And... how are they going to make me? Contempt of court? Lock me up forever?
What ever happened to the right to remain silent? You cannot even be compelled to testify against yourself. So how can you be forced to cough up your passcode?
And... how are they going to make me? Contempt of court? Lock me up forever?
What ever happened to the right to remain silent? You cannot even be compelled to testify against yourself. So how can you be forced to cough up your passcode?
I'm of the opinion that a person can't be compelled to incriminate himself.
Why is that? I've never really been sure of the argument about why that's a right that should be protected.
That's pretty much enshrined in U.S. law. But the question is: does one have to open the door when officers knock on it with a search warrant? Or, further, can you raise insurmountable barriers to their entrance?
We have had search warrants which enabled law enforcement to examine anything they want since the start of the country.
So would smart phones have ever been exempted?
If you don't trust your government you need a new government.
Except this isn't about a search warrant or whether the government has a right to search the phone. It's about whether someone can be compelled to unlock their phone.
The 'foregone conclusion' argument they state still doesn't make sense to me. Even if they know the messages exist, they don't know the content. If their mere existence was enough evidence, they wouldn't need the warrant and passcode, so it would stand to reason that the content of the messages is the real issue. Providing the passcode is tantamount to providing the content and would seem to be self-incrimination.
I agree. I don’t understand why they can’t just get a warrant to examine the contents of the phone.
Warrants are too easy to get. It's a broken system enabled by the very citizens who pay for the system. Too many people defend police for no reason other than because movies tell them they're the good guy. Same with people who repeat "I trust my government."
In my old neighborhood cops wouldn't even receive warrants. They'd be in your backyard for no reason except to fu** with you and piss you off. When you asked for a warrant they'd just harass you. We were poor, not like we could sue the city. They knew that.
As I said above: If you don't trust your government you need to get another government. That's probably the biggest benefit of a democracy,. It's not perfect, but it does have the best protections from corruption and tyranny.
I'm of the opinion that a person can't be compelled to incriminate himself.
Why is that? I've never really been sure of the argument about why that's a right that should be protected.
It's one of the rights protected by the 5th Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. The 5th covers five clauses: Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Self Incrimination, Due Process, and Takings. I'm not really sure what you've never been sure about regarding self incrimination. The Constitution serves as the framework for our governance. The Bill of Rights serves to mitigate governmental overreach.
And... how are they going to make me? Contempt of court? Lock me up forever?
What ever happened to the right to remain silent? You cannot even be compelled to testify against yourself. So how can you be forced to cough up your passcode?
That sounds like a false equivalency.
How so? Several courts have ruled that it is equivalent. Of course, some others have ruled that it is not, so it's far from settled case law at this point.
We have had search warrants which enabled law enforcement to examine anything they want since the start of the country.
So would smart phones have ever been exempted?
If you don't trust your government you need a new government.
Except this isn't about a search warrant or whether the government has a right to search the phone. It's about whether someone can be compelled to unlock their phone.
The 'foregone conclusion' argument they state still doesn't make sense to me. Even if they know the messages exist, they don't know the content. If their mere existence was enough evidence, they wouldn't need the warrant and passcode, so it would stand to reason that the content of the messages is the real issue. Providing the passcode is tantamount to providing the content and would seem to be self-incrimination.
I agree. I don’t understand why they can’t just get a warrant to examine the contents of the phone.
Warrants are too easy to get. It's a broken system enabled by the very citizens who pay for the system. Too many people defend police for no reason other than because movies tell them they're the good guy. Same with people who repeat "I trust my government."
In my old neighborhood cops wouldn't even receive warrants. They'd be in your backyard for no reason except to fu** with you and piss you off. When you asked for a warrant they'd just harass you. We were poor, not like we could sue the city. They knew that.
As I said above: If you don't trust your government you need to get another government. That's probably the biggest benefit of a democracy,. It's not perfect, but it does have the best protections from corruption and tyranny.
Thankfully we are not a democracy.
Autocracy -- till January. Unless Vladimir can pull it off again. Then back to democracy.
GeorgeBMac said: Cops seem to enjoy busting down doors
A non-substantive response.
GeorgeBMac said: But this is a door that they can't break down. Subtle difference.
Too subtle for you, but it's night and day.
CloudTalkin' said: The difference between searching a phone and a file cabinet is the 5th amendment. With a proper warrant, the government can open that file cabinet without your help, thus no self-incrimination. The phone, requiring you to provide your password, is a different matter altogether. I'm of the opinion that a person can't be compelled to incriminate himself. NJSC apparently disagrees. Fortunately, they aren't the final arbiter. The SCOTUS needs to weigh in on this and other tech/Constitution issues.
Read this, slowly if necessary. The difference between forcing you go give up a password and law enforcement forcing open an container is not at all subtle.
As I read it, they did just exactly that. The article reported:
"When a warrant was secured for a closer inspection, Andrews claimed
providing the passcodes was the equivalent of being compelled to provide
"testimony" that could be self-incriminating. "
So, I ask again, what is the difference between searching a phone or file cabinet?
Invalid analogy. Better question is, what is the difference between a phone and a combination lock safe? Our phones are far more akin to safes in terms what we entrust to them.
GeorgeBMac said: Cops seem to enjoy busting down doors
A non-substantive response.
GeorgeBMac said: But this is a door that they can't break down. Subtle difference.
Too subtle for you, but it's night and day.
CloudTalkin' said: The difference between searching a phone and a file cabinet is the 5th amendment. With a proper warrant, the government can open that file cabinet without your help, thus no self-incrimination. The phone, requiring you to provide your password, is a different matter altogether. I'm of the opinion that a person can't be compelled to incriminate himself. NJSC apparently disagrees. Fortunately, they aren't the final arbiter. The SCOTUS needs to weigh in on this and other tech/Constitution issues.
Read this, slowly if necessary. The difference between forcing you go give up a password and law enforcement forcing open an container is not at all subtle.
Subtle is not the same as "I don't get it".
Really? "Non-substantive response", "too subtle for you...", and "read this slowly..."? If we're failing to meet your lofty legal analytical standards, maybe add some light then, instead of just heat.
GeorgeBMac said: Cops seem to enjoy busting down doors
A non-substantive response.
GeorgeBMac said: But this is a door that they can't break down. Subtle difference.
Too subtle for you, but it's night and day.
CloudTalkin' said: The difference between searching a phone and a file cabinet is the 5th amendment. With a proper warrant, the government can open that file cabinet without your help, thus no self-incrimination. The phone, requiring you to provide your password, is a different matter altogether. I'm of the opinion that a person can't be compelled to incriminate himself. NJSC apparently disagrees. Fortunately, they aren't the final arbiter. The SCOTUS needs to weigh in on this and other tech/Constitution issues.
Read this, slowly if necessary. The difference between forcing you go give up a password and law enforcement forcing open an container is not at all subtle.
Subtle is not the same as "I don't get it".
Still waiting for a logical argument. But I guess all you have are personal attacks. Ok... Got it.
I'm of the opinion that a person can't be compelled to incriminate himself.
Why is that? I've never really been sure of the argument about why that's a right that should be protected.
It's one of the rights protected by the 5th Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. The 5th covers five clauses: Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Self Incrimination, Due Process, and Takings. I'm not really sure what you've never been sure about regarding self incrimination. The Constitution serves as the framework for our governance. The Bill of Rights serves to mitigate governmental overreach.
That's not an argument for it though, that's just the framework by which it exists. My question is why is it a good thing that a person cannot be compelled to testify before a court of law because they might self incriminate?
I'm of the opinion that a person testifying in a court of law should answer all relevant questions posed to them, or risk being held in contempt of court. I don't see why refusal to co-operate with legal process is an option that the US Constitution feels should be protected.
It's one of the rights protected by the 5th Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. The 5th covers five clauses: Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Self Incrimination, Due Process, and Takings. I'm not really sure what you've never been sure about regarding self incrimination. The Constitution serves as the framework for our governance. The Bill of Rights serves to mitigate governmental overreach.
That's not an argument for it though, that's just the framework by which it exists. My question is why is it a good thing that a person cannot be compelled to testify before a court of law because they might self incriminate?
I'm of the opinion that a person testifying in a court of law should answer all relevant questions posed to them, or risk being held in contempt of court. I don't see why refusal to co-operate with legal process is an option that the US Constitution feels should be protected.
Here's a little rationale and history for the protections the Fifth provides.
I'm of the opinion that a person can't be compelled to incriminate himself.
Why is that? I've never really been sure of the argument about why that's a right that should be protected.
It's one of the rights protected by the 5th Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. The 5th covers five clauses: Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Self Incrimination, Due Process, and Takings. I'm not really sure what you've never been sure about regarding self incrimination. The Constitution serves as the framework for our governance. The Bill of Rights serves to mitigate governmental overreach.
That's not an argument for it though, that's just the framework by which it exists. My question is why is it a good thing that a person cannot be compelled to testify before a court of law because they might self incriminate?
I'm of the opinion that a person testifying in a court of law should answer all relevant questions posed to them, or risk being held in contempt of court. I don't see why refusal to co-operate with legal process is an option that the US Constitution feels should be protected.
WHat you are asking is whether the 5th amendment to the constitution, specifically the clause pertaining to self incrimination, should exist. That is a much bigger question than this forum can address. You can start with the sites @beowulfschmidt suggests, then continue reading more on constitutional law and the history of the constitution. I would point out that the amendment has remained intact for 230 years, so more than a few people consider it necessary.
Comments
That sounds like a false equivalency.
That's pretty much enshrined in U.S. law.
But the question is: does one have to open the door when officers knock on it with a search warrant? Or, further, can you raise insurmountable barriers to their entrance?
Autocracy -- till January. Unless Vladimir can pull it off again. Then back to democracy.
A non-substantive response.
Too subtle for you, but it's night and day.
Read this, slowly if necessary. The difference between forcing you go give up a password and law enforcement forcing open an container is not at all subtle.
Subtle is not the same as "I don't get it".
If we're failing to meet your lofty legal analytical standards, maybe add some light then, instead of just heat.
Still waiting for a logical argument. But I guess all you have are personal attacks. Ok... Got it.
I'm of the opinion that a person testifying in a court of law should answer all relevant questions posed to them, or risk being held in contempt of court. I don't see why refusal to co-operate with legal process is an option that the US Constitution feels should be protected.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-s-the-reason-the-fifth-amendment-privilege-against-self-incrimination.html
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2002/02/where-did-the-fifth-amendment-come-from.html