Slashdot Mirror
Phone Passwords Protected By 5th Amendment, Says Federal Court
Ars Technica reports that a Federal court in Pennsylvania ruled Wednesday that the Fifth Amendment protects from compelled disclosure the passwords that two insider-trading suspects used on their mobile phones. In this case, the SEC is investigating two former Capital One data analysts who allegedly used insider information associated with their jobs to trade stocks—in this case, a $150,000 investment allegedly turned into $2.8 million. Regulators suspect the mobile devices are holding evidence of insider trading and demanded that the two turn over their passcodes.
However, the court ruled, "Since the passcodes to Defendants' work-issued smartphones are not corporate records, the act of producing their personal passcodes is testimonial in nature and Defendants properly invoke their fifth Amendment privilege."
...of common sense no doubt! I love hearing stories of correct implementations.
Tough for the prosecutors but this is a flash of some sense.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
by the fifth Amendment.
http://time.com/3558936/fingerprint-password-fifth-amendment/
I know a lot of us have gotten pessimistic and cynical about the protection of our civil liberties, but I'm really not surprised at this outcome.
It's an obvious application of the Fifth Amendment.
While I agree with the ruling, I must say that any idiot who uses a work issued phone to conduct illegal business is a special kind of idiot. There is no bus short enough.
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
someone should tell that to the border guards, airport police and TSA thugs.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
For handing over your encryption keys to authorities.
Here is a contrary view: "Fifth Amendment protects passcode on smartphones, court holds - The Washington Post" https://www.washingtonpost.com...
It's about time they got this right. If these two are guilty, I hope they get busted hard for leeching wealth from society, while producing nothing in return. However, I consider my Constitutional Rights to be far more valuable.
Good to understand though, that not having to be compelled to produce something that could be used against you, doesn't mean that you are protected from that thing being produced... by others. So if somehow their phones were brute force unlocked or decrypted, that evidence could definitely be used against them.
A? Did Fonzi right this?
Get a warrant and force their employer to unlock the phone.
Then leave it up to them to lean on their employees or face massive fines.
Point being here that the phone and it's contents belong to the employer, NOT the employee.
Something about having to lift his own glass...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Granted, they don't know exactly what that something one is evidently guilty of might be, but still...
Maybe I'm being just a goofy non-American here, but I honestly don't understand the point. In the general case, would someone explain to me how this constitutional amendment protects genuinely innocent people?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Comment removed based on user account deletion
No, we will see this case enshrined as an ISO standard that companies are then required to follow. All passwords must be recorded by the company. And there will be an audit every year to ensure compliance.
The price of living free is that sometimes paedophiles will go free.
No system is perfect. In order to guarantee every pedo is locked up, 1000 innocents will have to be locked up for every pedo. Sane people realise that's not worth the tradeoff.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Actually, what you're hearing is the whine of thousands of anti-Constitutional morons who think cop dramas are documentaries. It's an easy mistake, as the two are very closely related.
Wow! Less than a couple hundred thousand into a several million. Sounds like some of Hillary's investments.
The court stated "Since the passcodes to Defendants' work-issued [emphasis added] smartphones are not corporate records, the act of producing their personal passcodes is testimonial in nature and Defendants properly invoke their fifth Amendment privilege."
Isn't the important factor here not if the individual is required to provide their personal passcode or not, but really what is the business's policy regarding data confidentiality on the business owned device?
No one should be compelled to assist in their own prosecution.
That sound you hear is thousands of pedophiles and other criminals shouting out with glee...
No way, it won't apply to them. There will be some way that this only applies to the 0.1% who work on wallstreet. You aren't the class of people who constitutional protections apply to. You don't have enough money to matter.
I thought you had to unlock anything if police had a warrant for it. Is this changing that or is it confirming you don't have to tell them the code, but you still have to unlock it.
Exactly... I'd rather let a thousand guilty go free than put an innocent person in prison...
I think you got that wrong there sparky, it is called Right, not Privilege.
We have been saying for years that only good can come from bringing economic fraudsters to trial. Put them on trial and....poof....our rights expand!
Lets put some bankers up next, maybe we can get some more freedom.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
I'm pretty sure that they can't be forced to provide evidence that would implicate them in a criminal matter.
You are wrong, and if the court used the reasoning identified in the summary, it will likely be overturned on appeal.
You do not have to incriminate yourself by your testimony, but you can be obligated to give the state access to your records. The right against self-incrimination doesn't protect your *records*, it protects you. That is well-established law. (Stupid but true).
The fact that these are personal and not business records usually won't help and almost certainly won't help here. Usually that only matters because business records can be admitted even when they are "hearsay," meaning an out-of-court statement presented in court for the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. From the summary the holding is that because they are personal records they are testimonial in nature and therefore covered by the fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. I don't think an appellate panel anywhere in the country would buy that for a minute.
The Fifth Amendment means that when they torture you into confessing, it's not admissible in court? As an American, I find the concept of throwing out evidence somewhat questionable is well, as in, if someone is guilty, they are guilty, no matter how the evidence was obtained. There should be more direct consequences for unlawfully obtaining evidence, because supressing evidence obtained by violating rights only protects the guilty, as you said. What we really need is a way of punishing law enforcement for violating the rights of INNOCENT people, as it is, they don't even say "I'm sorry". The best we can hope for is to actually get reimbursed for the property they destroy.
The "exclusionary rule" requires courts to exclude evidence that is obtained unconstitutionally. There's a simple reason why the remedy is exclusion of evidence rather than punishing cops who torture people: practicality. Courts can't punish cops who torture people, because somebody would need to arrest them.
The exclusionary rule was developed so that cops wouldn't have an *incentive* to abuse their power and gather evidence illegally. This in turn discourages them from doing so. We let bad guys go not because they're not guilty, but because as a practical matter it is the only power courts have to keep cops following the laws which protect the citizens from government overreach.
What if the company has a policy that the password for all company-issued devices has to be kept in a sealed envelope in a company lockbox?
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
I would NEVER turn over any passcode, court orders be damned.
If you turn over a passcode, you are providing proof that you exercised control over the device, and so are testifying against yourself. But if this happened to you or me and we don't work for a bank, I have no doubt we would be ordered to hand it over.
And wait and see, even though one court says they don't have to, in a few months there will be another court ordering it, saying you can't keep it secret. and everybody will forget all about this case, and this court ruling.
On iOS, after 24 hours or less than 10 failed fingerprint attempts, you are required to enter your password to gain access to the phone (fingerprint doesn't work at that point). I would assume that it would take longer than 24 hours for the police to convince a judge to force you to use your fingerprint, and a emergency stays by appeals courts do happen as well. I also believe that the knowledge of which finger unlocks your phone would be protected by the fifth amendment, so that you would not have to inform law enforcement which fingerprint opens the phone and as a result the phone requires a password after many failed attempts.
UNFORTUNATELY, There was an a decision a about a year ago that ruled that you COULD be forced to unlock your phone with your fingerprint, even if you could not be forced to do so with your passcode.
FORTUNATELY, it was only a STATE Court; so, unless you happen to be caught in Virginia, you could still fight it, and with this decision as (non-controlling, but persuasive) precedent, maybe even score a win for all of us!
So, I'll try ten times - once with each finger and let it lock me out. They don't need to know I use the big toe on my left foot to unlock my phone.
Please stop sharing my password: Moo00oOo!
So a disgruntled Admin that is being terminated changes all the passwords to various IT systems before he walks out the door. Are those passwords now not corporate records like the passwords on the corporate cell phone? What's the difference?
You are all Password protected Cows. Cow's password is Moooooooo. MOOOOOOOOOO! MOOOOOOOOO! Moooooooooooo Cows MOOOOOOOOOOO! Mooooooooooooo say the cows. YOU PASSWORD PROTECTED COWS!!!
Go back to BIN, MooCow! And don't forget your legally protected pooword, (!)