- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Judge Rules Defendant in Gruver Trial Must Give Cellphone Password to Prosecutors
Posted on 1/28/19 at 11:19 am to oogabooga68
Posted on 1/28/19 at 11:19 am to oogabooga68
quote:
You mean like with a cloth or something?
Cause the files are in the computer...
1
Posted on 1/28/19 at 11:19 am to TOSOV
quote:
Thought I read somewhere where they've tried, and only have a limited amount of tries left before it gets fried. True??
iPhone 6 and above it's true.
Posted on 1/28/19 at 11:20 am to NYCAuburn
What was the result? I thought I remember seeing an article recently about a ruling that said law enforcement couldn’t force someone to give up their password so they can access their phone
Posted on 1/28/19 at 11:21 am to TigersSEC2010
Okay... fine. You win judge.
It’s 0000. No?
0001. No?
0002.... 0003.... 0004 etc etc etc etc etc
It’s 0000. No?
0001. No?
0002.... 0003.... 0004 etc etc etc etc etc
Posted on 1/28/19 at 11:22 am to keakar
quote:
this is no different then a judge ruling you must confess
Not quite. It’s like a judge ruling you must turn over your personal journal.
I have some serious concerns here, not so much in this specific instance, but more related to how this might be used moving forward. It’s a slippery slope.
Posted on 1/28/19 at 11:23 am to keakar
quote:
clear 5th amendment right against self incrimination
this is no different then a judge ruling you must confess
So how are retina/fingerprint options being legally pushed to be done?
(Serious question)
Posted on 1/28/19 at 11:23 am to UpToPar
Now I’m starting to rethink my iPhone X. All they have to do is hold the phone up to my face 
Posted on 1/28/19 at 11:25 am to TOSOV
quote:
Cause the files are in the computer...
Posted on 1/28/19 at 11:25 am to TOSOV
quote:
Thought I read somewhere where they've tried, and only have a limited amount of tries left before it gets fried. True??
In the case of the terrorist/shooter in California, he refused to give them the password, and Apple refused to give them a workaround, the investigators hired a outside firm to crack the phone which is probably what will happen here. Regardless of where our technology has taken us, this is fundamentally no different than me having needed evidence locked in a safe deposit at my bank, and refusing to give investigators the key. They would just get a court order letting them open it by whatever means was available.
Posted on 1/28/19 at 11:26 am to beerJeep
quote:
Now I’m starting to rethink my iPhone X. All they have to do is hold the phone up to my face
Cop button baw, been in since iOS 11. Hit the power button 5 times and face unlock gets disabled or if you can't remember that, just power it off real fast. Face ID is also disabled on start.
This post was edited on 1/28/19 at 11:27 am
Posted on 1/28/19 at 11:26 am to Dam Guide
quote:
Cop button baw, been in since iOS 11. Hit the power button 5 times and face unlock gets disabled or if you can't remember that, just power it off real fast. Face ID is also disabled on start.
Whhhhhaaaaaattttttttttttttt
You just blew my mind
This post was edited on 1/28/19 at 11:27 am
Posted on 1/28/19 at 11:28 am to keakar
5th: ...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...
I don’t think it’s clear. If a murderer hid booby traps and land mines all around his house and land and the body was believed to be inside the house, could he be compelled to disclose where the traps were since authorities would have a right to search the house? They aren’t asking him “did you kill?” or “what were you doing the night of the 11th?” They’re just asking for access to something they have a right to access.
I don’t think it’s clear. If a murderer hid booby traps and land mines all around his house and land and the body was believed to be inside the house, could he be compelled to disclose where the traps were since authorities would have a right to search the house? They aren’t asking him “did you kill?” or “what were you doing the night of the 11th?” They’re just asking for access to something they have a right to access.
Posted on 1/28/19 at 11:29 am to beerJeep
quote:
Whhhhhaaaaaattttttttttttttt You just blew my mind
A lot of people hate on Apple, but they do really try to keep your shite safe. Google can't wait to sell your arse to someone else.Posted on 1/28/19 at 11:30 am to Jon Ham
quote:
They’re just asking for access to something they have a right to access.
Do they?
Posted on 1/28/19 at 11:30 am to EA6B
quote:
Regardless of where our technology has taken us, this is fundamentally no different than me having needed evidence locked in a safe deposit at my bank, and refusing to give investigators the key. They would just get a court order letting them open it by whatever means was available.
Which is why I'm concerned with the direction this is heading. If the court can compel the defendant to turn over the passcode, why can't the court compel Apple to unlock the phone?
And if the court can compel Apple to unlock the phone with a warrant, why can't they get a warrant and monitor phone data prior to bringing formal charges? Now, we are approaching Big Brother territory.
Posted on 1/28/19 at 11:31 am to TigersSEC2010
Isn't that essentially compelling him to make a statement? This seems like a big overreach and should be addressed by SCOTUS.
Posted on 1/28/19 at 11:31 am to EA6B
quote:
In the case of the terrorist/shooter in California, he refused to give them the password, and Apple refused to give them a workaround
The terrorist was dead
They just wanted to access his phone because they wanted to investigate any potential accomplices
But yes, Apple publicly said they wouldnt help get them in the phone
According to the news, the FBI paid almost $1,000,000 to a "vendor" to get into the phone, but that vendor has never been publicly named.
Alot of people think it was actually Apple agreeing to help under the table since it was a terrorist related event
Posted on 1/28/19 at 11:32 am to UpToPar
quote:
why can't they get a warrant and monitor phone data prior to bringing formal charges? Now, we are approaching Big Brother territory.
Those are called wiretaps and they've existed for a long time
Posted on 1/28/19 at 11:33 am to UpToPar
quote:
Not quite. It’s like a judge ruling you must turn over your personal journal.
It's a judge ruling that he must provide information, i.e. a statement, against himself. It's a blatant constitutional violation.
Posted on 1/28/19 at 11:34 am to Centinel
quote:
Do they?
If they can convince a judge it is more likely than not the phone contains evidence of a crime and there’s no other way, within reason, to obtain the evidence, then yes, they have a right to search the phone within the area they believe contains the evidence.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News