Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Phone Passwords Protected By 5th Amendment, Says Federal Court

Posted by timothy on from the good-luck-arguing-this-at-the-border dept.

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."

4 of 178 comments (clear)

  1. But your finger prints is not protected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    by the fifth Amendment.
    http://time.com/3558936/fingerprint-password-fifth-amendment/

  2. Re:Isn't pleading the fifth roughly... by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  3. Re:Isn't pleading the fifth roughly... by jafiwam · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... equivalent to admitting that one is guilty of at least one thing that is just as bad as whatever it is they are being charged with, or that what one is being charged with is actually entirely accurate?

    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?

    Yes.

    And. So what?

    Not having the 5th amendment opens the door to what would basically be torture. I think you want the government doing that less than you want the government to win this case.

    Anyway, they can go ASK THE FUCKING NSA about what was transferred between the phones. Oh, right, that wasn't a legal search either. Sometimes the parallel construction doesn't work I guess.

  4. Re:Finally by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A somewhat opposing argument is that the documents (email, text messages, photographs, etc.) fall under "what you have", and that a court can compel you to produce those documents.

    They can't compel you to turn over documents that they merely suspect to exist. They'd need not only proof of their existence, but also that they're relevant to the case. That's kind of hard to do without being able to decrypt them. I.e. simply saying "turn over all of your emails" isn't good enough if they can't A) prove that those emails exist to begin with, B) prove that those emails are relevant, assuming they exist, and pointing to blobs of an unreadable encrypted blob of data doesn't meet that standard.