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.
"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.
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.
might as well compel a confession and be done with it faster.
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.
Right. A case about two idiots blackmailing a woman with nudes is the thing that would upset the founding fathers.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." -- H. L. Mencken
The mass surveillance over the US population conducted by the federal government over the last decade was a-ok ...
You are implying that supporters of human rights are hypocrites. I don't think so. Those of us objecting to this violation of 5th are the same people that objected to the mass surveillance.
What're they gonna do - torture them for the info?
No, but they can be held in jail indefinitely for refusing to obey the judge's order.
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.
Except if a Judge decides he doesn't give a fuck,
Then that sucks. In the case you linked to though, it seems there was good reason for him to be in contempt:
The problem is that it doesn't matter what it looks like. You're not supposed to ever be jailed without a trail, and especially without any possibility for a trail, nor for a completely arbitrary and indefinite amount of time.
Let that sink in: If the judge believes you're lying, then whether or not you are, you can be jailed effectively forever, completely without a trial. The only way to even get a trial is to admit you committed perjury - that is about as clear a case of coerced self-incrimination as I can think of, and precisely what the 5th Amendment is supposed to protect you from. And, if you are actually telling the truth, it is impossible for you to ever prove it, as you will never get a trial at which to do so.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I absolutely agree that backdoors are a terrible idea. But what happened here however was perfectly fine to my mind. The police already had strong evidence linking the suspects to a crime, the evidence was reviewed by a court - and the suspects were only compelled to give up their passcodes after a judge, in a public and open court, determined there was genuine probable cause.
That's exactly how it's SUPPOSED to work.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Is it speech ? Or is it "Here's a search warrant, unlock the damn door".
If you really want to get finicky then the order can be changed to force him to enter the passcode himself and, under supervision by an oficer of the court, disable it - and he never has to reveal it.
It's not speech, it's a key - a judge has every right to compel you to hand over the key to private property when a duly justified search warrant is issued pursuant to probable cause.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Is it speech ?
It's speech. Compelling me to say one thing (password) means they can compel me to say anything, in which case why don't they simply compel me to confess and get it over with - no need for the password.
Or is it "Here's a search warrant, unlock the damn door".
It's not. It's "Here's a search warrant, now tell us the contents of your mind."
If you really want to get finicky then the order can be changed to force him to enter the passcode himself and, under supervision by an oficer of the court, disable it - and he never has to reveal it.
It's not speech, it's a key - a judge has every right to compel you to hand over the key to private property when a duly justified search warrant is issued pursuant to probable cause.
Many things are not one or the other but a mixture of both - the password which you call a key is also my private thoughts. If the key conflicts with my right to private thoughts, which should win? Should we take away private thoughts?
"You must say what the state tells you to say" is something out of a 1984 dystopia. "You must say what the state tells you to say" is thought-crime.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
I actually have no problem at all with the government trying to get the information, heck even compelling a third party to crack the phone. I do have a problem with them compelling someone to provide information against themselves or provide information they could have forgotten.