Feds Walk Into A Building. Demand Everyone's Fingerprints To Open Phones http://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasb...erprint-seizure-to-open-iphones/#455e74698d9d More DOJ bullshit.
Yeah I was wondering. Would they have the ability to put you in jail if you didn't unlock it? Interesting stuff for sure.
Not sure I really understand the objection here. Suppose the device in question was not a phone but a room with a biometric lock on it. Would you argue that the search warrant doesn't cover that room, and the feds have no right to make the occupant unlock it? barfo
According to the memorandum, signed off by U.S. attorney for the Central District of California Eileen Decker, the government asked for even more than just fingerprints: “While the government does not know ahead of time the identity of every digital device or fingerprint (or indeed, every other piece of evidence) that it will find in the search, it has demonstrated probable cause that evidence may exist at the search location, and needs the ability to gain access to those devices and maintain that access to search them. For that reason, the warrant authorizes the seizure of ‘passwords, encryption keys, and other access devices that may be necessary to access the device,’” the document read.
I still wondering what would happen if you refuse to unlock it. Presumably, an innocent person could go to jail for not unlocking it?
One reason to like Ron Wyden is that he seems like a lone voice of sanity these days, standing up to the feds and their massive, illegal warentless searches. For instance.
I'm still not seeing the issue. How is this different from using a warrant to force someone to open a locked safe or closet? barfo
But in this case, it seems there is a warrant. If there wasn't, I'd completely agree this is unreasonable. barfo
Phones are mobile and on a person, vs a locked safe which would be attached to the property they have a warrant for.
Yes... so you are saying that a search warrant on your home doesn't allow the cops to search your person? I'm no expert but I'd guess it does. Otherwise, instead of flushing the drugs down the toilet when the cops knock, you could just put them in your pocket. barfo
I am not saying anything other than the difference of a mobile device and your safe. I believe the law looks at that differently, otherwise this article wouldn't exist. You ever seen someone go to jail because they wouldn't open a safe in a warrant? Just asking. I do not know. Were they forced to give the combo, even if nothing was found in the original warrant?
Why should they need a warrant at all? That's the way you seem to want it. A warrant is to specify the specific place and things to be searched. Barfo's phone, because we suspect he's the evil clown. Not, "anyone's phone because we want to fish."
Is that the objection here then? That the warrant didn't specify whose phone specifically? It just wasn't clear to me that that was the basis for the objection (rather than, say, forcing someone to do something, or accessing data via the phone that might be stored somewhere outside the location listed on the warrant). barfo
Did you read the article? FORBES found a court filing, dated May 9 2016, in which the Department of Justice sought to search a Lancaster, California, property. But there was a more remarkable aspect of the search, as pointed out in the memorandum: “authorization to depress the fingerprints and thumbprints of every person who is located at the SUBJECT PREMISES during the execution of the search and who is reasonably believed by law enforcement to be the user of a fingerprint sensor-enabled device that is located at the SUBJECT PREMISES and falls within the scope of the warrant.” The warrant was not available to the public, nor were other documents related to the case. According to the memorandum, signed off by U.S. attorney for the Central District of California Eileen Decker, the government asked for even more than just fingerprints: “While the government does not know ahead of time the identity of every digital device or fingerprint (or indeed, every other piece of evidence) that it will find in the search, it has demonstrated probable cause that evidence may exist at the search location, and needs the ability to gain access to those devices and maintain that access to search them. For that reason, the warrant authorizes the seizure of ‘passwords, encryption keys, and other access devices that may be necessary to access the device,’” the document read. Legal experts were shocked at the government’s request. “They want the ability to get a warrant on the assumption that they will learn more after they have a warrant,” said Marina Medvin of Medvin Law. “Essentially, they are seeking to have the ability to convince people to comply by providing their fingerprints to law enforcement under the color of law – because of the fact that they already have a warrant. They want to leverage this warrant to induce compliance by people they decide are suspects later on. This would be an unbelievably audacious abuse of power if it were permitted.” Jennifer Lynch, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), added: “It’s not enough for a government to just say we have a warrant to search this house and therefore this person should unlock their phone. The government needs to say specifically what information they expect to find on the phone, how that relates to criminal activity and I would argue they need to set up a way to access only the information that is relevant to the investigation.
