Slashdot Mirror
Court Rules In 'Sextortion' Case That Phone PINs Are Not Protected By Fifth Amendment (cnn.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN: Can authorities access potentially incriminating information on your phone by compelling you to reveal your passcode? Or is access to your phone's secrets protected under the Constitution? The answer, at least in an extortion case involving bikini-clad models, social media celebrities and racy images, is that phone passcodes are not protected, a judge ruled Wednesday. The case stems from the arrest of Hencha Voigt, 29, and her then-boyfriend, Wesley Victor, 34, last July on charges of extortion. Voigt and Victor threatened to release sexually explicit videos and photos of social media star "YesJulz," whose real name is Julienna Goddard, unless she paid them off, according to a Miami Police Department report. Both Voigt and "YesJulz" are big names on social media. Voigt is a fitness model and Instagram celebrity who starred last fall on "WAGS Miami," an E! reality TV show about the wives and girlfriends of sports figures in South Beach. As part of the ongoing investigation into the case, prosecutors have sought to search Voigt's and Victor's phones and asked a judge to order the two to give up their phone passcodes. Prosecutors have obtained the text messages sent to Goddard, but they have been unable to bypass the passcodes on the suspects' phones -- Voigt's iPhone and Victor's BlackBerry -- to search for more evidence. As such, prosecutors filed a motion asking a circuit court judge to compel the defendants to give their passwords to authorities. A judge on Wednesday ruled on behalf of prosecutors and ordered Voigt and Victor to give up their phone passwords, according to Bozanic, Victor's attorney.
is still pub
make sure to try it 10 times...
We've been snowballing down this slope for awhile, and I don't see someone overturning this either.
The founding fathers are now rolling over in their graves.
The right to shut the fuck up as to not provide evidence of your guilt is as old as dirt. I'd have to just "forget" the passcode at this point.
"Social Media stars" (whatever the fuck they are), and would like to see them all put in prison on charges of assisting cultural suicide, no one should be compelled to give up evidence that incriminates themselves, ever. It's a basic right. Rights aren't granted by the government, but you wouldn't know it from how out of fucking control they are these days.
What're they gonna do - torture them for the info?
It will be appealed and sent to the SCOUTS eventually. With luck they will be willing to hear the case, then beat it down like a redheaded stepchild.
If courts can authorize the search on a device but it is technically impossible because the suspect can't be compelled to unlock the security than it only strengthens the law-enforcement case that they need legislation mandating a back-door into devices. One that can be abused without your knowledge or consent of courts
"As such, prosecutors filed a motion asking a circuit court judge to compel the defendants to give their passwords to authorities."
So the authorities, have to ask the perpetrator to supply their own evidence.. way to streamline charging criminals.
It's not a typo if you understood the meaning!
Frankly, the police are supposed to have gathered evidence and basically made a case before hauling someone in.
If they -require- her phone for the case against her, they pretty much don't have a case worthy of bringing before a judge. There are many other avenues open that they should be able to get compelling evidence from besides a single digital device.
Clearly they must be repealed post haste! I'm sure the majority of the general public agrees with me.
People should have to give up their passwords like they have to give up their thumbprints and dna.
It's like refusing to allow the police to search your home, even after they have a warrant.
Yea this compelling can be abused. My guess is that it's worth it.
This isn't the first case of this. Nothing is going to happen any time soon.
The others are slowly working their way to the Supreme Court.
Until the Supreme Court rules nothing is going to happen.
This is discovery. The defendants threatened to distribute photos etc, from unspecified devices and sources. The prosecution wishes to confirm that such photos etc. exist, for without them there is no case. Defendants refuse to permit discovery.
If this were paper files in a locked box, the prosecution would be permitted top saw the boxes in half. The media should not change the law. That a document exists is generally not a Fifth Amendment issue. That the document is purely electronic need not matter.
I've changed my mind on this. On a fishing expedition, prosecutors should be denied secured material they cannot specify. In this case they seem to know just what they are looking for, and where it is. The defense cannot reasonably claim innocence based on the lack of evidence when it is plainly able to prove the lack.
But that's too easy.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I suggest Apple should introduce various secondary "Red Herring" passcodes which users can set.
If a secondary passcode is entered, then a User-configurable action occurs. They may be allowed to unlock the phone after contacting Apple's servers to determine if the Passphrase is actually the user's primary passphrase or not.
If a passcode marked as duress is attempted to be used to unlock the phone, then keys in the secure enclave will be quietly and irretrievably corrupted; Notice of what has happened will not be shown on the screen until either contact is completed with Apple's servers, ensuring that the phone completed its command sent to Apple servers to successfully overwrite the backup version, Or another attempted passphrase is entered; The message displayed will appear to indicate that a Correct passphrase has been entered, However, it will show an error "Error 53: Valid unlock code accepted, but system storage is corrupt, cannot boot.".
Why didn't the judge just force the accused to run his password to prove his innocence in this special case? The Judge didn't need the password. And special cases should be made rare, targeted, and limited to what the person is accused of! Find something else? Tough luck!!
Take the exact same case, but replace the phone with a safe, and the PIN with the combination to the safe's lock. In this instance, the 5th Amendment absolutely protects from being compelled to unlock the safe or provide the combination to open the lock. Now having said that if the police have a warrant for the contents of the safe because there is reasonable suspicion evidence pertaining to the investigation is contained within, they are absolutely free to seize the safe and attempt to open it via other means (locksmith/physically cutting/breaking the safe open/etc). In the same manner, if the police have a warrant for the contents of the phone's memory in this case, they are within their rights to attempt to guess the PIN or break the encryption on the phone. You could argue that's much harder than breaking into a physical safe - and that is usually the case - but frankly that's not the defendant's problem. Just because it's hard for the police to obtain potentially incriminating evidence does not compel one to surrender it. This is a flagrant violation of the 5th Amendment, and I cannot believe courts continue to skirt such a fundamental part of our legal system because police are throwing a fit about encryption being unfair.
who starred last fall on "WAGS Miami,"
Sounds like she's a bitch. ;)
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
That's a white girl in a black woman's body. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
The prosecution already has evidence that the couple sent extorting texts. It doesn't matter whether an extortionist actually has possession of extorting material, it only matters that they were trying to get money for such. Perhaps the prosecutor wants some jack material?
No judge or prosecutor can compel you to testify in your own trial, and they cannot force you to tell them something they wish to know. Were I in such a situation I would simply say I don't remember the passcode. Sure they can charge you with obstruction, if they can prove it. But if you're already a criminal defendant the threat of adding another charge isn't enough to compel you to unlock your phone.
The analogy of a locked safe is perfectly adequate here. I have no obligation to tell anyone the combination. Investigators who lawfully take the safe under a court order can do whatever they want to try and open it.
given that by the time this makes it up to SCOTUS it'll have 2, maybe 3 Trump nominees. Trump has not shown himself a fan of the 5th (or any other constitutional right) unless he's invoking it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The police have gathered evidence of a crime and have issued a seizure order, that is normal. The problem being they need the accused to incriminate himself to complete the seizure. That is a grey area where the US fifth amendment tends to protect the suspect or the accused.
This ruling follows a much weaker case of a few months ago where a judge ruled a suspect must deliver any passwords to the police, so it not surprising that a case with with the benefit of preliminary evidence gets the same result. The problem being, US courts produce blanket rules and this rule will quickly be applied to suspects (again), persons of interest, car-stops and their human equivalent; 'stop n frisk'.
How can they possibly know that the defendant actually knows the password? People forget passwords all the time.
Regardless of whether it's true in this case, if we allow this to stand then some day a court is going to order a guy to provide a password he genuinely doesn't know. He'll never be able to comply, so the criminal justice will just beat on him for years for violating the court order.
The prosecution and the judge must have thought of this danger, but they are just charging forward anyway. Law'n'order zealots don't care about justice.
Not to justify what their intent was, but.. The stuff you have in your head is protected and unreachable by ordinary means. The stuff outside- like your fingerprints are fair game which is why people don't use touch ID in many cases. You might be detained, sure.. but you'd have plenty of support both citing the law and making comparisons to slippery slopes etc.. The justice department needs to pick the right hill to fight and die on.. You can't detain someone forever without calling it arrest. Arrest happens when you're caught doing something wrong or there is probable cause that you did or took part in wrong doing, and in that case you have the right to a speedy trial which can't really happen without the proof. And the key to this proof is in these people's heads. Or maybe not. Can you compel someone to give up their rights on the basis of suspicion alone?
Show your proof of wrongdoing by presenting the evidence you have. Don't have evidence? Where's the case? If we were to charge and incarcerate people for being assholes then our jails and the jails all around the world would overwhelmingly overflow like a scene from World War Z within mere seconds.
Your honor, I have been incarcerated for so long that I have forgotten the PIN.
what's to stop the authorities from planting evidence on the phones? Yes, I know that's unlikely in this case - but entirely aside from the constitutional violation, this precedent just begs to be misused by LEO's, many of whom would much rather chalk up a 'win' at the expense of innocent citizens than invest the time and sweat required to either uncover the truth or determine that they can't do so. This is a really BAD idea.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Blame the gradual erasure of search and seizure on the decades long drug war. That's what's caused the erosion of civil liberties, not Trump's one appointment (who hasn't really ruled on anything) or potential future nominee for the court.
People aren't getting raked over the coals for their private information just recently, it's been going on for decades as law enforcement, district attorneys and their political supporters have green lighted aggressive drug searches which have given the courts many opportunities to rule in favor of the police, like rain eroding a sand castle.
IMHO, our protections from search and seizure are all but gone. Civil forfeiture is still alive and well, for crying out loud. The NSA hoovers our data, local police use Stingrays, etc.
No Supreme Court appointments by any party are going to change any of this, they're mostly just reinforcing 50 years of progressively worse precedence.
I have a feeling this judge will be overturned. In any case, if I remember correctly, the 11th circuit says this type of information is protected, so if a different circuit rules otherwise it will set the stage for a supreme court showdown.
Since the 70s SCOTUS has used something called the "act of production doctrine", which basically says that you have to produce some piece of evidence under subpoena unless the act of complying in itself bears on your possible guilt.
So a court can subpoena the contents of your safe, even though those contents will incriminate you. They can't say, "Deliver us all documents related to your bribing of an official," because to comply with that demand is to admit guilt.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Did we already abolish the 4th? Or does a phone not count among your personal effects?
Prosecution: "This is your locked phone, provide the password"
Defendant: "I tried my password, it doesn't work"
Judge: "You are held in contempt until you give your password"
Indefinite detention without conviction--there's your abuse scenario. Took about 10 seconds.
I went to the YesJulz instagram page. Now I feel like I was this close to viewing kiddie pr0n. Deleting browser cache.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
The problem with "You have to give us your password/PIN/combo/whatever or be in contempt and go to jail," is that even if you are ok with any constitutional issues (or perhaps are from a country without such protections), it is still open to a big issue: What happens when someone forgets? People forget their passwords ALL the time. Anyone who's worked in IT can tell you and yes, this includes things like phone PINs. Problem is with a law like this, you can go to jail, forever. The police demand access to something of yours that is encrypted, you can't remember the password, you get thrown in jail until you give it up. Since you legitimately can't remember, that is the rest of your life.
This gets even more problematic when you consider that good encryption looks just like randomness, and good stenography is undetectable. So a random bit of data in a deleted area on the harddrive: Hidden encrypted data, or just leftover garbage from something the system did? All those high res photos of random shit nobody cares about: Just your hobby and data hoarding, or used to hide encrypted stego data? There is literally no way to prove which, presuming that it was done right. So if the police can say "Decrypt this or else," and it isn't actually anything encrypted, or at least not something you have the key to, then there's a real problem.
Sounds like they have pretty strong probable cause, so this would be more along the lines of withholding evidence / refusing a search warrant than the 5th.
I mean, this seems like the proper way to do it rather than to, I don't know, try to force phone manufacturers to unlock it for them...
This "no self-incrimination" thing should not be viewed as some God-given right. It is simply due to the fact that when your teacher asks "Johnny, did you pee on the toilet seat?" your incentive to lie is so high that it is better to not depend on your testimony. This is not the case with passwords and similar, where the judge can instantly see whether it is correct. That said, "I forgot the password" is of course possible and should be believed unless proven to be false.
Gilty as charged. I dont see what the big deal is all about. Is the #maga crowd trolling again? The police should have a key to everything, PERIOD. Be sure they never abuse it by having multiple officers there at the sane time.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
To be admitted under oath. It was not in its beginnings an unconditional right to withhold relevant information from the courts to protect your own interests. Refusal to surrender a key can be legitimately considered contempt of court --- and that will have consequences. But you are not being forced to take to the stand and flat out admit to having committed a crime.
She looks about 25 to me...
They don't have to give passwords to a phone in the same way a person doesn't have to give up a combination to a safe or briefcase, especially if it holds incriminating evidence. The right to not self incriminate is an important thing. Only a totalitarianism regime would require a person to incriminate themselves. The hell is going on with this country, law enforcement and the judicial system not obeying the constitution is rampant. We have due process and laws for a reason, to protect the public against an out of control government. Even having a debate on this topic instead of following the law is worrying.
If the police have strong evidence that the stolen diamonds are in your wall safe, and that the things is rigged to blow if they try to crack it - do you think a judge could NOT compel you to give up the combination ?
...but you still have the right to remain silent. In the US under Miranda's rights, and under similar rights in lots of other jurisdiction elsewhere.
Note that in this case, given the *strong evidence* and and your obstination of not revealing the safe's password, you might start to look really suspicious(*) to the jury/judge (whatever is relevant in your jurisdiction).
Then again, to keep your metaphor, any thief with half a brain cell will very probably NOT stash the diamond in their own safe at home, but try to hide them in some place that nobody would think about. So they can safely show that the safe is empty of diamond, so that police can't manage to find the diamond, so competing thieves can't manage to get a grip on them, and so, once the steam blows off and nobody bother to keep an eye on the case, the thief can discretely retrieve the diamonds and enjoy them.
Here we have some idiots who decided to blackmail a victim *USING THEIR OWN FUCKING PHONES*. The devices that can easily be confiscated by police, with message logs that can be easily traced back to them, and the fact that they chose to remain silent might look a little bit strange(*).
---
(*): though not necessarily.
there's a scenario were the person might be innocent, but have some personal detail that they want to keep secret (e.g.: being gay and the publicly official partner being only "a bread". specially in culture that carries a stigma around homosexuality, or worse, in a jurisdiction with "sodomy laws" that considers it illegal)
on the other hand, if all other evidence points to guilty, they case won't be hinging on the sole content of the phone/safe...
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I have the right to remain silent. In free speech cases, art, movement, written and spoken words have been found to be "speech."
I have the right to show you the finger or not. There are repercussions for using free speech, but those should never come from "the state", which a judge represents.
If the state can open a safe, then they are allowed to see the contents. If they cannot, it isn't the defendant's place to open it for them.
In short, screw you. It isn't my job to help the cops as they attempt to rail-road the closest person into jail.
There have been many times in history where millions of lives could have been saved by one well aimed sniper round. This judge should be reminded of that.
Corporatism != Free Market
You should, under no circumstances, conduct any business on your phone that you would have issues with should the information contained therein be made public.
Do not conduct any of the same business on any computer or network you utilize for legitimate purposes as well for the same reasons.
Consider anything network connected to be compromised and / or a potential leverage point for the opposition to use as evidence against you.
I checked the instagram that comes up at the top on the google search too - not having the slightest clue who she was. With 86 posts of mostly nothing, I was surprised they'd say she was a social media star. So I googled again, and found a bunch of articles - including in the NYT - that say she is a snapchat superstar.
I don't do the whole snapchat thing, so I didn't know you could be a snapchat superstar. In fact, I thought the point of snapchat was to keep things from getting out to the public. Shows what I know.
Anyway, a google image search shows that she's a model/party girl with a big booty who does promotions and hangs with the cool crowd, including pro athletes, rap stars and DJs. She has a company that does social media PR stuff.
She also seems to be very good with photoshop, judging by the contrast between paparazzi photos and her own self-posted photos.
So I'm not sure if that instagram account has anything to do with her or not. But it is clearly not what she is known for.
I can't give my password as my password is an admission of wrongdoing.
"I have no recollection of that."
If top govt officials cant recall spending millions overseas funding terrorists seems like you could use the same for your phone PIN.
I dont remember.
After 10 incorrect attempt the phone wipes itself
**Life is too short to be serious**
Reminds me of a joke. All the Intelligence agencies are in a competition to find out whose best. The competition is to find a deer in a forest.
The CIA goes first. They use Satellite images, do image analysis and find the deer in 5 hours
The KGB goes next. They go and pour vodka at the roots of every tree. The Tree which starts swaying is the Drunk deer . They find it in 1 Hour
MI6 goes next. They send out an agent in a female deer suit. The Deer comes running. They find it in 10 minutes
Saddam's Iraqi intelligence goes next. They spend 20 hours and cant find the deer. Then they catch a tree and start beating it "Confess Confess You are a deer"
American Law enforcement is beginning to look more and more like Saddam's Mukhabarat - stupid and lazy.
**Life is too short to be serious**
If what we know about ourselves and it not passed to a 3rd party, that is our information. As OUR information, we are not required to use that to incriminate ourselves. It is the burden of law enforcement to get proof. While information SENT is out of the hands of the the accused, knowledge in the MIND of the accused is still their PERSONAL information, compelling people to give what is in their mind sets a DANGEROUS precedent: Why not just skip trials and put electrodes on people's head, or use truth drugs, or any number of methods of coercion techniques used by the Russians and Germans (or even us, unofficially of course at, say Guantanamo Bay)? Forcing the accused to basically give information to incriminate themselves, even for codes to their data, is a slippery slope because people with various motives can say, why stop there?
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
It will (probably) be appealed, and if so over-turned by a higher court. If not, some other phone-PIN case will come up in a higher court, rendering this one decision moot.
Obtaining stuff by regular warrants still applies. But regular warrants are very specific, not licenses for 'fishing expeditions', which a smartphone PIN would effectively be.
You can always lie.
Give them a complex-looking 'password' that has nothing to do with the real one. They fuck it up (or force you to fuck it up). Your phone gets bricked. They get pissed and threaten you with contempt. You get pissed and accuse them of having screwed with your phone and that's why your 'password' didn't work. No one can prove anything; your data is now safe from prying eyes, forever.
Of course you're a fool if you have a smartphone in the first place, and if you're foolish enough to have one, to store anything of value on it in the first place.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion