'm not basing an opinion on a 'journalist' who put no research into this article.

Regardless of how long they watched him, or what they think they will find, why does he not have a right to not disclose incriminating information (The password)? They have the phone, and they can try to brute force it same as they could with a safe you refuse to provide the combo to. Nobody is sitting in prison because they refused the combo to a locked safe the government has a warrant to search.

 

[Qwikdraw45]

So you might as well give up your rights? If you have nothing to hide then whats the problem? Bad plan, just because you feel you don't have anything incriminating on your phone you think they won't find something? Those cute pics of your kid in the pool, kiddie porn. That joke name you put in your contacts for someone, drug reference we better go find them and take their door.

Or perhaps don't shit on someone for refusing to allow the government to do whatever they feel like just because.

Riley v. California - Wikipedia

Read the details of this case. They used his phone contacts that were labeled "My House" to get a search warrant for whatever was at the residence attached to the # listed.

You're missing the point. Do you go to an airport and yell (insert certain trigger words here)? If not, why would you post certain comments on a public forum? Even though you "can" say what you want, you're going to draw heat if someone is offended by it or considers it a threat. I don't save anything on a phone/computer, and with forensics, anything written/sent can later be obtained anyway. As for phone contact numbers, I'm sure they know where he lives, and as for others, if they were watching him, they would know where they lived as well. If someone is really out to get you, and wants to "make up an excuse for a warrant", don't you think they'll plant evidence anyway? Or, at least twist whatever they find? "Your Honor, the defendant had a copy of Tom Sawyer in his library! He must be against the system!".