Your cell phone and the police

[HoughMade]

He refused to provide his password because they were on a fishing expedition. The did get a warrant. The warrant should have specified what evidence they were looking for. The problem with getting a warrant to search your phone for nothing specific is it will lead to searching your home or car for nothing specific. I would have to assume the phone warrant stated specifically what they were looking for, and not just any evidence to support a hunch. Your right to privacy is bigger than any one case.

If it’s an improper warrant, challenge the warrant. If it is not specific enough, courts make that decision.

 

[actaeon277]

The same way opening your door to keep your door jam from being destroyed isn’t self-incrimination.

You cannot be forced to testify against yourself. There is no constitutional right to not provide evidence.

So, if you don't provide a key, they will arrest you?

 

[Libertarian01]

What do people have on their phones that the cops would possibly want?
I guess I'm old because I use my phone to make and answer calls. It's a phone.

The problem is that your cell "phone" is not just a "phone." It is massively more than that in ways that are unimaginable.

Consider all of the apps on your phone, whether you use them or not they are there, and they are gathering data on you.

It is a GPS. Don't use the maps? No problem. It is still tracking everywhere you go and how long you were there. Say on Monday you go to the pharmacy and pick up a pain prescription. Then on Tuesday you go to a small store in a strip mall. But wait, next door is an alleged prostitution den that has alleged drug dealing. Your GPS is off a little, so it puts you 50' north of your position. The police open your phone and track exactly where you were and the time order. Now they can operate in completely good faith, albeit wrong, but good faith nonetheless that you sold your pain meds at the "illegal" business.

From this alone they can demand to see your pain meds to prove to them you aren't selling them. And if you can provide proof that you have them please explain what you were doing in the house of prostitution? Oh, and do this maybe(?) in front of your wife and family. You'll deny it of course, but the police can say, "just look at his phone. He was there!" Now you try to prove a negative.

Your phone can put you in the exact same location as every other phone near it. So if someone knows what to look for and has access to the data, they can see whom you have had lunch with, who is on the bowling team, who's house you go to regularly - even IF you use none of this!

I use the calendar feature on my phone quite a bit to keep track of doctors or dentists appointments that are monthes down the line. Someone gets into my phone they can see all of my appointments.

The days of a phone being just a phone are long gone, for good or ill.

I do not think I should be able to be force to unlock my phone in any way shape or form.

The rules on compelled decryption are more lenient at the U.S. border, where federal agents have given themselves wide authority to search the phones of people entering the country ─ and have reportedly spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on third-party hacking tools.

This I do not have a problem with, as illegal aliens have 0 Constitutional rights.

I don't follow this. Any person within the sovereign boundaries of the USA has all of the rights that are afforded by the constitution. Those rights aren't just there for citizens but for any who stand under the umbrella of our lawful authority. Otherwise we could just take them, and their kids, once determined to be illegal and line them up against a wall to be shot, right? After all, if they have no rights they have NONE! So that means no right protection from cruel or unusual punishment, no right to due process, nada.

Regards,

Doug

 

[HoughMade]

So, if you don't provide a key, they will arrest you?

No, they’ll get in another way because there is ​another way in.

 

[Dead Duck]

No, they’ll get in another way because there is ​another way in.

I told my girlfriend that but she said I'd have to get her drunk first.

 

[BigShow]

The problem is that your cell "phone" is not just a "phone." It is massively more than that in ways that are unimaginable.

Consider all of the apps on your phone, whether you use them or not they are there, and they are gathering data on you.

It is a GPS. Don't use the maps? No problem. It is still tracking everywhere you go and how long you were there. Say on Monday you go to the pharmacy and pick up a pain prescription. Then on Tuesday you go to a small store in a strip mall. But wait, next door is an alleged prostitution den that has alleged drug dealing. Your GPS is off a little, so it puts you 50' north of your position. The police open your phone and track exactly where you were and the time order. Now they can operate in completely good faith, albeit wrong, but good faith nonetheless that you sold your pain meds at the "illegal" business.

From this alone they can demand to see your pain meds to prove to them you aren't selling them. And if you can provide proof that you have them please explain what you were doing in the house of prostitution? Oh, and do this maybe(?) in front of your wife and family. You'll deny it of course, but the police can say, "just look at his phone. He was there!" Now you try to prove a negative.

Your phone can put you in the exact same location as every other phone near it. So if someone knows what to look for and has access to the data, they can see whom you have had lunch with, who is on the bowling team, who's house you go to regularly - even IF you use none of this!

I use the calendar feature on my phone quite a bit to keep track of doctors or dentists appointments that are monthes down the line. Someone gets into my phone they can see all of my appointments.

The days of a phone being just a phone are long gone, for good or ill.



I don't follow this. Any person within the sovereign boundaries of the USA has all of the rights that are afforded by the constitution. Those rights aren't just there for citizens but for any who stand under the umbrella of our lawful authority. Otherwise we could just take them, and their kids, once determined to be illegal and line them up against a wall to be shot, right? After all, if they have no rights they have NONE! So that means no right protection from cruel or unusual punishment, no right to due process, nada.

Regards,

Doug

Illegal immigrant= foreign invader! Treat them the same as we would have the NAZI's invading from Mexico in WWII. There is a way to enter this country legally. I welcome any person/persons that want to come here legally and is willing to learn to read, write, and speak American English. Not going to cater to any language but American English.

 

[Sigblitz]

 

[actaeon277]

No, they’ll get in another way because there is ​another way in.

Seems to me that's an "excuse" to get around rights.
It's either one way for both examples, or the other way for both examples.

 

[fullmetaljesus]

Ok follow me on this one.
Police are allowed to force us to comply.
We refuse arrest they take us down cuff us.
So let's say, a person is in custody. The police order the person to unlock their phone. They refuse.
Police get a warrant. Order person to unlock phone. They refuse again.
What's stopping the police, from simply pressing each of the persons fingers on the finger print reader until the phone unlocks.
A person in cuffs can only struggle so much. If they make a fist, then the police can use pain as a motivator to comply.
Now boom the police are in the phone. They disable security to allow re-entry, they pull down all the info.

What's stopping them?

 

[Sigblitz]

With a valid legal warrant, they'll get in, or try to. Now if you don't provide the password, is it obstructing justice? You don't want to incriminate yourself, and it's their burden to get in.

 

[actaeon277]

Ok follow me on this one.
Police are allowed to force us to comply.
We refuse arrest they take us down cuff us.
So let's say, a person is in custody. The police order the person to unlock their phone. They refuse.
Police get a warrant. Order person to unlock phone. They refuse again.
What's stopping the police, from simply pressing each of the persons fingers on the finger print reader until the phone unlocks.
A person in cuffs can only struggle so much. If they make a fist, then the police can use pain as a motivator to comply.
Now boom the police are in the phone. They disable security to allow re-entry, they pull down all the info.

What's stopping them?

not using a fingerprint.

 

[JettaKnight]

I have a flip phone.

The days of a phone being just a phone are long gone, for good or ill.

Not in my pocket, other Doug.

 

[Sigblitz]

I have a flip phone.

 

[BugI02]

I told my girlfriend that but she said I'd have to get her drunk first.

Five one one

 

[Libertarian01]

Illegal immigrant= foreign invader! Treat them the same as we would have the NAZI's invading from Mexico in WWII. There is a way to enter this country legally. I welcome any person/persons that want to come here legally and is willing to learn to read, write, and speak American English. Not going to cater to any language but American English.

These are civilians, not spies. Even if they were, they would then be covered by the Geneva Convention and thus have protected rights under treaty which has the force of law.

Every person that enters this country is protected by the rights afforded by the Constitution. Now, IF they break the law they may have some of their rights abridged while on trial or after convicted, but still they have rights.

I am 100% against illegal immigration and 100% for legal immigration, but I do acknowledge that all people have rights in this country, and thus are shielded from unreasonable search and seizure.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I do not think I should be able to be force to unlock my phone in any way shape or form.

The rules on compelled decryption are more lenient at the U.S. border, where federal agents have given themselves wide authority to search the phones of people entering the country ─ and have reportedly spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on third-party hacking tools.

This I do not have a problem with, as illegal aliens have 0 Constitutional rights.

A couple of things, first it applies to anyone entering the country. Legally, illegally, citizen, legal permanent resident, visa, or illegal immigrant. Second, SCOTUS disagrees and so do I on if illegals have Constitutional rights. Can you find anything in the Constitution that limits natural rights to citizens only?

The same way opening your door to keep your door jam from being destroyed isn’t self-incrimination.

You cannot be forced to testify against yourself. There is no constitutional right to not provide evidence.

So if the police think you're a drug dealer and get a warrant to search your house for it. And you are in fact a drug dealer and have said drugs in the house. You have to tell them where they are? Or the police have probable cause that you have a dead hooker in the trunk of your car and get a warrent, you have to tell them where you parked it? Neither one is testifying against yourself. But if you didn't do so, would be not providing evidence. All "you's" in this comment general not specific.

I don't follow this. Any person within the sovereign boundaries of the USA has all of the rights that are afforded by the constitution. Those rights aren't just there for citizens but for any who stand under the umbrella of our lawful authority. Otherwise we could just take them, and their kids, once determined to be illegal and line them up against a wall to be shot, right? After all, if they have no rights they have NONE! So that means no right protection from cruel or unusual punishment, no right to due process, nada.

Regards,

Doug

SCOTUS has found that they have no 2nd Am. rights, so according to them they don't have all rights protected by the Constitution. I disagree with that.

 

[HoughMade]

...So if the police think you're a drug dealer and get a warrant to search your house for it. And you are in fact a drug dealer and have said drugs in the house. You have to tell them where they are? Or the police have probable cause that you have a dead hooker in the trunk of your car and get a warrent, you have to tell them where you parked it? Neither one is testifying against yourself. But if you didn't do so, would be not providing evidence. All "you's" in this comment general not specific...

Actually, your examples are, in fact, testifying against yourself.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Actually, your examples are, in fact, testifying against yourself.

How is telling the police where your car is parked different from telling them the passcode to your phone? Both will allow them to gain access.

 

[HoughMade]

How is telling the police where your car is parked different from telling them the passcode to your phone? Both will allow them to gain access.

No. Telling them where your car is parked is not simply access. The analogy is giving them the keys to the car. That is not testamentary.

No on just as no argues says you have have to tell police where your phone is just as no one argues you have to tell them where your car is. That is settled law.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

No. Telling them where your car is parked is not simply access. The analogy is giving them the keys to the car. That is not testamentary.

No on just as no argues says you have have to tell police where your phone is just as no one argues you have to tell them where your car is. That is settled law.

I believe you, I just can't really wrap my head around the difference. In both cases the person would be giving up the contents of their mind to allow the police to access the evidence. To go sci-fi for a moment. It would be like if they could read a persons mind being found as not testifying against yourself. Fingerprint scanner unlocking I can see, forcing disclosure of knowledge not so much.