Something people seem to forget is that we don’t have an absolute right to privacy. Read the constitution (specifically the 4th amendment.) We have rights against ‘unreasonable search and seizure.’ If a warrant is properly issued for probable cause then you have no right to privacy and the government has every right to search your home, file cabinet, computer or iPhone. If you don’t like that you can lobby to change the constitution, but I don’t think you’ll have much luck. The government’s right and ability to perform searches is as necessary to society as the the constitution. That is why the founding fathers specifically wrote it in.
The real question is whether biometrics fall under the 5th amendment or not. I would argue that they do not. You can be compelled to give a fingerprint that is then matched to one at a crime scene, or have your picture taken, so in my mind this is no different. It ultimately is something the courts will need to decide. As usual, the law and the courts lag behind technology, but it has to be that way.
As an aside, the courts have ruled in the past that police do not need a warrant if they can reasonably conclude that there is a risk of evidence being lost or destroyed during the delay needed to get a warrant. (There have been cases where such evidence was disallowed later when the courts determined that it was feasible to get a warrant.) If forced biometric unlocking is not covered under the 5th amendment then it would seem to apply that police could force you to unlock your device before the biometric unlock expires.
"Something people seem to forget is that" the Constitution doesn't grant any rights. It's not a grant of rights from the government to the people, it's a grant of power and authority from the people to the government. Our rights, all of them, whether mentioned in the Constitution or not, are ours by virtue of being born, not because the government gave them to us. The government is supposed to be protecting our rights, not looking for excuses to violate them at every fucking turn.
We have every right to privacy, because the government's power and authority to violate that privacy is not granted, except in very limited cases. There is no grant of the authority to arbitrarily violate our right to privacy.
but whatever your view on individual rights, the constitution specifically gives the government the right to search and seize property with a duly issued warrant.
No, in fact, it does not. The Constitution grants the authority to search and seize property under certain conditions. This grant is not infinite.
but whatever your view on individual rights, the constitution specifically gives the government the right to search and seize property with a duly issued warrant.
No, in fact, it does not. The Constitution grants the authority to search and seize property under certain conditions. This grant is not infinite.
but whatever your view on individual rights, the constitution specifically gives the government the right to search and seize property with a duly issued warrant.
No, in fact, it does not. The Constitution grants the authority to search and seize property under certain conditions. This grant is not infinite.
but whatever your view on individual rights, the constitution specifically gives the government the right to search and seize property with a duly issued warrant.
No, in fact, it does not. The Constitution grants the authority to search and seize property under certain conditions. This grant is not infinite.
At least someone here gets it.
Sorry, you guys are sounding like a couple of lunatics that need to find a cabin somewhere in the Idaho woods. You can call it the government’s ‘authority’ or ‘right.’ It’s a matter of semantics and completely irrelevant. As soon as the the the government has the authority to search and seize your property, it means your right to privacy is not infinite.
If you can manage to get past your semantic obsessions, please explain how you feel the right to privacy (or any right, for that matter) is infinite. By your argument, no search warrant should ever be issued, no one should be put in jail, since the right to freedom must surely be greater than the right to privacy.
Law enforcement can compel a suspect to unlock their iPhone using Touch ID under a warrant, a Massachusetts federal judge ruled in April, muddying the waters in the ongoing battle in courts over whether the contents of a mobile device secured with biometrics are protected by the Fifth Amendment, or not.
How does this "muddy the waters?" The 5th Amendment allows for searches if a warrant is obtained. The judge in question issued a warrant that was limited in scope. Seems in line with the 5th Amendment to me.
Law enforcement can compel a suspect to unlock their iPhone using Touch ID under a warrant, a Massachusetts federal judge ruled in April, muddying the waters in the ongoing battle in courts over whether the contents of a mobile device secured with biometrics are protected by the Fifth Amendment, or not.
How does this "muddy the waters?" The 5th Amendment allows for searches if a warrant is obtained. The judge in question issued a warrant that was limited in scope. Seems in line with the 5th Amendment to me.
The same 5th can't compel a password surrender in Massachusetts, and most states. This isn't much different, and there are now conflicting legal rulings on it, where there weren't previously. Thus, muddied.
Sorry, you guys are sounding like a couple of lunatics that need to find a cabin somewhere in the Idaho woods. You can call it the government’s ‘authority’ or ‘right.’ It’s a matter of semantics and completely irrelevant. As soon as the the the government has the authority to search and seize your property, it means your right to privacy is not infinite.
If you can manage to get past your semantic obsessions, please explain how you feel the right to privacy (or any right, for that matter) is infinite. By your argument, no search warrant should ever be issued, no one should be put in jail, since the right to freedom must surely be greater than the right to privacy.
Ah yes, the old "it's just semantics" nonsense. "Semantics" is the meaning of words and sentences, and the meanings of "rights" and "authority" are different. In addition, there's a huge philosophical difference between those two concepts when used in the context of the U.S. Constitution. Rights belong to people, and people have those rights because they are human beings, not because they are granted by the government. The government has authority because it was granted by the people with rights, and that authority is limited by the grant. Authority can be taken away by the people at any time (though in practice, now that corrupt politicians control the law-making process, that will now require rather more drastic action), and while our rights can be violated (and frequently are, by the very people who are supposed to be protected them), they cannot be taken away.
"It's just semantics" is a phrase often used by two groups of people, those who don't recognize the meanings of words and use it to cover their lack of knowledge, and those who know the meanings of the words they are using and don't want the rest of use to recognize that fact.
And I've already explained why the right to privacy is infinite. It's the government's power that is limited, not the people's rights.
Sorry, you guys are sounding like a couple of lunatics that need to find a cabin somewhere in the Idaho woods. You can call it the government’s ‘authority’ or ‘right.’ It’s a matter of semantics and completely irrelevant. As soon as the the the government has the authority to search and seize your property, it means your right to privacy is not infinite.
If you can manage to get past your semantic obsessions, please explain how you feel the right to privacy (or any right, for that matter) is infinite. By your argument, no search warrant should ever be issued, no one should be put in jail, since the right to freedom must surely be greater than the right to privacy.
Ah yes, the old "it's just semantics" nonsense. "Semantics" is the meaning of words and sentences, and the meanings of "rights" and "authority" are different. In addition, there's a huge philosophical difference between those two concepts when used in the context of the U.S. Constitution. Rights belong to people, and people have those rights because they are human beings, not because they are granted by the government. The government has authority because it was granted by the people with rights, and that authority is limited by the grant. Authority can be taken away by the people at any time (though in practice, now that corrupt politicians control the law-making process, that will now require rather more drastic action), and while our rights can be violated (and frequently are, by the very people who are supposed to be protected them), they cannot be taken away.
"It's just semantics" is a phrase often used by two groups of people, those who don't recognize the meanings of words and use it to cover their lack of knowledge, and those who know the meanings of the words they are using and don't want the rest of use to recognize that fact.
And I've already explained why the right to privacy is infinite. It's the government's power that is limited, not the people's rights.
Semantics is what people focus on when they are either unwilling or unable to address the actual topic in question.
I am completely capable of understanding the semantic difference between right and authority, but my point is that it doesn't change the points of discussion. You can substitute "governement's authority" for "government's right" in my post above if you like, but that doesn't change the fundamental question. I just find it perplexing how you chose to quibble with the wording rather than discuss the underlying meaning, relevance and implications.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see where you explained how the right to privacy is infinite. You stated that "There is no grant of the authority to arbitrarily violate our right to privacy." This is completely true and I never said otherwise. For reference, the 4th amendment 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." Very clearly, the government does not have the authority to search and seize at will however it does have the ability to obtain a warrant that allows it to search and seize a person's property. By definition, that puts a limit on a person's right to privacy and this right cannot be infinite.
For the record, I am completely in favor of the 4th amendment. I do not think the government should be able to to arbitrarily search people or their possessions, but I do think that the ability to search and seize property is a necessary function of law enforcement. Clearly, there need to be limits. Those limits are broadly in place and the specifics are routinely debated by the courts, as is the case here. My contention is with the notion that people have have an absolute (or in your words infinite) right to privacy meaning they have a right to never have their property searched. I repeat my request above - please tell me how society and law enforcement would function if this were the case.
Comments
We have every right to privacy, because the government's power and authority to violate that privacy is not granted, except in very limited cases. There is no grant of the authority to arbitrarily violate our right to privacy.
If you can manage to get past your semantic obsessions, please explain how you feel the right to privacy (or any right, for that matter) is infinite. By your argument, no search warrant should ever be issued, no one should be put in jail, since the right to freedom must surely be greater than the right to privacy.
"It's just semantics" is a phrase often used by two groups of people, those who don't recognize the meanings of words and use it to cover their lack of knowledge, and those who know the meanings of the words they are using and don't want the rest of use to recognize that fact.
And I've already explained why the right to privacy is infinite. It's the government's power that is limited, not the people's rights.
I am completely capable of understanding the semantic difference between right and authority, but my point is that it doesn't change the points of discussion. You can substitute "governement's authority" for "government's right" in my post above if you like, but that doesn't change the fundamental question. I just find it perplexing how you chose to quibble with the wording rather than discuss the underlying meaning, relevance and implications.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see where you explained how the right to privacy is infinite. You stated that "There is no grant of the authority to arbitrarily violate our right to privacy." This is completely true and I never said otherwise. For reference, the 4th amendment 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." Very clearly, the government does not have the authority to search and seize at will however it does have the ability to obtain a warrant that allows it to search and seize a person's property. By definition, that puts a limit on a person's right to privacy and this right cannot be infinite.
For the record, I am completely in favor of the 4th amendment. I do not think the government should be able to to arbitrarily search people or their possessions, but I do think that the ability to search and seize property is a necessary function of law enforcement. Clearly, there need to be limits. Those limits are broadly in place and the specifics are routinely debated by the courts, as is the case here. My contention is with the notion that people have have an absolute (or in your words infinite) right to privacy meaning they have a right to never have their property searched. I repeat my request above - please tell me how society and law enforcement would function if this were the case.