User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/1/2016 9:27:08 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The "under duress" app. Pinkie finger to unlock, and middle finger to scramble the device's brains. I'd download it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Won't be long before someone make an app that locks/wipes the phone if using one particular finger. Get both ...... have it accept one finger for lock, and a different one for wipe. (most folks have extra fingers) The "under duress" app. Pinkie finger to unlock, and middle finger to scramble the device's brains. I'd download it. Googled it....didn't see it. Is it called "under duress"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2016 9:30:52 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Guess what, they did and I still win most of the time. Which is irrelevant. Utterly irrelevant. And you know it is. I know what the law says about testimony versus non testimony evidence. You apparently don't. I'm not the cops, I'm not a da or any kind of prosecutor. I didn't argue any case directly impacting this distinction. But the distinction exists. The law is what it is, not what you want it to be. So do I. And frankly "the law" often times is utter bullshit and Unconstitutional. We have "laws" that say you can't own a gun....not even in your own house. We have "laws" that say you can't pray in certain areas at certain times. I don't really give a darn what the "law" says. I care what the CONSTITUTION says. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2016 9:31:18 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Only due to opinion. EXACTLY like obamacare is legal due to one guy's opinion. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: but because this isn't testimonial evidence. Only due to opinion. EXACTLY like obamacare is legal due to one guy's opinion. is pushing a finger against something materially different that say forcing a defendant to try on a glove or shoe? now the phone companies just need to make a login that has pin and fingerprint, with the internal option of fingerprint causing wipe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2016 9:32:02 PM EDT
[#4]
Once when I was a young and stupid kid I walked to school dragging my finger tips along a stucco wall.
By the time I got to said school my finger tips were raw and bleeding and had no recognizable whorls and ridges. Took longer than 48 hours to heal. I'm sure a concrete floor would do the same. I'm just putting this out there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2016 9:38:05 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Only due to opinion. EXACTLY like obamacare is legal due to one guy's opinion. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: but because this isn't testimonial evidence. Only due to opinion. EXACTLY like obamacare is legal due to one guy's opinion. Unfortunately that's the opinion that counts though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2016 9:39:10 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wasn't there a court case where the government wanted someone to provide a password for a laptop that may have had incriminating evidence on it? The paedo on the border? He was locked away until he gave it up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2016 9:41:53 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
An anonymous internet expert versus my 26 years litigating cases..... I'll go with my knowledge over your expertise, thanks. You cannot be compelled to give testimony against yourself. You can be compelled to open a door, a safe, give blood, turn over evidence. Witnesses give testimony, you can't be compelled to BE A WITNESS. Documents, photographs, etc, are not testimony. All testimony is evidence, not all evidence is testimony. Just telling you how the law works, and it doesn't work the way you want it to. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
[/span][/span] "CRACK" "That ball is well hit!! Going.... Going... Gone!!! Home run!!!! Actually, it was a mighty whiff. The fifth amendment is in plain English, just like the second. The second applies to "arms". Not some arbitrary subset like muskets, so the argument that it applies to muskets is incorrect. The fifth says you can't be forced to TESTIFY against yourself. Opening a door, a safe, or a phone IS NOT testifying against yourself. No homer, sorry, next batter. maybe you need to read that plain english. Nowhere is the word justify used as you say it is. nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, it is a right against incriminating yourself not solely testifying against yourself If the state wants the evidence they can open the iPhone themselves if they can't then too fucking bad, An anonymous internet expert versus my 26 years litigating cases..... I'll go with my knowledge over your expertise, thanks. You cannot be compelled to give testimony against yourself. You can be compelled to open a door, a safe, give blood, turn over evidence. Witnesses give testimony, you can't be compelled to BE A WITNESS. Documents, photographs, etc, are not testimony. All testimony is evidence, not all evidence is testimony. Just telling you how the law works, and it doesn't work the way you want it to. You can tell me how gun laws work too even though the 2nd says shall not be infringed. I can tell you in my state if you fail to fill out a change of address on your gun permit, your gun rights can be denied permanently. That doesn't mean it is constitutional. The law and the legal system is corrupt. Whether you see it that way or not. The laws no longer follow Constitutional restrictions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2016 9:48:01 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can tell me how gun laws work too even though the 2nd says shall not be infringed. I can tell you in my state if you fail to fill out a change of address on your gun permit, your gun rights can be denied permanently. That doesn't mean it is constitutional. The law and the legal system is corrupt. Whether you see it that way or not. The laws no longer follow Constitutional restrictions. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Actually, it was a mighty whiff. The fifth amendment is in plain English, just like the second. The second applies to "arms". Not some arbitrary subset like muskets, so the argument that it applies to muskets is incorrect. The fifth says you can't be forced to TESTIFY against yourself. Opening a door, a safe, or a phone IS NOT testifying against yourself. No homer, sorry, next batter. maybe you need to read that plain english. Nowhere is the word justify used as you say it is. nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, it is a right against incriminating yourself not solely testifying against yourself If the state wants the evidence they can open the iPhone themselves if they can't then too fucking bad, An anonymous internet expert versus my 26 years litigating cases..... I'll go with my knowledge over your expertise, thanks. You cannot be compelled to give testimony against yourself. You can be compelled to open a door, a safe, give blood, turn over evidence. Witnesses give testimony, you can't be compelled to BE A WITNESS. Documents, photographs, etc, are not testimony. All testimony is evidence, not all evidence is testimony. Just telling you how the law works, and it doesn't work the way you want it to. You can tell me how gun laws work too even though the 2nd says shall not be infringed. I can tell you in my state if you fail to fill out a change of address on your gun permit, your gun rights can be denied permanently. That doesn't mean it is constitutional. The law and the legal system is corrupt. Whether you see it that way or not. The laws no longer follow Constitutional restrictions. It's NOT "wrong", though, to say that there is a difference between compelling you to give witness, testify, against yourself and compelling you to turn over evidence. They are legally different concepts. It's not nonsense, it's a legal distinction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2016 9:48:22 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The paedo on the border? He was locked away until he gave it up. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Wasn't there a court case where the government wanted someone to provide a password for a laptop that may have had incriminating evidence on it? The paedo on the border? He was locked away until he gave it up. That one was also different in that the government had already seen the contraband. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2016 9:48:47 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Already exists Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Won't be long before someone make an app that locks/wipes the phone if using one particular finger. Already exists Just had a conversation with my son who develops iPhone apps and he said its basically impossible for iPhone. The touch id is only capable of unlocking the phone, or an app. Cannot be used as a trigger to perform a function other than that. He said, Android, easy to do. IPhone impossible unless done by apple in the iOS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2016 9:49:56 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then you get charged with destruction of evidence. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Won't be long before someone make an app that locks/wipes the phone if using one particular finger. Get both ...... have it accept one finger for lock, and a different one for wipe. (most folks have extra fingers) Then you get charged with destruction of evidence. Act just like it's getting your prints taken. Let them lead the dance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2016 10:05:01 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Googled it....didn't see it. Is it called "under duress"? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Won't be long before someone make an app that locks/wipes the phone if using one particular finger. Get both ...... have it accept one finger for lock, and a different one for wipe. (most folks have extra fingers) The "under duress" app. Pinkie finger to unlock, and middle finger to scramble the device's brains. I'd download it. Googled it....didn't see it. Is it called "under duress"? Made it up in my head. I'm only presenting it as a good idea that I'd download. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2016 10:30:11 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's NOT "wrong", though, to say that there is a difference between compelling you to give witness, testify, against yourself and compelling you to turn over evidence. They are legally different concepts. It's not nonsense, it's a legal distinction. Can the court compel you to lead them to the body of your victim? If you and your brother had an invented language, could the court compel you to translate your diary for them? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2016 11:00:47 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. I don't know why people think phones are suddenly off limits and different than anything else. Because it's the one thing that most people have that's also in play in this case. If I was really that concerned, I'd chew my fingerprints off. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2016 11:09:44 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I imagine it would be covered by a warrant, sort of like ordering you to open your gunsafe. A fifth ammendment argument would be a bit of a stretch and the gov isn't likely to stretch anything in OUR favor. 'Course i'm assuming they HAVE a warrant, or even believe they need one. I'm not familiar with the 48-hour feature mentioned above but, might a crafty defense lawyer run out the clock by filing motions/generally stalling until the info becomes unavailable? Yes, easily. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2016 11:10:51 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As long as a search warrant is issued by the court upon probable cause there is no way 4th or 5th amendment issue with forcing someone to unlock their phone. No different than obtaining a warrant for a blood sample. Hold them down if necessary and use their finger to open the phone. Its not even as invasive as a blood warrant. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
5th Amendment?? Doesn't apply. that's a testimonial privilege, by its own words. That is as ridiculous of an argument as "the 2nd only applies to muskets" or "Freedom of the Press doesn't include the internet." Yes, the fifth amendment does apply. Yes, you've got some court rulings that agree with you, and there are others that disagree. SCOTUS hasn't decided the issue, and it's clearly testimonial in nature as unlocking the phone proves that you and only you are the owner of all the contents and the only one with access to them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2016 11:14:34 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The difference is being compelled to produce the evidence just like being compelled to testify against yourself. The court has every right to open yhe iPhone themselves just like they would open the locked conyainer in 1800. If the court can not open the iPhone then fuck them. Being compelled to open it is being compelled to produce evidence against yourself and that is protected by the 5th. it is self incriminating. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It should be clear to any normal thinking individual that anything that is protected in such a way that it takes an action that only the targeted individual can do, it should be protected under the 5th. Now is that the way it is? No. Is that the way it should be if we were all honest about this stuff? Yes. There is no difference in doing a forced blood draw to get evidence and beating a confession out of a subject. None. Don't believe me? What if we developed mind reading technology and all that was needed was a receiver in proximity to a person? Would that be an infringement? There would be no invasive procedure like a blood draw. What is the difference in beating someone to get a confession and just reading their mind other than a level of violence? Does technology render the protections of The Constitution meaningless? Was that the intention of the 5th? That is ridiculous and I would love to hear the founders of our country opine as to whether retrieving keistered evidence is forcing someone to testify against themselves. Do you actually believe that the founders though the country they just founded would tax the citizens enough to pay government agents to worry about people who stuck drugs up their ass? Every day I become a little more certain that many people on this site who claim to be interested in restoring the Constitutional precepts in this country are really just anti-authority in any form and hide behind an incorrect and juvenile view of what the Fourth Amendment actually means. The Constitution is there to ensure a fair trial and reasonable search/seizure, not make you immune from ever having your privacy violated. The difference is being compelled to produce the evidence just like being compelled to testify against yourself. The court has every right to open yhe iPhone themselves just like they would open the locked conyainer in 1800. If the court can not open the iPhone then fuck them. Being compelled to open it is being compelled to produce evidence against yourself and that is protected by the 5th. it is self incriminating. We got a bingo! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2016 11:19:36 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just had a conversation with my son who develops iPhone apps and he said its basically impossible for iPhone. The touch id is only capable of unlocking the phone, or an app. Cannot be used as a trigger to perform a function other than that. He said, Android, easy to do. IPhone impossible unless done by apple in the iOS. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Won't be long before someone make an app that locks/wipes the phone if using one particular finger. Already exists Just had a conversation with my son who develops iPhone apps and he said its basically impossible for iPhone. The touch id is only capable of unlocking the phone, or an app. Cannot be used as a trigger to perform a function other than that. He said, Android, easy to do. IPhone impossible unless done by apple in the iOS. Touch ID can be used for a great deal more than that. I'm not going to say he's wrong as far as logging into the phone because I haven't had a chance to read through that API, but I have a suspicion there's a way to do it. Either way -- I suspect it will be a feature in 9.4 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2016 11:21:46 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why is your brain off limits if your blood isn't? If they could build a machine to read thoughts, the Federal courts would make an exception to the 5th amendment for it's use. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2016 11:27:01 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Guess what? Every trial you ever were in, I could have paid someone to argue the complete opposite of what you argued. In fact, someone did. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Thanks for the lesson, I'll try to remember that for the next trial I handle. I've been a JD for 26 years. You're wrong. All testimony is evidence. Not all evidence is testimony. Next batter. Guess what? Every trial you ever were in, I could have paid someone to argue the complete opposite of what you argued. In fact, someone did. And you'll get two different answersfrom two different federal courts as well. There's simply more to this than the cut and dried explanation the lawyers here are stating. And here And here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2016 11:30:40 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can the court compel you to lead them to the body of your victim? If you and your brother had an invented language, could the court compel you to translate your diary for them? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's NOT "wrong", though, to say that there is a difference between compelling you to give witness, testify, against yourself and compelling you to turn over evidence. They are legally different concepts. It's not nonsense, it's a legal distinction. Can the court compel you to lead them to the body of your victim? If you and your brother had an invented language, could the court compel you to translate your diary for them? If you have that body in a safe in your house, they can compel you to stand aside while they find it. They aren't asking you to confirm anything, which leading them to a body would be doing. They can search your HOUSE, why woudnt they be able to search your phone? The act of unlocking it isn't in any way testimony, any more than the act of opening the door to a warrant. Nothing's magically transformed into "testimony" just because you're carrying it around in a phone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2016 11:32:04 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, the fifth amendment does apply. Yes, you've got some court rulings that agree with you, and there are others that disagree. SCOTUS hasn't decided the issue, and it's clearly testimonial in nature as unlocking the phone proves that you and only you are the owner of all the contents and the only one with access to them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
5th Amendment?? Doesn't apply. that's a testimonial privilege, by its own words. That is as ridiculous of an argument as "the 2nd only applies to muskets" or "Freedom of the Press doesn't include the internet." Yes, the fifth amendment does apply. Yes, you've got some court rulings that agree with you, and there are others that disagree. SCOTUS hasn't decided the issue, and it's clearly testimonial in nature as unlocking the phone proves that you and only you are the owner of all the contents and the only one with access to them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2016 11:33:50 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, the fifth amendment does apply. Yes, you've got some court rulings that agree with you, and there are others that disagree. SCOTUS hasn't decided the issue, and it's clearly testimonial in nature as unlocking the phone proves that you and only you are the owner of all the contents and the only one with access to them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
5th Amendment?? Doesn't apply. that's a testimonial privilege, by its own words. That is as ridiculous of an argument as "the 2nd only applies to muskets" or "Freedom of the Press doesn't include the internet." Yes, the fifth amendment does apply. Yes, you've got some court rulings that agree with you, and there are others that disagree. SCOTUS hasn't decided the issue, and it's clearly testimonial in nature as unlocking the phone proves that you and only you are the owner of all the contents and the only one with access to them. What? Phone records and the serial number can confirm its your phone. Ownership won't be at issue, you'd have been in sole possession of it at arrest, that's why they are asking YOU to open it. A call to sprint confirms that's the phone they handed you and you're paying the monthly service charge on. It's not testimonial any more than unlocking a safe would be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2016 11:35:40 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Already exists Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Won't be long before someone make an app that locks/wipes the phone if using one particular finger. Already exists |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2016 11:40:25 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What? Phone records and the serial number can confirm its your phone. Ownership won't be at issue, you'd have been in sole possession of it at arrest, that's why they are asking YOU to open it. A call to sprint confirms that's the phone they handed you and you're paying the monthly service charge on. It's not testimonial any more than unlocking a safe would be. Unlocking and decrypting the data on it with your fingerprint is far more proof than paying a bill. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2016 11:41:31 PM EDT
[#26]
Mach makes an interesting point, can I be compelled to deliver the evidence, or does the warrant only allow seizure of the evidence? Going back to my gunsafe example, I assumed I would be compelled to unlock the safe or provide the combination. Now I'm not so sure. Certainly the state could bring in a safecracker or diamond saw and open the safe themselves. But can I be compelled to open it myself?
There's where the 4th/5th confusion comes in, I think. I'll have to re-read the whole thread now, damnit! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2016 11:55:18 PM EDT
[#27]
"Okay, you guys win. Hand it here and I'll unlock it." *wing* *smash*
They'd be telling rookies for years-to-come where the high-impact damage to the wall came from. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2016 11:56:51 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Guess what? Every trial you ever were in, I could have paid someone to argue the complete opposite of what you argued. In fact, someone did. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Thanks for the lesson, I'll try to remember that for the next trial I handle. I've been a JD for 26 years. You're wrong. All testimony is evidence. Not all evidence is testimony. Next batter. Guess what? Every trial you ever were in, I could have paid someone to argue the complete opposite of what you argued. In fact, someone did. Go easy on him. He's a Cali lawyer. They don't have experience with courts outside of their state that value and protect privacy and constitutional rights on occasion. What he posted is probably right, for the geographical location where he practices. Other court jurisdictions have ruled differently. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 12:11:43 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The "under duress" app. Pinkie finger to unlock, and middle finger to scramble the device's brains. I'd download it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Won't be long before someone make an app that locks/wipes the phone if using one particular finger. Get both ...... have it accept one finger for lock, and a different one for wipe. (most folks have extra fingers) The "under duress" app. Pinkie finger to unlock, and middle finger to scramble the device's brains. I'd download it. Why would you even need an app? Use a different finger when ordered to unlock the phone, eventually a password is required. You then are not longer able to be compelled to unlock it. Or at least that is how it would work on my S6. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 12:15:20 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mach makes an interesting point, can I be compelled to deliver the evidence, or does the warrant only allow seizure of the evidence? Going back to my gunsafe example, I assumed I would be compelled to unlock the safe or provide the combination. Now I'm not so sure. Certainly the state could bring in a safecracker or diamond saw and open the safe themselves. But can I be compelled to open it myself? There's where the 4th/5th confusion comes in, I think. I'll have to re-read the whole thread now, damnit! As I understand safes have been decided law that you can not be compelled to give or use the combination to open them. The state is however, welcome to use any means at their disposal to brute force their way in. The same should hold true for the digital realm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 12:24:33 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As I understand safes have been decided law that you can not be compelled to give or use the combination to open them. The state is however, welcome to use any means at their disposal to brute force their way in. The same should hold true for the digital realm. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Mach makes an interesting point, can I be compelled to deliver the evidence, or does the warrant only allow seizure of the evidence? Going back to my gunsafe example, I assumed I would be compelled to unlock the safe or provide the combination. Now I'm not so sure. Certainly the state could bring in a safecracker or diamond saw and open the safe themselves. But can I be compelled to open it myself? There's where the 4th/5th confusion comes in, I think. I'll have to re-read the whole thread now, damnit! As I understand safes have been decided law that you can not be compelled to give or use the combination to open them. The state is however, welcome to use any means at their disposal to brute force their way in. The same should hold true for the digital realm. Good to know and that makes sense to me. If you know, is that court decision based on a 5th Ammendment argument or something else? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 12:26:29 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good to know and that makes sense to me. If you know, is that court decision based on a 5th Ammendment argument or something else? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Mach makes an interesting point, can I be compelled to deliver the evidence, or does the warrant only allow seizure of the evidence? Going back to my gunsafe example, I assumed I would be compelled to unlock the safe or provide the combination. Now I'm not so sure. Certainly the state could bring in a safecracker or diamond saw and open the safe themselves. But can I be compelled to open it myself? There's where the 4th/5th confusion comes in, I think. I'll have to re-read the whole thread now, damnit! As I understand safes have been decided law that you can not be compelled to give or use the combination to open them. The state is however, welcome to use any means at their disposal to brute force their way in. The same should hold true for the digital realm. Good to know and that makes sense to me. If you know, is that court decision based on a 5th Ammendment argument or something else? IANAL, but as I understand it yes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 12:27:32 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unlocking and decrypting the data on it with your fingerprint is far more proof than paying a bill. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What? Phone records and the serial number can confirm its your phone. Ownership won't be at issue, you'd have been in sole possession of it at arrest, that's why they are asking YOU to open it. A call to sprint confirms that's the phone they handed you and you're paying the monthly service charge on. It's not testimonial any more than unlocking a safe would be. Unlocking and decrypting the data on it with your fingerprint is far more proof than paying a bill. Doesn't matter. Paying the bill is sufficient. Negates your point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 12:28:03 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Okay, you guys win. Hand it here and I'll unlock it." *wing* *smash* They'd be telling rookies for years-to-come where the high-impact damage to the wall came from. And you'd be in prison to look at for destroying evidence .... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 1:39:24 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just had a conversation with my son who develops iPhone apps and he said its basically impossible for iPhone. The touch id is only capable of unlocking the phone, or an app. Cannot be used as a trigger to perform a function other than that. He said, Android, easy to do. IPhone impossible unless done by apple in the iOS. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Won't be long before someone make an app that locks/wipes the phone if using one particular finger. Already exists Just had a conversation with my son who develops iPhone apps and he said its basically impossible for iPhone. The touch id is only capable of unlocking the phone, or an app. Cannot be used as a trigger to perform a function other than that. He said, Android, easy to do. IPhone impossible unless done by apple in the iOS. If people would stop being so damn lazy and use decent code that was not something that could be social engineered and changed it on a regular basis this whole discussion would be moot. Better yet get an app that auto wipes the phone and scrambles the cloud like a dropped carton of eggs if someone tries to use the finger security bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 2:41:28 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Doesn't matter. Paying the bill is sufficient. Negates your point. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What? Phone records and the serial number can confirm its your phone. Ownership won't be at issue, you'd have been in sole possession of it at arrest, that's why they are asking YOU to open it. A call to sprint confirms that's the phone they handed you and you're paying the monthly service charge on. It's not testimonial any more than unlocking a safe would be. Unlocking and decrypting the data on it with your fingerprint is far more proof than paying a bill. Doesn't matter. Paying the bill is sufficient. Negates your point. Paying a bill proves nothing about the ownership or provenance of the data on the phone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 3:13:37 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Doesn't apply. that's a testimonial privilege, by its own words. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
5th Amendment?? Doesn't apply. that's a testimonial privilege, by its own words. People forget that testimonial part for multiple amendments 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 3:25:23 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For those of us with iPhones, the answer to this type of invasion of privacy is, power your phone off if you might be getting arrested. The iPhone requires a PassCode input after a power down. The print reader will not open the phone, and the courts have also held that your PassCode is protected by the 5th Am. If she had done that, or somehow got them to wait 48 hours, the passcode would be the only way in. Or, use your ring finger or pinky for the print reader. They don't know which finger to make you try, and there are only 5 or 6 attempts before the code is required. It is a logical assumption you use your thumb or index finger. Another tip, for those who hate the NSA spying on Americans. Use WiFi calling when you can since it will not be captured by the .gov using "StingRay" if they are sniffing up your tailpipe. The other end could still be captured however if you are calling another cellphone.. Same for my Galaxy S7; it requires your passcode (or pattern, if you have that selected) when rebooted. I think it applies to any phone with a fingerprint reader, actually. I could be wrong. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 3:50:30 AM EDT
[#39]
Based on some of the comments I've read thus far, if the technology existed to obtain information from an individual's brain using a device on their head, a warrant would be good to go right? Probable cause the information is in the brain therefore its good to go.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 3:52:44 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Already exists Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Won't be long before someone make an app that locks/wipes the phone if using one particular finger. Already exists Oh really? Do tell.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 3:52:49 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Only due to opinion. EXACTLY like obamacare is legal due to one guy's opinion. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: but because this isn't testimonial evidence. Only due to opinion. EXACTLY like obamacare is legal due to one guy's opinion. Welcome to the common law system set up by the same founders you hold in such high esteem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 8:16:46 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Doesn't apply. that's a testimonial privilege, by its own words. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
5th Amendment?? Doesn't apply. that's a testimonial privilege, by its own words. If she uses her fingerprint to unlock the phone that's evidence that it's her phone which could be used against her. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 9:10:08 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you have that body in a safe in your house, they can compel you to stand aside while they find it. They aren't asking you to confirm anything, which leading them to a body would be doing. They can search your HOUSE, why woudnt they be able to search your phone? The act of unlocking it isn't in any way testimony, any more than the act of opening the door to a warrant. Nothing's magically transformed into "testimony" just because you're carrying it around in a phone. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's NOT "wrong", though, to say that there is a difference between compelling you to give witness, testify, against yourself and compelling you to turn over evidence. They are legally different concepts. It's not nonsense, it's a legal distinction. Can the court compel you to lead them to the body of your victim? If you and your brother had an invented language, could the court compel you to translate your diary for them? If you have that body in a safe in your house, they can compel you to stand aside while they find it. They aren't asking you to confirm anything, which leading them to a body would be doing. They can search your HOUSE, why woudnt they be able to search your phone? The act of unlocking it isn't in any way testimony, any more than the act of opening the door to a warrant. Nothing's magically transformed into "testimony" just because you're carrying it around in a phone. You moved the goal posts. I have no problem stepping aside and letting them open the safe or the phone. The question is if they could force you to open the safe or the phone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 9:31:35 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Welcome to the common law system set up by the same founders you hold in such high esteem. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: but because this isn't testimonial evidence. Only due to opinion. EXACTLY like obamacare is legal due to one guy's opinion. Welcome to the common law system set up by the same founders you hold in such high esteem. Indeed. There's been some thought put into this, but it won't keep folks from misunderstanding things. 5th Amendment-Encryption The Supreme Court has recognized seven “fundamental values” underlying the Fifth Amendment. They are:
[(1)] our unwillingness to subject those suspected of crime to the cruel trilemma of self-accusation, perjury or contempt; [(2)] our preference for an accusatorial rather than an inquisitorial system of criminal justice; [(3)] our fear that self-incriminating statements will be elicited by inhumane treatment and abuses; [(4)] our sense of fair play which dictates a fair state-individual balance by requiring the government to leave the individual alone until good cause is shown for disturbing him and by requiring the government in its contest with the individual to shoulder the entire load[]; [(5)] our respect for the inviolability of the human personality and of the right of each individual to a private enclave where he may lead a private life[]; [(6)] our distrust of self-deprecatory statements; and [(7)] our realization that the privilege, while sometimes a shelter to the guilty, is often a protection to the innocent.38 Six of these seven values do not meaningfully affect the analysis here. Privacy is no longer a Fifth Amendment value.39 As for the other five, they are not absolutes; they are only strong preferences for not permitting compulsion. We have “unwillingness” to subject the accused to a cruel trilemma; we “prefer[] . . . an accusatorial” system over an inquisitorial one; we “fear that self-incriminating statements” were the products of abuse; and we “distrust” those statements. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 9:37:41 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is as ridiculous of an argument as "the 2nd only applies to muskets" or "Freedom of the Press doesn't include the internet." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
5th Amendment?? Doesn't apply. that's a testimonial privilege, by its own words. That is as ridiculous of an argument as "the 2nd only applies to muskets" or "Freedom of the Press doesn't include the internet." meh. Both of those arguments have their followers among law enforcement as well. Your rights are worth less and less every day. We are already living in a society where our freedom is largely illusory, simply because the government hasn't put its crosshairs on us yet. We've already ceded to them all the tools and privileges they need to destroy us, with the understanding that they will "only be used on bad guys." Just wait till someone in charge decides that you are the bad guy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 9:49:01 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Won't be long before someone make an app that locks/wipes the phone if using one particular finger. Excellent idea. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 9:49:45 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You think the intention of the 5th amendment was to allow you to conceal evidence of a crime inside your person and it magically be off limits? That is ridiculous and I would love to hear the founders of our country opine as to whether retrieving keistered evidence is forcing someone to testify against themselves. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It should be clear to any normal thinking individual that anything that is protected in such a way that it takes an action that only the targeted individual can do, it should be protected under the 5th. Now is that the way it is? No. Is that the way it should be if we were all honest about this stuff? Yes. There is no difference in doing a forced blood draw to get evidence and beating a confession out of a subject. None. Don't believe me? What if we developed mind reading technology and all that was needed was a receiver in proximity to a person? Would that be an infringement? There would be no invasive procedure like a blood draw. What is the difference in beating someone to get a confession and just reading their mind other than a level of violence? Does technology render the protections of The Constitution meaningless? Was that the intention of the 5th? That is ridiculous and I would love to hear the founders of our country opine as to whether retrieving keistered evidence is forcing someone to testify against themselves. The search warrant allows police to search for and retrieve evidence. The fourth and fifth amendments (last time I read them) don't contain any statements forcing or encouraging cooperation with the government as a condition. Compelling a person to join them as an actor in the search for evidence against himself is something I have a problem with. If you want to search, and have a warrant, go ahead. If you are unable to, it's not the accused's problem. In this case a fingerprint is not a matter of identity. It's testimony in that the use of it is going to reveal the meaning of data already seized by and in the possession of law enforcement. They have the data, but they don't understand it. Using someone's fingerprint or passcode is equivalent to demanding: "Explain this to us. All of it. Thoroughly." I think the courts will eventually agree, but this is easier to solve with technology. Our government is an immensely greater danger than any single criminal ever was. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 10:04:23 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then you get charged with destruction of evidence. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Won't be long before someone make an app that locks/wipes the phone if using one particular finger. Get both ...... have it accept one finger for lock, and a different one for wipe. (most folks have extra fingers) Then you get charged with destruction of evidence. There's always a way they can fuck you, isn't there? Nothing to fear, if you've done nothing wrong, eh? The only catch is that it's impossible to do nothing wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 10:06:50 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
is pushing a finger against something materially different that say forcing a defendant to try on a glove or shoe? now the phone companies just need to make a login that has pin and fingerprint, with the internal option of fingerprint causing wipe. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: but because this isn't testimonial evidence. Only due to opinion. EXACTLY like obamacare is legal due to one guy's opinion. is pushing a finger against something materially different that say forcing a defendant to try on a glove or shoe? now the phone companies just need to make a login that has pin and fingerprint, with the internal option of fingerprint causing wipe. By "phone companies" do you mean manufacturers, or service providers? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 10:08:01 AM EDT
[#50]
I would have figured by now the .gov could make fingerprints like they do in the movies.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
