In what way is an electronic device, an automobile or a domicile different? The same? I’m hearing points of view that treat these three objects differently. But I don’t agree. They are all personal property that may contain evidence of criminal activity and all but for the electronic device, have procedures for lawful search and seizure. A password, a house key and a car key all protect these objects, but again, the last two must be used to provide access to law enforcement during a lawful search. There is nothing inherent in a password that justifies an exception.

 

In what way is an electronic device, an automobile or a domicile different? The same? I’m hearing points of view that treat these three objects differently. But I don’t agree. They are all personal property that may contain evidence of criminal activity and all but for the electronic device, have procedures for lawful search and seizure. A password, a house key and a car key all protect these objects, but again, the last two must be used to provide access to law enforcement during a lawful search. There is nothing inherent in a password that justifies an exception.

Yes there is. A password in your memory is a private thought.

 

Any judge will tell you that verbal is deniable but once you put it in writing, whether on paper or electronically, it becomes indelible and undeniable proof. They cannot serve a search warrant on your brain but your communication electronics are no different than a safe or safe deposit box. If they find it they will open it. But you cannot be required to provide the key.

 

Cops put GPS tracker on man’s car, charge him with theft for removing it

They can charge you with anything they want to. Getting a Grand Jury to give a True Bill to proceed with Court is another thing. Then convincing a jury of your peers in open court is quite another. Piling up charges is a typical prosecutorial tactic and one of the "bargaining chips" for plea bargaining to a lesser offense to avoid a jury trial. That way the State saves money and the cops save face. At least that is how it works in the Georgia State Superior Court.

 

Any judge will tell you that verbal is deniable but once you put it in writing, whether on paper or electronically, it becomes indelible and undeniable proof. They cannot serve a search warrant on your brain but your communication electronics are no different than a safe or safe deposit box. If they find it they will open it. But you cannot be required to provide the key.

Exactly, in the vast majority of cases there will be alternative means to wanted information.

The Only Secure Password Is the One You Can’t Remember

 

your communication electronics are no different than a safe or safe deposit box. If they find it they will open it. But you cannot be required to provide the key.

However, the courts CAN compel you to use the key. You may not have to give it to them. But you need to provide access.

 

the courts CAN compel you to use the key

They can try to and I have heard of people locked up for failing to divulge passwords. Ultimately on appeal to a higher court their right to compel you is denied. At your great expense in both time incarcerated awaiting appeal and huge lawyer bills. At least in the few cases I have heard of. I am not a legal scholar and thankfully have not been in such a predicament. Just a few miles away from me is the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center which is also attended by State, County, and Local authorities. I have known several both students and instructors there. One of their biggies for training is computer/electronic devices forensics. Both accessing data and maintaining the chain of custody for the data obtained.

 

They can try to and I have heard of people locked up for failing to divulge passwords. Ultimately on appeal to a higher court their right to compel you is denied. At your great expense in both time incarcerated awaiting appeal and huge lawyer bills. At least in the few cases I have heard of. I am not a legal scholar and thankfully have not been in such a predicament. Just a few miles away from me is the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center which is also attended by State, County, and Local authorities. I have known several both students and instructors there. One of their biggies for training is computer/electronic devices forensics. Both accessing data and maintaining the chain of custody for the data obtained.

Let’s forget about passwords. And talk about a safe deposit box. The courts can compel access to the box with a warrant. Irregardless of the security method, access cannot be refused. To make an exception for a password is contraindicated as it would not be in compliance with existing law.

 

Let’s forget about passwords. And talk about a safe deposit box. The courts can compel access to the box with a warrant. Irregardless of the security method, access cannot be refused. To make an exception for a password is contraindicated as it would not be in compliance with existing law.

The coppers are welcome to take a carbide drill bit to my phone to get the data out. Assuming a warrant, of course.

 

Let’s forget about passwords. And talk about a safe deposit box. The courts can compel access to the box with a warrant. Irregardless of the security method, access cannot be refused. To make an exception for a password is contraindicated as it would not be in compliance with existing law.

I'm not talking about a safe deposit box and a warrant to open it. The government doesn't need your mental key to open (jackhammers, drills, and explosives) the box. The subject here is a password stored only in a humans memory.

Fifth Amendment privileges to refuse to answer questions shouldn't be rick rolled that easily.

 

The coppers are welcome to take a carbide drill bit to my phone to get the data out. Assuming a warrant, of course.

It's when the coppers threaten to take a carbide drill bit to a kneecap that I worry about.

The Fifth Amendment privilege prohibits the government from coercing a confession or forcing a suspect to lead police to incriminating evidence. We argue that unlocking and decrypting a smartphone or computer is the modern equivalent of these forms of self-incrimination.

 

Yes, they can obtain a warrant for the contents of anything, but they cannot compel the owner to open it the same as a defendant refusing to open the door for a search warrant. They can and will attempt to open it themselves. Recently there was a case in Newport RI involving a young man and well-known actor accused of plying him with drink and molesting him. Brought primarily by the young man's mother who to protect the son went into his phone and deleted all of his childish dumbshit text messages thereby destroying the chain of evidence causing the case to be ultimately dismissed. Along with threats of arrest and prosecution for tampering with evidence. Electronic evidence works both ways, helps or hurts a case, but tampering with evidence is even worse than merely saying I forgot the password.

 

Your contention that a password is different than a key is where I strongly disagree with you! They are one and the same and the specious argument that one is held in the mind merits special consideration is an argument based on an unsupportable interpretation rather than a legal definition. It is an example of where specific law which considers technological developments rather than shoehorning an interpretation into where it doesn’t apply, must be written.

IMHO, anyone trying to state that passwords are due special protection since they may be maintained “in the mind” should promptly be taught the error of their thinking.

And just because someone may refuse to open the door for a search warrant, does not imply that there are no consequences for doing so and, more importantly, does not nullify the court order for access. I get a traffic ticket. I refuse to pay it. Does the State simply say, “Ok... forget it...”?

 

There are always consequences to any action and I would not stand in front of the door if they want to serve the search warrant because the door will not stop them even if I don't open it for them. Evidentiary laws concerning search warrants for physical objects do not cover intellectual objects and as the PA State Supreme Court ruled you are immune under the 5th amendment from incriminating yourself, therefore, the password is not obtainable. Plain and simple. That does not mean they will not lock you up, coerce you, wheedle you, threaten you and do every sneaky thing they can think of to get you to divulge it. But you don't have to do it.

 

[

Your contention that a password is different than a key is where I strongly disagree with you! They are one and the same and the specious argument that one is held in the mind merits special consideration is an argument based on an unsupportable interpretation rather than a legal definition. It is an example of where specific law which considers technological developments rather than shoehorning an interpretation into where it doesn’t apply, must be written.

IMHO, anyone trying to state that passwords are due special protection since they may be maintained “in the mind” should promptly be taught the error of their thinking.

And just because someone may refuse to open the door for a search warrant, does not imply that there are no consequences for doing so and, more importantly, does not nullify the court order for access. I get a traffic ticket. I refuse to pay it. Does the State simply say, “Ok... forget it...”?

A post filled with strawman that missed the point.

Most courts and interpretations of the Fifth Amendment say passwords are due special protection since they may be maintained “in the mind”. You're not disagreeing with the people on this thread, your disagreement is with the rights viewed as sacred in the courts around this country.

https://www.technologylawdispatch.c...roduction-of-iphone-passcode-itunes-password/

After surveying prior cases involving passwords, the Court of Appeal concluded that “revealing one’s password requires more than just a physical act; instead, it probes into the contents of an individual’s mind and therefore implicates the Fifth Amendment.” As the court explained, the “very act of revealing a password asserts a fact: that the defendant knows the password,” and so being forced to produce a password is testimonial. Thus, the Fourth District ruled that production of the iPhone passcode or iTunes password would violate the Fifth Amendment.

 

[

A post filled with strawman that missed the point.

Most courts and interpretations of the Fifth Amendment say passwords are due special protection since they may be maintained “in the mind”. You're not disagreeing with the people on this thread, your disagreement is the the rights viewed as sacred in the courts around this country.

That’s quite alright. I did not mean to imply that I disagreed with the esteemed AAC members participating in the thread.

I disagree with any interpretation which gives a password special protection. Nsaspook, SamR or the US Supreme Court. Particularly the latter is wrong. It is what I alluded to before. The law must be updated for modern technology.

 

That’s quite alright. I did not mean to imply that I disagreed with the esteemed AAC members participating in the thread.

I disagree with any interpretation which gives a password special protection. Nsaspook, SamR or the US Supreme Court. Particularly the latter is wrong. It is what I alluded to before. The law must be updated for modern technology.

I think that's a very very dangerous idea for future privacy and freedom in the interconnected digital age of the future. Update is a Euphemism for eliminate. When everything is digital the only privacy for a individual will be the encryption of private thoughts or keeping those thoughts to just themselves. Thank goodness we still have Fifth Amendment rights here.

Just look at China for what a possible total surveillance digital society might look like with no password special protection.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/02/china-surveillance/552203/

https://www.theage.com.au/national/...to-australian-government-20191122-p53d1l.html

 

Do you remember when they went to arrest Dot Com in New Zealand? In his Mega House, he had built an impenetrable "Safe Room". It took a few days to cajole him out of it, much to the displeasure of the local constabulary. Times and technology change but there will always be lawyers arguing. My neighbor was our County Attorney and he used the tell the tale about God and Satan getting into a huge dispute over where the boundary was between Heaven and Hell. Finally, God got so irate he yelled at Satan "I'm gonna sue you!" Satan just laughed and said, "Where are you going to find a Lawyer since I have all of them?"

 

Do you remember when they went to arrest Dot Com in New Zealand? In his Mega House, he had built an impenetrable "Safe Room". It took a few days to cajole him out of it, much to the displeasure of the local constabulary. Times and technology change but there will always be lawyers arguing. My neighbor was our County Attorney and he used the tell the tale about God and Satan getting into a huge dispute over where the boundary was between Heaven and Hell. Finally, God got so irate he yelled at Satan "I'm gonna sue you!" Satan just laughed and said, "Where are you going to find a Lawyer since I have all of them?"

Ah, lawyer jokes. Why do lawyers wear neckties?

Spoiler

"To keep their foreskin in place........."]

kv

 

Ah, lawyer jokes. Why do lawyers were neckties?

Spoiler

"To keep their foreskin in place........."]

kv

They are worth every penny you spend for a good one.