Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-27-2014, 09:28 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is online now
Entangled
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,474

Is the FBI right in decrying the stronger encryption about to come to smartphones?


The FBI (and various police forces) have strongly condemned plans for both Apple iPhones and those coming from Google to soon be much more resistant to 'cracking'. Here's one of many articles of relevance.

Personally, I say good for Apple and Google (and everyone else who will surely follow). If police have reason to need to inspect a phone, they can get a warrant and compel the owner to open it for them. But, to continue to give law enforcement a potential carte blanche to remotely access and manipulate phones without the user's knowledge is too ripe for abuse to remain unchallenged.

To listen to the FBI and police officials talk, you'd think (and they actually say) that only pedophiles and criminals want such security. The linked article above provides some rather hysterical/hyperbolic quotes by law enforcement officials in this regard. Worth a read.

Even though this is GD, I do have a question, though. Will this new generation of more strongly encrypted phones be resistant to the Stingray tracking system (and related programs)? I hope so.
  #2  
Old 09-27-2014, 09:36 PM
Stringbean is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 2,829
Of course the FBI is absolutely wrong.

When law enforcement tries to tell you that a warrant is too much hassle to solving crimes they are discharging high volumes of horse manure from their mouth. And also stomping on the Constitution.
  #3  
Old 09-27-2014, 09:38 PM
Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,234
Man, it's like people don't trust the FBI for some reason.
  #4  
Old 09-27-2014, 09:45 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is online now
Entangled
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,474
Does the FBI really expect their rather shrill warnings to change anything?

In terms of warrants, btw, their claim seems to be that 'what good is a warrant if the phone is uncrackable?' But, wouldn't the owner be compelled to give the key/password by the same warrant?

Last edited by KarlGauss; 09-27-2014 at 09:46 PM.
  #5  
Old 09-27-2014, 10:36 PM
Odesio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 11,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
In terms of warrants, btw, their claim seems to be that 'what good is a warrant if the phone is uncrackable?' But, wouldn't the owner be compelled to give the key/password by the same warrant?
That's a good question. And admission that one knew the combination would seem to be a form of self-incrimination.
  #6  
Old 09-27-2014, 11:23 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,736
There have been several threads which demonstrate a mixed judicial record in compelling someone to reveal their passwords to obtain evidence.

I think there is a real legitimate law enforcement concern relating to placing a lot of information on a suspect's phone as basically being unobtainable. However, I think it is pretty much inevitable that this is the future of this kind of technology, and there's pretty much nothing that can be done about it.
  #7  
Old 09-28-2014, 01:29 AM
The Joker and the Thief is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 843
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
Even though this is GD, I do have a question, though. Will this new generation of more strongly encrypted phones be resistant to the Stingray tracking system (and related programs)? I hope so.
From what I have read, the new OS's will not be at all resistant to such software, and making them resistant would require fundamentally changing the way cellular networks operate. The Stingray device works by simulating a cell tower, and extracting technical information from the phone. Strong crypto primarily protects user generated data, which the Stingray device can't get at even with unencrypted phones.
  #8  
Old 09-28-2014, 01:52 AM
Grumman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,508
So, is the FBI stupid enough to believe that they are the only ones capable of exploiting security vulnerabilities, or do they just not care as long as it's not the government's ox being gored? Actively advocating that the American people should be made more vulnerable to crime just in case they want to exploit the same weakness is quite obnoxious.
  #9  
Old 09-28-2014, 05:04 AM
Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,271
Yes, they're right to decry it. Google and Apple are basically reaching out to those who have something to hide from the law and offering their assistance.
  #10  
Old 09-28-2014, 07:53 AM
Ethilrist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Saint Paul
Posts: 26,960
Darn that whole "due process" business. Who thought that was a good idea?
  #11  
Old 09-28-2014, 08:11 AM
theR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
Yes, they're right to decry it. Google and Apple are basically reaching out to those who have something to hide from the law and offering their assistance.
Yes, you're absolutely right. We should also decry all those companies that provide walls for people's homes since they can hide crimes. The purported reason of privacy is clearly bullshit and walls are actually made for those who have something to hide from the law.

Once upon a time, authorities also decried automobiles since they were instruments of crime and so much more technologically advanced than the horse and buggy.
  #12  
Old 09-28-2014, 08:26 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethilrist View Post
Darn that whole "due process" business. Who thought that was a good idea?
This is a disingenuous criticism. Even with due process, judges, warrants, and everything else you can imagine, the information on the phones could be beyond retrieval. That's the problem.
  #13  
Old 09-28-2014, 08:29 AM
Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethilrist View Post
Darn that whole "due process" business. Who thought that was a good idea?
This issue is about the police being unable to obtain information despite having a warrant, it's not a due process issue. I suspect the solution will be to force the manufacturers to reduce or remove the encryption by prosecuting them for failing to comply with warrants that oblige them to access the data on their phones.

This technology mainly exists to thwart law enforcement, and it's foolish to pretend otherwise. Whether that's an acceptable use of technology is a major issue, and certainly there's reason to want it in a repressive regime. But there's no need for in in western countries. Unless anyone can show me that people have been convicted of crimes they didn't commit due to phone manufacturers releasing their data.

Also, it's worth noting that none of this applies to a user choosing to, for example, encrypt their data and store it on an external hard drive, then "forgetting" the password if anyone asks for it. It is about information being encrypted by default.
  #14  
Old 09-28-2014, 08:33 AM
Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by theR View Post
Yes, you're absolutely right. We should also decry all those companies that provide walls for people's homes since they can hide crimes. The purported reason of privacy is clearly bullshit and walls are actually made for those who have something to hide from the law.
One doesn't have a right to privacy in the face of a warrant. Walls that prevent law enforcement from entering even with a warrant, and a lock on the door that the company who made it couldn't bypass, would be a better analogy. And probably not something that would be sensible to allow.
  #15  
Old 09-28-2014, 08:33 AM
Ethilrist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Saint Paul
Posts: 26,960
Don't we already have laws on the books for dealing with people who won't provide information to the police?
  #16  
Old 09-28-2014, 08:34 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
In terms of warrants, btw, their claim seems to be that 'what good is a warrant if the phone is uncrackable?' But, wouldn't the owner be compelled to give the key/password by the same warrant?
Yes, but then the owner knows there's a warrant for the info on their phone.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 09-28-2014 at 08:34 AM.
  #17  
Old 09-28-2014, 08:37 AM
brickbacon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 4,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
This issue is about the police being unable to obtain information despite having a warrant, it's not a due process issue. I suspect the solution will be to force the manufacturers to reduce or remove the encryption by prosecuting them for failing to comply with warrants that oblige them to access the data on their phones.

This technology mainly exists to thwart law enforcement, and it's foolish to pretend otherwise. Whether that's an acceptable use of technology is a major issue, and certainly there's reason to want it in a repressive regime. But there's no need for in in western countries. Unless anyone can show me that people have been convicted of crimes they didn't commit due to phone manufacturers releasing their data.

Also, it's worth noting that none of this applies to a user choosing to, for example, encrypt their data and store it on an external hard drive, then "forgetting" the password if anyone asks for it. It is about information being encrypted by default.
I agree. Additionally, what can the FBI do when someone just claims the phone isn't theirs, or that the don't know the password, or if the owner is dead? I just see how the benefits outweighs the costs generally speaking.
  #18  
Old 09-28-2014, 08:48 AM
PlainJain is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
Yes, they're right to decry it. Google and Apple are basically reaching out to those who have something to hide from the law and offering their assistance.
Watch set.
  #19  
Old 09-28-2014, 09:54 AM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Rural Western PA
Posts: 32,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlainJain View Post
Watch set.
+1. Hell, +2.
  #20  
Old 09-28-2014, 09:55 AM
treis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 9,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
If police have reason to need to inspect a phone, they can get a warrant and compel the owner to open it for them.
And if the owner is dead/missing?

I know this is a somewhat lame cite, but as a watch of the first 48 a lot of the time reading the victims last few messages leads to either witnesses or suspects.
  #21  
Old 09-28-2014, 09:55 AM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Rural Western PA
Posts: 32,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
Yes, they're right to decry it. Google and Apple are basically reaching out to those who have something to hide from the law and offering their assistance.
So, the fact that this protection can be used for legitimate reasons should be ignored so long as it can be manipulated by evil doers?
  #22  
Old 09-28-2014, 10:37 AM
Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
This technology mainly exists to thwart law enforcement, and it's foolish to pretend otherwise.
Perhaps if law enforcement hadn't spent the last few years circumventing the law and people's expectations of privacy, the public wouldn't be as interested in thwarting them.
  #23  
Old 09-28-2014, 11:07 AM
Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
Perhaps if law enforcement hadn't spent the last few years circumventing the law and people's expectations of privacy, the public wouldn't be as interested in thwarting them.
The problem is, these measures don't only apply to protect from improper searches, they prevent them even when there is a warrant. The question to me is whether that is an acceptable use of technology, and that applies regardless of whether the authorities have acted wrongly. Two wrongs don't make a right.

So, the simple question is, do you think it's an acceptable use of encryption technology to set up a device by default such that the police can't access it with a warrant?
  #24  
Old 09-28-2014, 12:07 PM
Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 13,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
This is a disingenuous criticism. Even with due process, judges, warrants, and everything else you can imagine, the information on the phones could be beyond retrieval. That's the problem.
Why, just the other day I saw a whole row of devices designed to make paper records irretrievable, even if the police had a warrant for them. Shame on Office Depot!
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.
  #25  
Old 09-28-2014, 12:20 PM
Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayaker View Post
So, the fact that this protection can be used for legitimate reasons should be ignored so long as it can be manipulated by evil doers?
Please provide a legitimate reason for making it impossible for the police to serve a warrant on your data.
  #26  
Old 09-28-2014, 12:34 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
Please provide a legitimate reason for making it impossible for the police to serve a warrant on your data.
How exactly does it make it impossible?
  #27  
Old 09-28-2014, 01:11 PM
Wolf333 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
Please provide a legitimate reason for making it impossible for the police to serve a warrant on your data.

They can still serve a warrant, just not to Apple.
  #28  
Old 09-28-2014, 01:23 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is online now
Entangled
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,474
Please clear something up for me.

If someone is served a warrant for his smartphone and its contents, can he seriously say "I don't know the password"? If he has been shown to have used that phone in the recent past (and thus knows the password), is that not contempt of court? And could he then not be imprisoned until he complies with the court order?
  #29  
Old 09-28-2014, 01:23 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
Yes, they're right to decry it. Google and Apple are basically reaching out to those who have something to hide from the law and offering their assistance.
No, they're exaggerating the "risks" and attempting to manipulate private entities that otherwise owe them nothing. Apple and Google are taking reasonable steps to help improve security across the board. The fact that those measures happen to make things tougher for law enforcement is incidental.
  #30  
Old 09-28-2014, 01:36 PM
Evil Captor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Lair
Posts: 20,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
Yes, they're right to decry it. Google and Apple are basically reaching out to those who have something to hide from the law and offering their assistance.
Yeah, because if you are not breaking the law, why would you need or want privacy? All decent people will willingly submit to the will of Big Brother, after all.

Last edited by Evil Captor; 09-28-2014 at 01:41 PM.
  #31  
Old 09-28-2014, 01:40 PM
Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
No, they're exaggerating the "risks" and attempting to manipulate private entities that otherwise owe them nothing.
Apple and Google are American businesses that would not exist without the legal protection and benefits that the American government provides them with.

They owe the government everything.
  #32  
Old 09-28-2014, 01:41 PM
Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Captor View Post
Yeah, because if you are not breaking the law, why would you need or want privacy? All decent people will willing submit to the will of Big Brother, after all.
You mock the question, but you don't answer it. If you're not breaking the law, why do you care if the government knows what you're up to?
  #33  
Old 09-28-2014, 01:43 PM
Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 13,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
Please clear something up for me.

If someone is served a warrant for his smartphone and its contents, can he seriously say "I don't know the password"? If he has been shown to have used that phone in the recent past (and thus knows the password), is that not contempt of court? And could he then not be imprisoned until he complies with the court order?
Of course -- but that's too much like work.

As noted earlier in the thread, these guys have no one to blame but their own damnfool selves for forfeiting the public's trust.
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.
  #34  
Old 09-28-2014, 01:47 PM
Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve MB View Post
As noted earlier in the thread, these guys have no one to blame but their own damnfool selves for forfeiting the public's trust.
No, they have the for-profit media to blame for looking at a traitor trying to expose national security secrets to our enemies, and seeing dollar signs in the sensational, alarmist headlines they could wring out of it.
  #35  
Old 09-28-2014, 01:48 PM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
Please clear something up for me.

If someone is served a warrant for his smartphone and its contents, can he seriously say "I don't know the password"? If he has been shown to have used that phone in the recent past (and thus knows the password), is that not contempt of court? And could he then not be imprisoned until he complies with the court order?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve MB View Post
Of course -- but that's too much like work.

As noted earlier in the thread, these guys have no one to blame but their own damnfool selves for forfeiting the public's trust.
I think KarlGauss's question is: is there any successful legal defense available for the phone owner? For example, can he say that requiring him to provide the password forces him to incriminate himself in violation of the Fifth Amendment?
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #36  
Old 09-28-2014, 01:49 PM
Ethilrist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Saint Paul
Posts: 26,960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
You mock the question, but you don't answer it. If you're not breaking the law, why do you care if the government knows what you're up to?
It's called privacy. The fact that it's legal means nobody needs to know what I'm doing.
  #37  
Old 09-28-2014, 01:50 PM
Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethilrist View Post
It's called privacy. The fact that it's legal means nobody needs to know what I'm doing.
So why are you so worried that the government will find out you're behaving legally?
  #38  
Old 09-28-2014, 01:55 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
So why are you so worried that the government will find out you're behaving legally?
There are legal behaviors that people might still legitimately like to keep private. It's no one's business what hygiene products I buy, or what health problems I have, etc.
  #39  
Old 09-28-2014, 01:55 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
So why are you so worried that the government will find out you're behaving legally?
Maybe my clients would like to be able to communicate with their lawyer without cops/prosecutors listening in, or otherwise gaining access to legally privileged conversations.
  #40  
Old 09-28-2014, 01:56 PM
Novelty Bobble is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 9,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
You mock the question, but you don't answer it. If you're not breaking the law, why do you care if the government knows what you're up to?
This is high-grade nonsense. A train of thought beloved of fascist states everywhere.

Are you seriously suggesting that you are happy for the government to know everything you do or say? Legal or otherwise?

Can I put a camera in your bedroom? I think you may be looking at a picture of me whilst wanking and though I can't really blame you I'd prefer to know for sure so that I can inform your S.O.
  #41  
Old 09-28-2014, 01:57 PM
Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 13,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
The FBI (and various police forces) have strongly condemned plans for both Apple iPhones and those coming from Google to soon be much more resistant to 'cracking'. Here's one of many articles of relevance.
From the article:
Quote:
FBI Director James B. Comey sharply criticized Apple and Google on Thursday for developing forms of smartphone encryption so secure that law enforcement officials cannot easily gain access to information stored on the devices even when they have valid search warrants.
(emphasis added)

Er, he isn't exactly helping his case with an implicit admission that, ah, sometimes they happen to have a valid search warrant, sometimes not, eh, whatevs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
No, they have the for-profit media to blame
You got a problem with profit? Sounds un-American to me! Better keep closer tabs on you, comrade....
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.
  #42  
Old 09-28-2014, 02:07 PM
Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
There are legal behaviors that people might still legitimately like to keep private. It's no one's business what hygiene products I buy, or what health problems I have, etc.
You already voluntarily divulge that information to for-profit corporations day in and day out. Why do you care if the government knows, and why do you think the government cares?

This is all circular; the argument boils down to "I don't want the government in my business because the government shouldn't be in my business, and they shouldn't be in my business because I don't want them in my business."
  #43  
Old 09-28-2014, 02:07 PM
Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 13,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
Apple and Google are taking reasonable steps to help improve security across the board. The fact that those measures happen to make things tougher for law enforcement is incidental.
Precisely. It boils down to irrefutable facts:

1. Electronic communication and commerce are essential to modern civilization.

2. Electronic communication and commerce needs strong security (considerably better than it has now) to prevent it from being crippled by cybercrooks.

3. The level of security required is incompatible with the routine mass surveillance upon which the Feds have become indolently dependent.

Q. E.D.
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.

Last edited by Steve MB; 09-28-2014 at 02:07 PM.
  #44  
Old 09-28-2014, 02:09 PM
Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble View Post
This is high-grade nonsense. A train of thought beloved of fascist states everywhere.
You insist on calling me names as if name-calling suffices for an argument. Do you think I'll be so shamed by a dirty name that I'll concede to being wrong?

Quote:
Are you seriously suggesting that you are happy for the government to know everything you do or say? Legal or otherwise?
If I'm not doing anything illegal, then the government has no reason to care what I'm doing in the first place, and they won't bother with me. If I'm doing something illegal, then I have no right to hide it from the government, and I deserve to be captured and punished for it.

Quote:
Can I put a camera in your bedroom?
I don't know. Can you?
  #45  
Old 09-28-2014, 02:10 PM
Ethilrist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Saint Paul
Posts: 26,960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
So why are you so worried that the government will find out you're behaving legally?
I'm not.
  #46  
Old 09-28-2014, 02:12 PM
Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 13,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
You already voluntarily divulge that information to for-profit corporations day in and day out.
Some do. Some opt out. I expect one of the following in your next post:

1. A link to the NSA, CIA, and FBI "opt-out" links.

2. An admission that you made a fool of yourself (again).

Quote:
the argument boils down to "I don't want the government in my business because the government shouldn't be in my business, and they shouldn't be in my business because I don't want them in my business."
Which is correct. I assert my rights for any reason, or no reason.
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.

Last edited by Steve MB; 09-28-2014 at 02:13 PM.
  #47  
Old 09-28-2014, 02:17 PM
Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 13,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
Do you think I'll be so shamed by a dirty name that I'll concede to being wrong?
I'm sure none of us expects you to be shamed under any circumstances whatsoever.

Quote:
If I'm doing something illegal, then I have no right to hide it from the government, and I deserve to be captured and punished for it.
Say, were you that guy yelling "They're in the attic!" at that performance of The Diary of Anne Frank?
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.
  #48  
Old 09-28-2014, 02:19 PM
Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve MB View Post
Some do. Some opt out.
Good luck opting out of having a bank account, being filmed by convenience store security cameras, or using the internet. I practically guarantee Walmart knows more about your vaunted and sacred "private" information than the government does.

Quote:
Which is correct. I assert my rights for any reason, or no reason.
So it's less a matter of any actual harm or need for protection, than it is a matter of being the entitled jackass shouting at the cashier about how I PAY YOUR SALARY and THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS RIGHT.

Last edited by Smapti; 09-28-2014 at 02:20 PM.
  #49  
Old 09-28-2014, 02:20 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is online now
Entangled
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
I think KarlGauss's question is: is there any successful legal defense available for the phone owner? For example, can he say that requiring him to provide the password forces him to incriminate himself in violation of the Fifth Amendment?
Well, I wish it had been my question (thanks).

Upthread, an allusion was made to case law about such situations. Can you help, please, Bricker, esq.

My opinion, as uninformed as it is, is that of course a warrant should compel a person to disclose his password (as well as to surrender the phone that uses it). If not, the warrant is a powerless tool and I will presume that would be unacceptable to legislators and the courts.

Regarding the specific defence of 'self incrimination', such a tactic obviously won't work to deny law enforcement entrance into your home if they had a warrant to search it. "Officers, don't come in because what you find here may incriminate me"? How are smartphones different?
  #50  
Old 09-28-2014, 02:21 PM
Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethilrist View Post
I'm not.
Then what are you worried about?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017