Court Denies Protection For iPhone Passcode

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
For those of you that thought that your passcode was enough to keep the contents of your phone safe from the prying eyes of the authorities, this court ruling out of Florida will make you think twice.

“Providing the passcode does not ‘betray any knowledge [Stahl] may have about the circumstances of the offenses’ for which he is charged,” Judge Anthony Black said, writing for the three-judge panel. “Thus, ‘compelling a suspect to make a nonfactual statement that facilitates the production of evidence’ for which the state has otherwise obtained a warrant based upon evidence independent of the accused’s statements linking the accused to the crime does not offend the privilege.”
 

/usr/sbin

Successfully Trolled by Megalith
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
3,927
"I haven't typed it in for such a long time I forgot it." Honestly that would be true too, I pick random meaningless shit for passcodes and after a few weeks has passed since a change I tend to forget them.
 

westrock2000

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
9,169
I thought "saying" something was protected, but providing finger prints or a key was not protected under 5th Amendment. Like if you have a lock box, they can force you to produce a key. But if it has a combination they can't force you to say the combination.
 

westrock2000

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
9,169
So in other words, if you have a finger print sensor, you might want to use the midsection of your fingers so that you don't have a "working" finger print unlock. Because they can force you to put your finger on the sensor.
 

Azphira

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 18, 2003
Messages
1,823
Forgetting what effects means in the 4th, like they forget what infringed means in the 2nd.
 

dawnn

n00b
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
42
This wont hold up. 4th amendment clearly states - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. So it will come down to scope. So lets say they get a warrant to search your house, they can only reasonably search for what is specified in the warrant. So if they think you stole a car and they come search your garage for the car but also open all of your locked document containers in the house and find picture of your grow operation. They cant charge you for the grow operation as that would violate the scope of the warrant as it is not reasonable that stolen car could be in those containers. Scope will be the key. My argument against giving my passcode up would be that the scope of the search is unreasonable and would give them access beyond what they are potentially looking for. So they want to go through all of my pictures to find evidence, but they also go through my texts, email, phone calls, saved website, and financial information ect. It is far to invasive and I think it will get overturned by the higher courts.
 

ChoGGi

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 7, 2005
Messages
1,480
Well it sounds like they have a witness happy to testify (and video evidence) that he has naughty pictures on his phone.
That sounds like probable cause to me, so I'm pretty sure this is a Fifth Amendment issue (like the article says). That and reading the PDF from the article, nobody seems to be arguing against the warrant issued?
 

Dead Parrot

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
2,761
"Nonfactual statement"? Really? Sounds like the judges are telling the suspect to provide a false pass code to me. 10 non factual statements and the point may be moot.
 

umeng2002

Gawd
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
923
Libertarian-ish Scalia is gone. They are pre-loading in anticipation of a new judge in their favor.
That's why it's good that Trump won. No conservative judge would go against that thinking. The other thing too is that this exact thing has already been decided by the Supreme Court.
 

Jagger100

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
7,582
That's why it's good that Trump won. No conservative judge would go against that thinking. The other thing too is that this exact thing has already been decided by the Supreme Court.
Paleo-con like Scalia, no. Neo-con like Roberts, pretty sure he would. Trump's pick will be a wildcard. Hope his pick isn't a compromise item for him. Hillary's pick for 100% would approve this.
 

swimming pool

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
198
My pass code is 1. No? Oops try 2, I'm sure of it. Oh, my bad. 3. Hmmm... Didn't work? It's definitely 4. Wait, I mean 5. No? I don't get it, this is crazy! Here's my number: 6...
 

dawnn

n00b
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
42
Well it sounds like they have a witness happy to testify (and video evidence) that he has naughty pictures on his phone.
That sounds like probable cause to me, so I'm pretty sure this is a Fifth Amendment issue (like the article says). That and reading the PDF from the article, nobody seems to be arguing against the warrant issued?
I understand the right to not self incriminate like they are explaining. The difference is that the laws need to catch up the idea of digital documents in such a way that it doesn't violate the scope of a warrant. With that information they have full reign over all of your documents on your phone and not just the documents in question. There needs to be some better legislation in regards to digital documents on phones and personal devices. What if they see something else on his phone? Can they hit him for that as well and consider it "Plain Sight"? It sets you up for a very slippery slope with regards searching and the documents discovered in said search. I know there is already some case law but I am to lazy to look for it...
 

Darunion

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
4,011
My pass code is 1. No? Oops try 2, I'm sure of it. Oh, my bad. 3. Hmmm... Didn't work? It's definitely 4. Wait, I mean 5. No? I don't get it, this is crazy! Here's my number: 6...
That is actually how I log into most websites anymore. All the different passwords and different rules. For my phone in court I would probably 'accidentally' trigger the secure wipe after too many attempts.
 

DocSavage

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 18, 2002
Messages
2,409
That is actually how I log into most websites anymore. All the different passwords and different rules. For my phone in court I would probably 'accidentally' trigger the secure wipe after too many attempts.
I now have a password app on my phone, but until then, I did the same thing on websites. The risk is that a website could remember your password attempts and have a nice little database of passwords you likely use on other websites.
 

Darunion

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
4,011
I now have a password app on my phone, but until then, I did the same thing on websites. The risk is that a website could remember your password attempts and have a nice little database of passwords you likely use on other websites.
Yes I have always had a serious problem with that. The last one that did that to me said "you cannot use a password you have used in the last year". That is WAY too many to keep stored.
 

pxc

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 22, 2000
Messages
33,064
This is how 4th amendment rights getting nibbled away over the past several decades have added up to a significant loss. A locked phone today is the digital equivalent of a locked safe, but digital rights have been weakened by overly broad and primitive laws carried over and expanded to quickly evolving modern devices.
 

DocSavage

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 18, 2002
Messages
2,409
This is how 4th amendment rights getting nibbled away over the past several decades have added up to a significant loss. A locked phone today is the digital equivalent of a locked safe, but digital rights have been weakened by overly broad and primitive laws carried over and expanded to quickly evolving modern devices.
The fourth amendment, from what I can tell, doesn't protect you whatsoever from warrants: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment
 

pxc

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 22, 2000
Messages
33,064
The fourth amendment, from what I can tell, doesn't protect you whatsoever from warrants: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment
Yes, but warrants are not completely open-ended. A locked safe, depending on the method (combination vs lock and key have weirdly separate issues), may require a specific additional warrant. The issue here is due process. By giving a blanket OK to treat phones as a lower standard lock and key type of protection, it's degrading privacy rights.
 

ChoGGi

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 7, 2005
Messages
1,480
Oh I agree with you along the lines of warrants for personal data devices need to be limited in scope, but I don't know what the warrant looks like and nobody on the defence seems to be complaining about it (yet).
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
you have a right to not incriminate yourself, which means you don't have to provide any passwords, learn your rights
And the court here is saying that forcing the man to unlock the phone is neither testimony, nor is it self incrimination.

As far as I am concerned, this is a proper use of the law, it's the way things should go. This fucking pedo needs to see the wrong side of a jail cell door.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
I understand the right to not self incriminate like they are explaining. The difference is that the laws need to catch up the idea of digital documents in such a way that it doesn't violate the scope of a warrant. With that information they have full reign over all of your documents on your phone and not just the documents in question. There needs to be some better legislation in regards to digital documents on phones and personal devices. What if they see something else on his phone? Can they hit him for that as well and consider it "Plain Sight"? It sets you up for a very slippery slope with regards searching and the documents discovered in said search. I know there is already some case law but I am to lazy to look for it...

Yes, if they find something else, as in evidence of other crimes, while legally investigating this known offense, they can indeed prosecute him for the newly discovered offenses.

It's no different than a cop pulling you over for a busted tail light and spotting a sawed off shotgun in your back seat.

Or of cops responding to a domestic disturbance call, deciding to arrest some dude and finding two ounces of hash in his pocket.

In fact, the Intelligence Services can be monitoring foreign communications, let's say they are listening in on a phone call from the Spanish Embassy in Colombia, and a guy calls them and is talking about selling them tech data on a new American Submarine. The NSA will turn the information over to the FBI for investigation and it's would probably lead to the man's arrest and conviction. Change the crime from espionage to a Law Enforcement offense, say ... drug enforcement, same deal really.
 

Darunion

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
4,011
And the court here is saying that forcing the man to unlock the phone is neither testimony, nor is it self incrimination.

As far as I am concerned, this is a proper use of the law, it's the way things should go. This fucking pedo needs to see the wrong side of a jail cell door.
Article seems to say he is in trouble for voyeurism (he took an upskirt photo of a woman in the store). Let us not allow emotion to justify any legal decisions :) I mean he really is only looking at maximum 2years anyways. So, not a pedo, pervert maybe...
 

ChoGGi

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 7, 2005
Messages
1,480
As far as I am concerned, this is a proper use of the law, it's the way things should go. This fucking pedo needs to see the wrong side of a jail cell door.
Alleged voyeur of an adult woman, whipping out the pedo card is pretty interesting. I'm not saying he doesn't sound guilty, but I would like to see this video tape beforehand.

Edit: meh too slow

I mean he really is only looking at maximum 2years anyways. So, not a pedo, pervert maybe...
I'm not familiar with Florida law, does he get a sex offender badge after his time?
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
Yes, but warrants are not completely open-ended. A locked safe, depending on the method (combination vs lock and key have weirdly separate issues), may require a specific additional warrant. The issue here is due process. By giving a blanket OK to treat phones as a lower standard lock and key type of protection, it's degrading privacy rights.
Not everything is black and white. It's one thing to got for a warrant on a phone when the device itself was used in commission of the crime. It's another thing entirely to ask for a search warrant of a phone hoping it might have evidence related to a crime that the phone may never have been a part of.
 

DocSavage

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 18, 2002
Messages
2,409
And the court here is saying that forcing the man to unlock the phone is neither testimony, nor is it self incrimination.

As far as I am concerned, this is a proper use of the law, it's the way things should go. This fucking pedo needs to see the wrong side of a jail cell door.
The last paragraph of the article does make a certain sense: "Black concluded, “Unquestionably, the State established, with reasonable particularity, its knowledge of the existence of the passcode, Stahl’s control or possession of the passcode, and the self-authenticating nature of the passcode. This is a case of surrender and not testimony.”
 

Darunion

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
4,011
Alleged voyeur of an adult woman, whipping out the pedo card is pretty interesting. I'm not saying he doesn't sound guilty, but I would like to see this video tape beforehand.

Edit: meh too slow


I'm not familiar with Florida law, does he get a sex offender badge after his time?
muahahaha!!! :p

I am not either, I just did a small search for classifications and penalties (of course it depends on many factors still unknown). He might be looking at a sex offender, in which case I don't blame him for fighting so hard against this.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
Alleged voyeur of an adult woman, whipping out the pedo card is pretty interesting. I'm not saying he doesn't sound guilty, but I would like to see this video tape beforehand.

Edit: meh too slow


I'm not familiar with Florida law, does he get a sex offender badge after his time?
I relent, I did use the term pedo to increase the impact of the statement. Pervert is more appropriate term. But understand, although incorrect, it serves it' purpose, to communicate that this individual is deserving of what he gets if the charges are supported by the evidence.
 

DocSavage

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 18, 2002
Messages
2,409
I relent, I did use the term pedo to increase the impact of the statement. Pervert is more appropriate term. But understand, although incorrect, it serves it' purpose, to communicate that this individual is deserving of what he gets if the charges are supported by the evidence.
I can't imagine the charges for an upskirt photo could be all that horrible. Unless he's been doing this for quite some time and has a lot of evidence on that phone.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
I can't imagine the charges for an upskirt photo could be all that horrible. Unless he's been doing this for quite some time and has a lot of evidence on that phone.
The beating he could have been given, had the right kind of man been present, could have made the entire issue moot heh?
 

sir-gold

Gawd
Joined
Jan 19, 2006
Messages
931
I thought "saying" something was protected, but providing finger prints or a key was not protected under 5th Amendment. Like if you have a lock box, they can force you to produce a key. But if it has a combination they can't force you to say the combination.
This right here is where it gets really evil.

If they can legally force you to produce the key, then they must be able to legally force you to identify the correct key (on a ring of keys for example).

They are taking it one step further and claiming they can force you to identify the single correct key (aka passcode) on the worlds biggest keyring (that contains every possible key).
 

dawnn

n00b
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
42
Yes, if they find something else, as in evidence of other crimes, while legally investigating this known offense, they can indeed prosecute him for the newly discovered offenses.

It's no different than a cop pulling you over for a busted tail light and spotting a sawed off shotgun in your back seat.

Or of cops responding to a domestic disturbance call, deciding to arrest some dude and finding two ounces of hash in his pocket.

In fact, the Intelligence Services can be monitoring foreign communications, let's say they are listening in on a phone call from the Spanish Embassy in Colombia, and a guy calls them and is talking about selling them tech data on a new American Submarine. The NSA will turn the information over to the FBI for investigation and it's would probably lead to the man's arrest and conviction. Change the crime from espionage to a Law Enforcement offense, say ... drug enforcement, same deal really.
See that is different than what I am saying. You are talking about a legal search as a result of an arrest and plain sight. What I am mean to say is that when I give someone a passcode to my phone, they get access to my bank account, my email, all my communication, and almost everything related to my social life. That is a very wide scope in relation to one warrant. That is something you might even need to get several warrants over a long period to obtain normally as you would need probable cause for each item. We give up so many of our rights willingly now days, think of the Patriot Act as an example, that I hope we take step back some day and look at what we have left and realize it needs to change. While I totally agree that if this guy took upskirts of a woman and is a habitual offender then he needs to be in jail or some kind of punishment. I do not agree that we should let a judge set this kind of precedent for the future simply to obtain photos. What I think should happen is they should hook his phone up to a Cellebrite or something and just take the pictures. I would be ok with that.
 

westrock2000

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
9,169
This right here is where it gets really evil.

If they can legally force you to produce the key, then they must be able to legally force you to identify the correct key (on a ring of keys for example).

They are taking it one step further and claiming they can force you to identify the single correct key (aka passcode) on the worlds biggest keyring (that contains every possible key).
You might be able to argue that one successfully. To pick a right key would require access to knowledge in your head (you would have to "think" about it). I believe concept that has been successfully defended.
 

buhbuhfet

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
451
And the court here is saying that forcing the man to unlock the phone is neither testimony, nor is it self incrimination.

As far as I am concerned, this is a proper use of the law, it's the way things should go. This fucking pedo needs to see the wrong side of a jail cell door.
they can't force you to do anything, of course they will try, but if you know your rights you will give them nothing, also he is innocent until proven guilty in the court of law so stop calling him a pedo
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
21,399
I relent, I did use the term pedo to increase the impact of the statement. Pervert is more appropriate term. But understand, although incorrect, it serves it' purpose, to communicate that this individual is deserving of what he gets if the charges are supported by the evidence.
The ends justify the means? That's a dangerous line of thinking.
 
Top