There is a vast difference, hopefully in more than theory, between the State getting broad access, and the State proving before a court and receiving a warrant.
In theory, the 4th Amendment should protect us against unreasonable searches and seizures — and this should include access to the contents on your phone and other like devices.
This case, if done consistent with 4th Amendment, how it should be done.
On the the other hand, standard TSA procedures are not Constitutional.
Wait - can’t they just go to that Vietnamese company to have them make a mask to trick FaceID? /s
I share the sentiments and conflictions of many here. on one hand, if this guy is a sick purveyor of child porn I have no sympathy for him, and there are plenty of legal circumstances (i.e. reasonable search and seizure) where authorities should have access to a device, but there have also been many instances of governmental abuse and ample evidence that ‘secure’ back doors do not stay secure, so there doesn’t appear to be a great answer.
I hope the bastard gets worse than life. I support law enforcement gaining access to child abusers’ devices so they can put them away.
Next you will be telling us if you have nothing to hide then you dont mind the cops accessing your phone?
Didn't they have a
warrant? This wasn't some case of them stopping a random guy on the street and
looking for something to charge him with. Nor is it mass surveillance. Nor did
they ask Apple for a risky backdoor. They had grounds for search. They searched.
Where is your problem with this?
The issue isn't whether this amounted to an illegal search. Presumably the government was in compliance with the Fourth Amendment in this case and had the right to conduct a search of the iPhone.
The issue is whether the government can, in conducting that (presumably legal) search, compel a suspect to assist in the recreation of potential evidence by facilitating the decryption of contents of the iPhone. That's more a Fifth Amendment issue than a Fourth Amendment issue. The government shouldn't be allowed to compel that assistance; unfortunately it may ultimately be decided that the government is allowed to.
I hope the bastard gets worse than life. I support law enforcement gaining access to child abusers’ devices so they can put them away.
Do you support back doors to allow police to get into any device they want?
Yes, I do, with a warrant issued by a judge. If the police can get a warrant to search your home then they should be able to search your phone too, with a warrant. You lock your front door to prevent entry to your home but the police can break that door down, enter and search, with a warrant. If you have a safe the police can drill it open with a warrant. What part of the Fourth Amendment do you not understand? What’s the difference between your home and your phone?
There's never been a logical reason to think that digital = law free zone. The key is to have clearly defined rights on both sides of the issue, same as with the search of physical property. The tech world evolves and changes fairly rapidly and legislators/law enforcement need to do a better job of staying on top of it so that the public has a clear understanding of the parameters.
You're correct and the example I always use, if you buried a box in the wood with all your most private thoughts and all the things you did in your life whether private or public, the government and its police are not allow to force you to tell them it exists or its location. The phone and it's data has become an extension or your privates thought and private history. Police can not go on a fishing expedition through your phone, so yes the govern needs to catch up and basically say the police if they do gain access to your private information they first have to get a warranty and the warrant has to be specific to the crime they have evidence they already have against you and they are not allow to look for all the other things you may have done which they have no knowledge about.
How long before TSA decides to use these powers to force travelers to open their social media in a similar manner, I wonder?
New laws in New Zealand (came into effect today) allow Customs to perform a “digital strip search” of travellers. If you don’t give them your pin code, or open phone with fingerprint, you can be fined $5000 and have your device seized.
If this becomes more prevalent, on principal I'd consider backing everything up to iCloud right before I leave, not carrying a phone with me as I travel, then picking up a cheap 2nd hand iPhone at my destination and restoring from backup. Then just wipe and donate the device before I head home again.
I hope the bastard gets worse than life. I support law enforcement gaining access to child abusers’ devices so they can put them away.
Do you support back doors to allow police to get into any device they want?
Yes, I do, with a warrant issued by a judge. If the police can get a warrant to search your home then they should be able to search your phone too, with a warrant. You lock your front door to prevent entry to your home but the police can break that door down, enter and search, with a warrant. If you have a safe the police can drill it open with a warrant. What part of the Fourth Amendment do you not understand? What’s the difference between your home and your phone?
Nothing you said is a BACKDOOR! Drilling into a safe or whatever to crack it is forced entry. There's no Police passcode or Key to get backdoor access to a safe. Breaking your door down again is forced entry. They didn't have a backdoor KEY to just unlock your door and walk right on in.
In either of those cases, if such a thing existed, rest assured, those backdoor house keys and safe keys/passcode would be leaked out everywhere as which point you might as well just leave your door unlocked and the safe wide open. Also, your phone is really an extension of your mind. Filled with all your personal stuff. There should be NO BACKDOORS. For the tiny percentage of criminals out there, shouldn't be a reason to screw over the majority of people with weak encryption with backdoors.
I hope the bastard gets worse than life. I support law enforcement gaining access to child abusers’ devices so they can put them away.
Do you support back doors to allow police to get into any device they want?
Yes, I do, with a warrant issued by a judge. If the police can get a warrant to search your home then they should be able to search your phone too, with a warrant. You lock your front door to prevent entry to your home but the police can break that door down, enter and search, with a warrant. If you have a safe the police can drill it open with a warrant. What part of the Fourth Amendment do you not understand? What’s the difference between your home and your phone?
No one, that I see here anyway, is disputing that police can - with a warrant or based on various exceptions to the warrant requirement - search something (e.g., a smartphone or a home). The issue is whether police can compel people - suspects or third parties - to do certain things. Under some circumstances they can, under others they can’t.
Of course, generally speaking, the police can drill into a safe if they have a warrant to search it. That’s not equivalent to having mandatory back doors (to encryption protections). It’s more equivalent (though still not there) to requiring safe manufacturers to make their safes such that law enforcement can easily get into them, without having to drill into them. It’s more like prohibiting manufacturers from making safes unless they make those safes such that a master key, which they keep, will open those safes.
Further, forcing people to assist in decrypting mobile devices isn’t equivalent to requiring them to turn over keys to locked things (e.g. safes) which the police have warrants for. Decrypting something is recreating evidence which doesn’t currently exist, or at least interpreting what evidence currently exists such that it might be more helpful in demonstrating guilt.
1) If you're going to be a criminal then don't use a fricken a biometric (which I shouldn't be telling them, but I figure if they were smart enough to come to this forum then they'd already know better).
2) I'm glad he was dumb enough to use Face ID if it gets a child pornographer and child abuser off the streets.
3) Slight segue, but still very much the same issue: a recent study has shown that the one thing all human traffickers have in common is that they use the internet for sales. I wish we had better tools to stop this.
Are you in support of criminals or just plain stupidity by giving this advice?
Do you support back doors to allow police to get into any device they want?
Yes, I do, with a warrant issued by a judge. If the police can get a warrant to search your home then they should be able to search your phone too, with a warrant. You lock your front door to prevent entry to your home but the police can break that door down, enter and search, with a warrant. If you have a safe the police can drill it open with a warrant. What part of the Fourth Amendment do you not understand? What’s the difference between your home and your phone?
There should be no difference, but there is.
You do not have to let the police into your home, even if they have a warrant. They do have the right to break into your home, with a warrant, when you refuse.
You do not have to give the police the combination to the safe, even if they have a warrant. They do have the right to drill the safe, with a warrant, when you refuse.
So far, it seems forcing the use of FID is no different than forcing the use of TID to unlock a phone.
Now, if FID or TID aren't enabled, then there's just a passcode. You do not have to give the police the passcode to the phone, even if they have a warrant. They have the right to force past the dap
If you suspect the cops or FBI are after you disable FaceID or TouchID by triggering Emergency SOS mode.
If they are after you then you know you are criminal. Do you give advices to criminals? Congratulations. Maybe you are one now. If you said that you want privacy then it would be different story, but you did not. Watch what you are saying 'cause that may be game changer in court deciding about living free or behind bars.
There’s a fine line between concealing evidence and self-incrimination. The Fourth and Fifth Amendments attempt to balance that line. If you are concealing evidence because it would incriminate you I don’t think the Fifth Amendment covers that. In any even I doubt any of us here are constitutional lawyers and that this will have to be dealt with by the SCOTUS eventually. Technology has always been way out in front of the law and we here pontificating our useless and uneducated opinions about it means nothing, including my own opinions.
If you suspect the cops or FBI are after you disable FaceID or TouchID by triggering Emergency SOS mode.
If they are after you then you know you are criminal. Do you give advices to criminals? Congratulations. Maybe you are one now. If you said that you want privacy then it would be different story, but you did not. Watch what you are saying 'cause that may be game changer in court deciding about living free or behind bars.
Because as the events in politics throughout history have shown us, no one in a position of authority will ever abuse their power...
Comments
In theory, the 4th Amendment should protect us against unreasonable searches and seizures — and this should include access to the contents on your phone and other like devices.
This case, if done consistent with 4th Amendment, how it should be done.
On the the other hand, standard TSA procedures are not Constitutional.
I share the sentiments and conflictions of many here. on one hand, if this guy is a sick purveyor of child porn I have no sympathy for him, and there are plenty of legal circumstances (i.e. reasonable search and seizure) where authorities should have access to a device, but there have also been many instances of governmental abuse and ample evidence that ‘secure’ back doors do not stay secure, so there doesn’t appear to be a great answer.
The issue is whether the government can, in conducting that (presumably legal) search, compel a suspect to assist in the recreation of potential evidence by facilitating the decryption of contents of the iPhone. That's more a Fifth Amendment issue than a Fourth Amendment issue. The government shouldn't be allowed to compel that assistance; unfortunately it may ultimately be decided that the government is allowed to.
In either of those cases, if such a thing existed, rest assured, those backdoor house keys and safe keys/passcode would be leaked out everywhere as which point you might as well just leave your door unlocked and the safe wide open. Also, your phone is really an extension of your mind. Filled with all your personal stuff. There should be NO BACKDOORS. For the tiny percentage of criminals out there, shouldn't be a reason to screw over the majority of people with weak encryption with backdoors.
Of course, generally speaking, the police can drill into a safe if they have a warrant to search it. That’s not equivalent to having mandatory back doors (to encryption protections). It’s more equivalent (though still not there) to requiring safe manufacturers to make their safes such that law enforcement can easily get into them, without having to drill into them. It’s more like prohibiting manufacturers from making safes unless they make those safes such that a master key, which they keep, will open those safes.
Further, forcing people to assist in decrypting mobile devices isn’t equivalent to requiring them to turn over keys to locked things (e.g. safes) which the police have warrants for. Decrypting something is recreating evidence which doesn’t currently exist, or at least interpreting what evidence currently exists such that it might be more helpful in demonstrating guilt.
You do not have to let the police into your home, even if they have a warrant. They do have the right to break into your home, with a warrant, when you refuse.
You do not have to give the police the combination to the safe, even if they have a warrant. They do have the right to drill the safe, with a warrant, when you refuse.
So far, it seems forcing the use of FID is no different than forcing the use of TID to unlock a phone.
Now, if FID or TID aren't enabled, then there's just a passcode.
You do not have to give the police the passcode to the phone, even if they have a warrant. They have the right to force past the dap