News : U.S. Court says phone passcodes are protected under the law.

[Anonymous]

Headline : U.S. Court says phone passcodes are protected under the law.

Excerpt from the Link "Criminals should protect their iPhones with a passcode, not Touch ID, as a Virginia District Court has determined that passcodes are protected under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution while fingerprints are not, according to a report Friday by Hampton Roads.

The Fifth Amendment protects citizens from self-incrimination so a phone is protected under the law because otherwise it would require a defendant to divulge knowledge. Put simply, a Circuit Court judge has ruled that a criminal defendant can be compelled to reveal their fingerprint but not the passcode, so that police could search their mobile phone."

My thoughts :

So I can now see these people making sure their phones are PassWord Protected.

What confuses me is if a person is guilty of being a criminal and a phone could hold crucial evidence / proof then they should really be made to handover the password.

Source : idownloadblog.
Read more :http://www.idownloadblog.com/2014/10/31/us-court-passcode-protected-law/

[youyouxue]

I am from SF, so I can speak on this a little.

It is important to know that this is most likely going to be appealed, as a federal court is still below the Supreme Court, which has heard many cases regarding Fifth Amendment rights (against self-incrimination). For example, recently the Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot force criminals to decrypt a hard drive, as that would be possibly incriminating themselves. This is not the same in England. If you refuse to decrypt a hard drive, it is an offense, regardless of the contents of the hard drive.

You said:

"What confuses me is if a person is guilty of being a criminal and a phone could hold crucial evidence / proof then they should really be made to handover the password."

No one is guilty of being a criminal. All suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. If you understand this key, cornerstone concept of American justice, then it would make more sense. How do you know the phone holds crucial evidence? The phone belongs to someone that is innocent! This is why detectives in America work so hard to go off of tangible evidence instead of going after phone data.

Although it does delay investigations to not have the password, this protects everyday people from intrusions from over zealous police. Simple as that. Being forced to decrypt your phone when you're innocent can be embarassing, humiliating, and troubling. I wouldn't want someone looking through my texts or phone calls. A California Highway Patrol officer (CHP) - the equivalent of state police - recently admitted to downloading nude photos of a suspect's phone after he tricked her into unlocking the phone for her. This is what we are being protected against!

[Anonymous]

Sorry I didn't put that across very well.

What I mean if someone if found guilty of a crime / criminal activity.

[Beenherebefore]

If somebody has already been found guilty then the need for evidence to that crime is no longer required.

@youyouxue The situation in this country is similar, innocent until found guilty in a court of law but in this country the Police assume you are guilty once the formal arrest is made. Sometimes the de-arrest procedure is not carried out for weeks and occasionally months.

[Bambino]

---

@Beenherebefore wrote:

If somebody has already been found guilty then the need for evidence to that crime is no longer required.

@youyouxue The situation in this country is similar, innocent until found guilty in a court of law but in this country the Police assume you are guilty once the formal arrest is made. Sometimes the de-arrest procedure is not carried out for weeks and occasionally months.

---

@Beenherebefore Is that why they changed the way people are cautioned here? I believe they've taken away the right to remain silent here, (in the US called the Miranda law).

[Beenherebefore]

@Bambino ......slightly heavy going references but, no we still have the right to silence. The usual response to questioning is "No Comment".

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/adverse_inferences/#a01a

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/adverse_inferences/#a04

[Beenherebefore]

Just to add, Police must caution you before starting the questioning procedure using very precisely the following statement :

"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

So if you remain silent then subsequently something you bring up in court in your defence may not be  permitted as evidence........Catch 22 !!

[Anonymous]

Beenherebefore said "If somebody has already been found guilty then the need for evidence to that crime is no longer required."

True but one crime sometimes leads to others hence why I would have thought data in the phone may be crucial. Hence still wanting to gain access.

[Bambino]

@Beenherebefore That caution seems different to what happens in the US. Each state has it's own version, but the basic gist is, and I quote:

"You have the right to remain silent when questioned.

Anything you say or do may be used against you in a court of law.

You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.

If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning, if you wish.

If you decide to answer any questions now, without an attorney present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.

Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?"

[Beenherebefore]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

True but one crime sometimes leads to others hence why I would have thought data in the phone may be crucial. Hence still wanting to gain access.

---

The legal process does not function like that......it may have done at some time in the past but not now.

The Police can't go "phishing" for evidence they think might be there.