Police can force you to disclose your passwords, Oregon judge rules

[EVIL]

Courts have actually ruled that this defense is invalid because of the impossibility that you would forget a password you enter several times a day.

Click to shrink...

I have so many slight variations of my main password I would have problems recalling them.

 

[shadow2810]

Today I learn era have issue remembering their phone PIN

 

[Musubi]

I'll refuse to comply, declare I'm the subject of a witchhunt and accuse the police of refusing to give me their password.

Click to shrink...

That's that 4th dimensional chess shit right there baby.

 

[Luminish]

Courts have actually ruled that this defense is invalid because of the impossibility that you would forget a password you enter several times a day.

EDIT: This comment blew up and everybody has a different snarky gotcha response so a few reminders:

1. I didn't write the law. Arguing with me over whether or not it makes sense won't solve anything. I don't even agree with it

2. The ruling, like most similar rulings, is specifically in regards to your phone PIN code, which a court once ruled is something you enter so frequently that you couldn't possibly forget it. Courts have generally ruled that passwords cannot be turned over to law enforcement if you don't want to give them, although obviously as we've just seen this is a rapidly-evolving area of case law. There is no settled precedent on this

3. Again, as stated above, if you use a password manager or some other form of encryption for your passwords, they will demand that you hand over the master password, encryption key, or whatever you use to access the password(s). And again, whether or not this is a lawful request is obviously up for debate

4. If you are actually in such deep legal shit that you need to desperately prevent the police from accessing your phone or hard drive, stop taking legal advice from people on ResetERA and contact a lawyer, the ACLU, and/or the EFF immediately. None of this is settled case law and you are going to need to fight for it in court

Click to shrink...

How far up was this decided?

As far as I know, courts are all over the place on this.

 

[Deleted member 49770]

This is my password, officer. If the phone is rejecting it, it must be malfunctioning.

 

[RiOrius]

The standard, and the balance, so far has been anything in your head is protected by the 5th. Anything physical is not.

So a password would be protected, but a fingerprint or face unlock would not be protected. The former can consist of an idea. The latter IS just a fancy physical key.



Destroying evidence is a crime.

Click to shrink...

Suppose I bury incriminating documents in a secret location in the Nevada desert. The police can subpoena those documents. My understanding is that I'm now legally required to produce those documents, even though their location is in tucked away in my head. Right?

That, to me, is the best analogy for this sort of situation. With the right due process the government can demand the evidence, and I'm required to comply.

 

[Meauxse]

Oregon is a weird fucking place. Literally the only state that doesn't require unanimous juries. They make some fucked up decisions.

 

[CrocM]

I wonder if you could deny that it is your phone.

 

[Deleted member 8860]

I wonder if you could deny that it is your phone.

Click to shrink...

This is also something that the defendant attempted to do in this case. Judge didn't buy it.

 

[Deleted member 11413]

Through unpatched bugs.
These devices are unlike anything the courts have dealt with in history.
Unlike even the most sophisticated safes, these devices can be impossible to get into.

Click to shrink...

They also pay people to hack them. Police have plenty of techniques to investigate crimes, they don't need to massively erode the rights of citizens to combat crime.