Comment on Suspects can refuse to provide phone passcodes to police, court rules

• AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  But biometrics have never been covered by the 5th amendment. Police collect facial photos and fingerprints and have done so for years. On top of that any DNA you unknowing leave at a police station can be used as evidence (strand of hair, spit on the rim of a water glass). I would never recommend commiting a crime but if you do and have evidence of it on your phone don’t use biometrics.

  source

  • CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Forcing someone to press on their phone to unlock it via fingerprunt is a lot different than just collecting data.

    IMO, forced/coerced biometrics to unlock a device SHOULD be covered by 5A

    source

    • AA5B@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Exactly. If the hair I leave behind or my spit on the rim of a glass can unlock my phone, that sucks but those are public things I’ve left behind. Unless I leave my fingers behind on the officers desk, forcing me to unlock my phone with them should be should be a violation of my rights.

      source
  • helenslunch@feddit.nl ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Sometimes “crimes” are not crimes at all.

    And sometimes you’ve done absolutely nothing wrong but prosecutors will use any information they can get their hands on as evidence of a crime, because they don’t give a single fuck if they lock up a person they know full well is innocent for the rest of their lives, all they care about is a “win” in court.

    source

    • APassenger@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      You’re right. I know your response may seem implausible, but prosecutors have fought against the release of known innocent people.

      It’s not even that they’ll try to get a win. It’s that they can refuse to simply honor justice in its most fundamental forms.

      source

      • kambusha@feddit.ch ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Central park 5 comes to mind

        source
    • prole@sh.itjust.works ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Cops have also been known to use “parallel construction” in order to launder evidence that would otherwise be considered inadmissible. It’s fucked.

      source
• prole@sh.itjust.works ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  How come there are never 3A advocates? What if I’m really against allowing soldiers to quarter in private homes?

  source

  • PoolloverNathan@programming.dev ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Relevant XKCD

    source

    • morriscox@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Are you aware of explainxkcd.com/wiki/…/496:_Secretary:_Part_3

      source
    • Kase@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Sorry, but can somebody explain the ending to me?

      source
  • starman2112@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I’m sure if the government was doing it’s damnedest to house soldiers in our apartments, there’d be more people against it. Unfortunately they’re just doing their best to jail anyone they don’t like.

    source
• jordanlund@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I dunno, how many Jan. 6’ers got convicted by the contents of their phones? :)

  source

  • helenslunch@feddit.nl ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Most of them were broadcasting their crimes, and their co-conspirators, live on Facebook. Prosecutors didn’t have to look hard.

    source
  • Chee_Koala@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    “well, this possible violation of the 5th could have similar results as this other time when i liked the results so…??? should we???”

    source
  • starman2112@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    My understanding was that most of them got got because their cell companies knew where they were, not because of the contents of their phones

    But also, I’d rather let every Jan Sixer go free than imprison one innocent person because they looked up textiles.com two years ago and found out how to make meth

    source