>A man suspected of voyeurism can be compelled to tell police his four-digit iPhone passcode so they can search it for incriminating photos, a Florida appeals court ruled.
>Aaron Stahl was arrested after a woman who was shopping in a store saw him crouch down and extend an illuminated cellphone under her skirt, according to court records.
>Once police obtained a warrant for the phone, they were still unable to access the photos on the phone.
>Without the passcode, which is known only to the user, even Apple cannot extract the data from the phone because the encryption key is tied to the passcode. After 10 failed attempts to enter the passcode, the phone will lock and potentially erase its contents.
>A trial judge denied the state’s motion to compel Stahl to give up his passcode, finding that it would be tantamount to forcing him to testify against himself in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
>But the Florida Court of Appeal’s Second District reversed Wednesday, finding that the passcode is not related to any criminal photos or videos found on the phone.
>“Providing the passcode does not ‘betray any knowledge [Stahl] may have about the circumstances of the offenses’ for which he is charged,” Judge Anthony Black said, writing for the three-judge panel. “Thus, ‘compelling a suspect to make a nonfactual statement that facilitates the production of evidence’ for which the state has otherwise obtained a warrant based upon evidence independent of the accused’s statements linking the accused to the crime does not offend the privilege.”
If was it was Android I don't think the situation will differ.
Luis Gomez
What if he pretends to enter his password but instead enters it incorrectly 10 times? I would probably do that.
Grayson Gonzalez
Might just get charged for tempering with the evidence.
Dylan Ward
you're kidding right
Leo Stewart
Better than rotting in jail for whatever he has on his Phone.
Jaxson Lewis
No I'm not, the judge will also request that you unlock your phone if it was an Android
Zachary Wood
>>“Providing the passcode does not ‘betray any knowledge [Stahl] may have about the circumstances of the offenses’ for which he is charged,” Judge Anthony Black said, writing for the three-judge panel. “Thus, ‘compelling a suspect to make a nonfactual statement that facilitates the production of evidence’ What the actual fuck? Why do these judges bother doing this shit. This faggot just said "He's not testifying against himself. He's just giving us information that will allow us to gather more evidence (against him) ;^)." Nobody with two braincells to rub together could possibly think that ruling would stand up to scrutiny from a higher court.
Juan Mitchell
Who fucking cares.
Isaiah Russell
this is the equivalent of the cops forcing you to hand over keys to your safe, which, as far as i know, isn't legal.
Ryder Rivera
>In the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1988 Doe v. U.S. decision, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a since much-repeated line, saying that an accused person may be “forced to surrender a key to a strongbox containing incriminating documents,” but cannot “be compelled to reveal the combination to his wall safe.”
Christian Cox
He can appeal and go to SCOTUS for an official ruling
I'm sure they'll hear it, it'd set a precedent across the country
Asher James
because a key is an object like property
a lock combination to a safe is knowledge, not something you can give up easily
Connor Wilson
so you can be forced to release your physical key, but you cannot be forced to release a passcode?
that... makes no fucking sense.
Adrian Stewart
Yes it does stupid, think for a moment
a key is property, you can be forced to release your property
a passcode is not some object you possess. You can only unlock a safe with a combination lock with the knowledge of the code. Giving up a key wouldn't violate your 5th, but being forced to speak would violate your right to remain silent and your 5th
John Gomez
There's a difference between being forced to hand over a physical object and being forced to reveal the info in your brain. The right to remain silent applies to any and all information you have inside your noggin. Decryption keys, passphrases, and ciphers have existed since before the country was founded. There have already been plenty of cases where people kept these pieces of info to themselves and the courts found that they had the right to do so. The only people arguing against this are douchebag judges and angry prosecutors who wish to make people believe that digital information is different in some way.
It stems from your right to remain silent. You cannot be compelled to testify against yourself.
Jacob Harris
And because he's not going to testify against himself he doesn't really have to give up this knowledge
Jayden Ward
>forgetting is a crime wtf has the world come to
Jordan Jones
whats the difference between a passcode / combination and a physical key? they perform the same exact function. except one instead of being physical is mental.
i understand your point, "knowledge, not physical" but they both do the SAME exact thing in the end. they're both "keys."
if one is legal and the other is illegal for something that has the same identical outcome it makes no fucking sense. its saying its illegal to force someone to hand over one key but legal to hand over another.
either make it 100% illegal to hand over any sort of key or make it 100% legal.
Joseph Reed
>whats the difference between a passcode / combination and a physical key? Do you really have to ask this?
A key is a physical object, something you can actually seize, like property. Its the same as the police collecting evidence that is your property. Police can't issue a warrant for property that doesn't exist. Your physical key can be confiscated willingly or unwillingly. You can't force someone to divulge a passcode only they know. Even if the two things perform the same task, the biggest difference in the eye of the law is that one is an object that can be obtained and the other is non-existent only in the form of speech. You can't force someone to talk its against their rights
Christian Hughes
>why should we have a right to not testify against ourselves? >why should we have the right to be presumed innocent, and force the state to make the case that we are guilty? >why shouldn't we let law enforcement do whatever they want, with no restrictions?
James Phillips
did you not fully read what i wrote?
>i understand your point, "knowledge, not physical" which i further stated >but they both do the SAME exact thing in the end. they're both "keys." i don't care if one is physical or one is mental. they do the same exact thing.
i don't care about any of that because my point is a digital key or a physical key in the end are keys. either force to hand over keys or not force to hand over keys because right now on one hand its illegal to force someone to hand over a key but on the other hand its legal. makes zero sense. a key is a key regardless if its physical or mental.
Brody Martinez
>>but they both do the SAME exact thing in the end. they're both "keys." >i don't care if one is physical or one is mental. they do the same exact thing. because the idea isn't revolving around the purpose each of those things accomplishes its the medium in which it exists.
You can physically confiscate property, you can't confiscate someone's knowledge even if the property and knowledge do the same thing.
The key has no rights, you DO have rights
Luke King
Right YOU don't care it's different you're just retarded
Adam Myers
Well you're wrong to not care about any of that. The point of that is that prosecutors shouldn't get to demand that you help them make their case against you. That gives them too much power - they can demand that you incriminate yourself, or they can throw you in jail for not helping them. Catch-22, it's impossible for the accused to have a fair trial.
Elijah Diaz
>prosecutors shouldn't get to demand that you help them make their case against you then they shouldn't be able to force you hand over any sort of documents that can be used against you as well. that includes handing over a physical key to unlock a safe that grants them access to damming evidence. ultimately to gain access to such key is forcing you to hand over your knowledge of where the key is located for them to retrieve or forcing you to use your own knowledge to retrieve the key yourself for them.
Brayden Ramirez
If the key is hidden and they don't know where it is, they can't compel me to tell them. That's always been the case.
The difference is that now in the digital world we have safes that can't be cracked.
Charles Ortiz
> U.S. Supreme Court’s 1988 Doe v. U.S. decision, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a since much-repeated line, saying that an accused person may be “forced to surrender a key to a strongbox containing incriminating documents,” but cannot “be compelled to reveal the combination to his wall safe.” that sure sounds like they can force you to give up knowledge of where the key is located and force you to use your own knowledge to retrieve the key to hand it over to me.
Tyler Wilson
Thats why you keep the key in plain sight and hide the lockbox
Jaxon Carter
They can get a warrant to search your home, workplace, or wherever they think the key is likely to be. They can't make you say where they need to look. They also can't punish you for saying "I lost it".
Chase Bennett
> U.S. Supreme Court’s 1988 Doe v. U.S. decision, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a since much-repeated line, saying that an accused person may be “forced to surrender a key to a strongbox containing incriminating documents,” but cannot “be compelled to reveal the combination to his wall safe.” >saying that an accused person may be “forced to surrender a key to a strongbox containing incriminating documents,” >but cannot “be compelled to reveal the combination to his wall safe.” they can force you to hand it over. to force you to hand it over means they would have to force you to hand over your own mental knowledge of the location of the key, or force you to use your mental knowledge of remembrance to retrieve the key yourself to hand it over. most of the time they will just simply force you to hand it over with a court order in fear of you "losing" the key when you went to collect it. doesn't matter if its physical or mental key, in the end, your own mental knowledge is required for both. they are still forcing you to hand over your knowledge for both. using your own knowledge against you.
Gavin Sanchez
"i forgot my passcode"
Hudson Nelson
I wonder if there'll be a revival of steganographic file systems, given a more hostile legal and political climate. I remember there were a few projects but when I looked into it they'd all been defunct since the early 2000s.
Wyatt Hernandez
Seriously, what if he says he can't remember it. What would they do then?
William Martinez
I understand what you're saying bro I don't get why all these people are trying to switch your words around. Yeah it's dumb. A combination and a key serve the same purpose, so it's dumb that there are different laws for a combo and a key. So basically owning a combination safe rather than a key safe is a loophole, you could install combination locks on your house and not have to give up the key lol. Pretty dumb but that's the way things work out a lot of times, loopholes due to rigid old laws. It's weird but the constitution has done us a lot of good.
Easton Bailey
They can still just break the door down so it make no real difference.
Easton Rogers
that feelio when I got kicked and banned from a certain store for taking creepshots~ :^)
unfortunately I lost the external hdd which I salvaged all my creepshots to
So if you do "cat /dev/urandom > /dev/sda" and then they demand you decrypt it, you'll spend the rest of your life in prison? (You can't decrypt it because it's just random rather than encrypted, but there is no way for you to prove that).
Blake Powell
I forgot it :^)
Landon Lopez
I knew I had that banned Pokemon card used as an image
I just spent the last hour trying to find my card collection but it paid off
Thanks for the memories OP
Adam Baker
I probably should have resized/cropped that but whatever you get the point
Josiah Ross
>keyboard straight out of 90's
how can you type on that thing properly?
Luke Adams
>keyboard straight out of 90's
Close user, but you were two years off. Buckling spring master race.
Cameron Jackson
>Banned Why? Naked Misty or something?
Chase Campbell
Yeah. There is also a Koffing one that has a swastika somewhere I think? Iunno. Don't think I have it. Idk if they were actually banned from play, but the American versions of all three were revised.
Ian Collins
Are you a qt trap or a grill?
Isaiah Carter
L-London? I also thought the grimer was a good picture for the thread The grimer was banned because it showed it looking up some girls skirt.
Jonathan Thompson
jelly of the liberties in america
Christopher Jenkins
I fapped to the naked misty cards so many times as a kid.
That and that fan made image of her riding staryu.
Wyatt Bennett
There's no need to do that. There's exploits that don't need a the pass code
Julian Perez
I do not recall (my passcode) >:^)
Evan Anderson
Just woke up, surprised this is still here.
I'm on hormones and shit. It's cool I guess. >L-London? Nope, sorry. And I mean it was a good picture, it made me go to more effort than most do. I think I was too young when collecting to really notice or have any kind of visceral response to the few I have. I wish I had some cool story about using it to become the Kommandant of the schoolyard or something, but I didn't.
Luke Price
I have the same keyboard
Saves you from RSI/carpal tunnel or whatever wrist problems if you haxx the gibson a alot
Grayson Cook
Damn, i thought that the traps on Sup Forums were a meme, not a reak thing. Well, ok.
Do you program better now?
Connor Johnson
No, it's a common retard's proverb. Smart people, whether statists or not, recognize the need for protections against the agents of the state.
You could probably graph a correlation between that and me growing to prefer functional over oo stuff, but I'm not sure if it's relevant.
Joseph Harris
does Android even encrypt contents when a PIN is required like the iOS? I'm pretty sure it doesn't otherwise there wouldn't be an explicit "encrypt your phone option"
Adrian Myers
Actually Google and a few other companies encrypt all their phones out of the box. It was optional in Lollipop and they were the only ones who did it, but I think phones shipping with Marshmallow or higher require it to be on by default.
Cooper Murphy
if they were using something like cyanogen they'd still need the pass
Christian Hughes
>implying urandom isn't backdoored
Jacob Morales
>either make it 100% illegal to hand over any sort of key or make it 100% legal. nice simplistic binary logic too bad things aren't binary in the real world
>that sure sounds like they can force you to give up knowledge of where the key is located and force you to use your own knowledge that's not how it works. They can't force the knowledge out of you. They can however get a warrant against every single piece of property you own and dig through all of it for the key lawfully
>they can force you to hand it over. to force you to hand it over means they would have to force you to hand over your own mental knowledge of the location of the key, or force you to use your mental knowledge of remembrance to retrieve the key yourself to hand it ov That's not how US law works. They can not force you to incriminate yourself. It's just like said.
The reason they say someone can be “forced to surrender a key to a strongbox containing incriminating documents," is referring to being forced to comply to a warrant not being forced to give up any information against yourself
Lincoln Jones
but if they're mandating encryption doesn't it mean that passcodes would be mandatory on MM and up?
Samuel Lopez
The card wasn't banned you underage shits. The English version was just "censored" by moving Grimer's eyes to look forward instead of up the girl's skirt.
Literately only 90s kids know this I guess.
Jacob Hall
If you hide the key, you aren't forced to reveal its location either.
Cameron King
censorship is a cancer even small examples like this prove it
More likely than not the poor artist that drew this didn't even have the intention to sexualize it
Grimer's eyes are in the most natural position in the uncensored card
Not to mention it's such an insignificant detail for some "muh proper" shithead to throw a fit over
Fuck censorship, it has ruined entire media collections
Ryan Cooper
I like how you quote my post that said >Idk if they were actually banned from play, but the American versions of all three were revised.
You pay a lot of attention.
Aiden Walker
Sort of related: what happened in that case with the fingerprint scanner? It was ruled that his fingerprint was biometric data and could thus be collected and used to unlock his phone right? Was it appealed?
Michael Watson
SCOTUS has held in the past that you cannot be required to provide a combination for a safe. The defendant should be able to make a reasonable argument to a higher court that where the government has no right to access physical data, they similarly have no right to access digital data.
Matthew Reyes
Sorry to offend you...
Gabriel Bell
>After 10 failed attempts to enter the passcode, the phone will lock and potentially erase its contents.
That's not how it works. They clone the device and then decrypt the copies.
Also, the old "I forgot" defense is impenetrable. It worked for Hillary.
Thomas Ramirez
THEY HAVE A WARRANT FOR THE PICTURES. If they had a warrant to appropriate your car, you'd be forced to hand the garage key or they'd break it down. so...
Luis Campbell
I would just ask a football player to give me a concussion and get it over with (if I were guilty)
Luis Foster
The car and the garage key are physical, this is knowledge that only the prosecuted knows and his not going to testify against himself
Logan Kelly
Technially, hidden volumes or deniable encryption supported by some encryption filesystems is a form of steganography.
