Supreme Court: Must have Warrant to search cellphones

[Zach Caldwell]

This came down as a 9-0 vote. That alone should be big news for the Roberts court. But a good call I do think. What say you?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/25/justice/supreme-court-cell-phones/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

[Rilbur]

Damn, beat me too it.

 

I may not have agreed with all the rullings they've handed down this week, but this is one I'm really glad they handed out.

[Rilbur]

Speaking of unpleasant rulings, look at this one:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/massachusetts-high-court-orders-suspect-to-decrypt-his-computers

[Anjobranco]

I agree whit your Supreme Court decision, but knowing what i know about how things work in America, independently of the Supreme Court decision police and State Courts will continue to do what they want and rule as they please. 

 

 

Speaking of unpleasant rulings, look at this one:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/massachusetts-high-court-orders-suspect-to-decrypt-his-computers

 

On this second one i have to ask. Are those judges simply stupid or are they so high of them self's that they think just because they say so people will give them there PC encryption key?

If i stand trial for a crime and i know i will be convicted for it, why will i freely give the courts more information that can aggravate my sentence?

[seabird]

I must agree with Anjobranco (above). Our present government has never shown any intention of obeying laws, especially when it conflicts with their own desires. It is a danger to all, even those who live outside the borders of The United States. They have already been caught spying on internet conversations in foreign (to us) countries and offering no apology. Whenever someone from another country innocently sends an e-mail or other internet communication to a person or entity in the United States, a door is opened and allows US spy agencies to not only spy on the offshore sender, but also ALL those whom that sender is in contact with, regardless of nationality.

 

 

Spying is big business and "contractors" line up at our government's door to be awarded contracts to spy on US Citizens as well as any other person they can latch on to. One MIGHT say, if you are doing nothing wrong, then "who cares", but always remember, in the spy business, you are ALWAY guilty of SOMETHING! In fact, if they cannot find anything, be assured they will "invent" something, if for no other reason than to justify their own activities.

 

Charles Bird

SeaBird

SeaBird

[Rilbur]

 

I agree whit your Supreme Court decision, but knowing what i know about how things work in America, independently of the Supreme Court decision police and State Courts will continue to do what they want and rule as they please. 

 

 

 

On this second one i have to ask. Are those judges simply stupid or are they so high of them self's that they think just because they say so people will give them there PC encryption key?

If i stand trial for a crime and i know i will be convicted for it, why will i freely give the courts more information that can aggravate my sentence?

 

As to the first, I'm going to have to disagree.  They will wiggle through any loophole they can find, distort the truth any way they can get away with, but they aren't going to directly contradict SCOTUS.  And if they do, SCOTUS -- and various civil rights organizations will guarantee it goes to SCOTUS -- will rip them a new one.  If there's one thing a judge can't stand, it's anyone showing blatant contempt for their rulings.  Which is one of the reasons why Snowden's revalations have hit so hard; more than one judge is a tad bit upset at how the truth was shaded when presented to them.

 

As to the second, it's called contempt of court.  If a court orders you to do something, you are in fact required to do it.  And they can and will hold you in jail until you comply.

[Anjobranco]

On the first one lets just say that i believe that all laws are made whit loopholes and cracks, so the "right" people cam passe through them.

 

On the second one, it is not an violation of the fifth amendment, and the Miranda rights? 

And as I have said, if i am already facing charges, and going to jail why will i give them more evidences to incriminate my self and perhaps give them evidences of other crimes that they did not know?

 

I think that the answer to a court ordering that will be "I evoke the fifth amendment". 

 

And if the judge try to bypass that, they will throw the trial out.

[Rilbur]

 

On the second one, it is not an violation of the fifth amendment, and the Miranda rights? 

And as I have said, if i am already facing charges, and going to jail why will i give them more evidences to incriminate my self and perhaps give them evidences of other crimes that they did not know?

 

I think that the answer to a court ordering that will be "I evoke the fifth amendment". 

 

And if the judge try to bypass that, they will throw the trial out.

I'm trying to sum up multiple badly remembered arguments here, so bear with me.

 

One argument is that there is nothing incriminating int he knowledge of how to decrypt a hard drive -- even if the contents of the drive are incriminating, knowledge of the password to decrypt with is not incriminating, per say.  The second argument likens it to opening up a safe deposit box, arguing that while the contents of that box may incriminate you, there's no protection against being required to open it and make that data available.

 

As I recall, the second argument made it's way through the appeals courts before finally being killed -- or maybe it's on it's way to the supreme court, I don't remember.

 

I was also able to find this article on Wiki, though it doesn't contain the logic behind the arguments, only the ruling:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Boucher

[Anjobranco]

I read both cases and i found some differences on them.

On the Boucher case the police already had access to the information on the laptop when they arrested him, because the laptop was powered-up, so he was not giving the police new information.

 

On the Gelfatt case noting it is said that police already had access to his computer, so they really can not claim this:

 

Quote: "Because Gelfgatt already admitted to police that he owned and controlled the seized computers and had the ability to decrypt them, the court found that the act of decryption would not reveal anything new to the police."

 

So the court argument is because Gelfgatt admitted that he could decrypt the computers, they already know what is on the computers and nothing new could be found?

 

and 

 

Quote "Your opening that safe, the documents are already there. That’s not new testimonial. But encrypted data needs to be transformed into something new when decrypted. A number of encrypted technology works such that when you look at [a hard drive] you can’t even tell what is empty space or what is not empty space. When you decrypt that computer it’s creating something new and if you did not have any knowledge, the act of decrypting tells you something you did not know beforehand."

 

So i can not believe they could in clear consciousness believe that they could not find new evidences that they have not previous knowledge, on that crime or others

 

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/massachusetts-high-court-orders-suspect-to-decrypt-his-computers/

 

On a final note.

 

 

Now if some one is arrested for lets say, robing something, and they are force to give up there computer  encryption passphrase and the police find in it evidences the he committed a homicide, he is basically giving evidence of another crime that it is not related whit the original one.