Court Rejects Evidence From Warrantless Search Of Phone Six Years After The Gov't Seized It July 27, 2018 https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...ch-phone-six-years-after-govt-seized-it.shtml
I don't regard that as good news because LE keep on salami slicing till they get what they want. All it takes is a hard case or some outrage. There's a ratchet effect here, because it's very hard to roll these powers back. It also illustrates the lack of policy and control of actual border data seizures, you can assume that your data is stored in perpetuity without any constraint on what it might be dredged up for. So it's also an argument for bringing nothing of value with you through customs, not even encrypted stuff (presumably that could be vulnerable downstream eventually). It's obvious to everyone that the situation is out-of-control and harmful, but there's no-one really to make something sensible happen.
Sure. It's still a police state. And I mean really. You see police everywhere, all the time. Maybe not as bad as parts of Mexico, but still more than I've ever seen in Europe.
I am going to walk up to the "line" here (but not cross it) and I am asking others not to go over it and cost us this thread. I personally eagerly await a FULL course trip to the Supreme Court on the issue of mandating password revelation against the 5th here in the States. All of the cases on threads like this happen because without full course through the Supreme Court we the "regular citizen" are constantly threatened with jail time (contempt charges, etc...) until providing the password. There is no way to cite an ultimate court decision stating that you CANNOT require my password with threat of jail for refusal. Please, this is not politics, its a fact for we citizens! I believe in my heart that the highest court would not require the password citing the absolute facts on the 5th. We have been so close a few times but something always comes up and the various cases never quite make it through to receive an opinion. Design most likely, but eventually one will make it through.
Yeah, I agree. But I'm not optimistic As I understand it, there are two core issues. One is that there's no clear case law about passwords and encryption vs the 5th Amendment. Some courts have said yes. Others no. The closest analogy is safes and access protections. But it's messy. Keys are fair game, just like other physical stuff, if there's a warrant. But combinations are covered by the 5th Amendment. Also, there's the fact that all safes can be brute forced. And that's not the case for encryption. Anyway, it seems like an appropriate issue for the Supreme Court. Even if it goes against privacy, it'll clarify OPSEC choices. The other core issue is indefinite jail time for contempt of court. That rather shoots a hole in the 6th Amendment, no? That's also ready for Supreme Court attention, I think.
Yep, those both would be determined either way with a full course pass to the point of a written opinion from the Supreme Court. We better stop here, eh?
I think that's the problem of lack of clarity, even if the clarity is unwelcome. Right now, skilled people have to waste considerable time double-guessing a muddle. Opsec can much more easily respond to a known situation, and it also frees one from the distraction of Is versus Ought. The costs to business of protecting their assets and IP against the nonsense are also quite high, which point seems to have escaped those setting (non) policy, or more likely, they do not bear those costs.
