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/

[viridis]

Exactly, without just cause for wanting access, it simply is hit and hope, which innocent people are protected from.
Just because of guilt of one crime, is not implication of guilt of another. You lose that and the legal system both USA and UK have built on, collapses.

[youyouxue]

@Bambino We call it the Miranda warning

The version you gave is long and not exactly something a police officer would say to you in any state, just because they don't have to tell you that information. It usually is four pronged:

1) You have the right to remain silent (basically the same everywhere)

2) Anything you say can and will be used against you in court (same as well)

3) You have the right to an attorney (sometimes they say "during questioning")

4) If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided/appointed to you free of charge

Obviously as @Beenherebefore said, the Catch 22 is definitely that "it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court". When I watched a police show for Yorkshire Police, I was quite surprised to hear that warning. It means that you have to be your own solicitor, and make up your own legal excuse during questioning. Changing it would implicate yourself. Again, a flawed system that leans on the rights of victims and not of alleged criminals.

Back to the original topic: I would not lock my phone with my fingerprint. Just because of the fact that it has been proven that an image of your fingerprint can be used to unlock your phone (the police would have access to an image of your fingerprint if you've entered the country on a visa or have been in trouble before). I also set my phone to erase itself after 5 failed attempts at the code, this way there's no chance to recover the phone data without going to my computer first.

[Bambino]

@youyouxue I know. I'm American too. East Coast. NYC. I copied and pasted the whole warning to show the differentiation between the US and UK one, and as I said in my earlier post, each state has its own version of it. Back to the original topic now, if you wish. 

[Cleoriff]

Thank you @youyouxue and @Bambino  I read your posts and found these aspects of US law very interesting indeed

[jonsie]

Maybe it's just me but I thinks it's wrong to make statements or thoughts on a subject that we in the UK know little about in the US. It's a minefield which is why attorneys are paid big bucks.

I wouldn't expect the average American to know much about the legal process in the UK unless they have some experience of it or have lived here a while. Vice versa logic would seem to apply.

[Anonymous]

Every days a school day.

Without thoughts and opinions being shared we might as well be in a Police State.

Without debate one would never learn more on any subject.

[jonsie]

Just seemed an uneducated statement to me but if you wanted a reaction you got it from our American cousins. Nothing to do with having a police state more of putting a little more rationale into 'my thoughts'. We shouldn't comment just for the sake of it on another countries due process. I'm not trying to be clever or disrespectful but I can imagine the outrage here in Thailand if I was to air my thoughts about their legal system or their customs and traditions.

[Bambino]

---

@jonsie wrote:

Just seemed an uneducated statement to me but if you wanted a reaction you got it from our American cousins. Nothing to do with having a police state more of putting a little more rationale into 'my thoughts'. We shouldn't comment just for the sake of it on another countries due process. I'm not trying to be clever or disrespectful but I can imagine the outrage here in Thailand if I was to air my thoughts about their legal system or their customs and traditions.

---

My thoughts: I plead The Fifth Amendment 

[Anonymous]

My intention was to spark debate and my opinion is just that my opinion - by expressing my opinion it has led to a good interesting debate.

Without this debate myself and others probably wouldn't have known more indepth intricacies of US LAW.

I added the story as its linked to mobile phone technology and this could come to UK law.

A subject that many I'm sure even the armchair lawyers would agree that UK LAW is also complicated.

As you have visited Thailand several times I would have thought the locals knowing you wouldn't mind discussing customs and traditions and welcome Western interest.

[Beenherebefore]

---

@jonsie wrote:

I can imagine the outrage here in Thailand if I was to air my thoughts about their legal system or their customs and traditions.

---

Nothing that a couple of thousand baht wouldn't calm, eh jonsie ?