|
| ▲ | DaveSchmindel 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| That's been my understanding until now as well... the latest on the case against Samuel Tunick has me worried and second guessing that blanket statement though... https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/2026/08/03/giving-police-a... |
| |
| ▲ | rtkwe 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That case has the specific, very important, wrinkle that he provided a _destructive_ duress code, he could have continued to refuse to provide the unlock code just fine legally. It's the use of the duress code that is likely going to be getting him in trouble and that falls outside of the existing defined protections about being compelled to unlock safes/computers etc containing possible evidence against yourself. We'll have to see how that case goes but ultimately the reason he's getting in trouble is only tangentially related to his phone being encrypted. It's more correct to think of it like he smashed the phone to pieces (and imagine this definitively destroys the data for the sake of the metaphor) instead of it being about the encryption itself. | | |
| ▲ | LoganDark an hour ago | parent [-] | | He didn't smash the phone to pieces, he gave LE a hammer and they smashed the phone to pieces. It's entirely LE's own fault this happened -- they shouldn't have been trying to get into that phone, and it's their own fault it went wrong. Though I would expect courts to consider that he knew LE planned to enter the provided PIN, and that the duress PIN would then result in the phone being wiped, and therefore accuse him of doing the wiping anyway. But I don't think it's this guy's fault at all. LE is the one who asked him under duress, he easily could've feared for his life, and he did no direct harm. It was self-defense at worst. | | |
| ▲ | someothherguyy 34 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > He didn't smash the phone to pieces, he gave LE a hammer and they smashed the phone to pieces. It's entirely LE's own fault this happened -- they shouldn't have been trying to get into that phone, and it's their own fault it went wrong. Setting a booby trap to destroy evidence that then gets destroyed when that trap is triggered is the same as destroying evidence. This is common sense, but also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal_(criminal_law) |
|
| |
| ▲ | delichon 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yeah, if you use it as a way to destroy data that gives them a whole new and powerful attack vector. 18 U.S.C. § 2232 is very broad. | | |
| ▲ | Razengan 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | What's more infuriating than laws like that is that there's a class of people completely immune to those laws. |
| |
| ▲ | simiones 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That's completely different. Pleading the 5th and not testifying is completely different from giving false testimony - which is never protected. Even in a trial, if you are asked under oath if you handled the body, you are allowed to say that you invoke your 5th amendment rights not to respond; but you are not allowed to say "no, I didn't" if in fact you did (you can later be accused of perjury in addition to your conviction). | |
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | glitchc 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination. You can still be held in custody for obstruction of justice: https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/third-circuit/man-held-in... It took four years before he could secure his release: https://www.sophos.com/en-us/blog/suspect-who-refused-to-dec... |
|
| ▲ | midas89 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| you have the guy sitting in jail waiting for the courts to decide if his grapheneOS wiping his computer after wrong unlock codes is him obstructing. keep in mind that the "obstruction" charge can be and is abused as a catchall charge. |
| |
| ▲ | MC995 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > courts to decide if his grapheneOS wiping his computer after wrong unlock codes is him obstructing He didn't provide an incorrect code, or no code at all, he provided a duress code intended to destroy the device. There's a huge legal difference. |
|
|
| ▲ | rdtsc 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Can't they just hand it to you say "you enter your passphrase, but don't divulge it to us and then hand us the phone". In other words hinging the passphrase divulging to the 5th can backfire in that respect. It like saying we have a search warrant, you open the safe for us, it's fine if you keep the combination to yourself, we just need to get inside. |
| |
| ▲ | nater5000 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | No, that's pretty absurd. It's not specifically about the act of speaking. It's the act of incriminating yourself. But that's all beyond the point, anyways. If they did hand you your phone and said, "enter your passphrase," you can just say, "I don't remember it." They can throw a fit and put more heat on you in various ways, but until they resort to torturing you or they develop mind-reading technology, there's not much they can do at that point until the case reaches a judge. That's not to say "I don't remember" is a sound, blanket defense. But it's sufficient for demonstrating that these dynamics all depend on willing participants which is partially why these laws are designed the way they are. | | |
| ▲ | rdtsc 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | If the search warrant and seizure wasn't a thing I'd agree with you. But I can easily see opening a phone interpreted not that differently than opening a safe or your reinforced front door. > But it's sufficient for demonstrating that these dynamics all depend on willing participants which is partially why these laws are designed the way they are. What happens if during serving a search warrant the door is impossible to open or they find a super reinforced safe. Owner can even say "I don't remember the combination"? |
| |
| ▲ | kadoban 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The act of unlocking it can incriminate you. It's ~proof that you have control of the device beyond what they already knew. |
|
|
| ▲ | BeetleB an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| He said "jail", not "prison". There's a difference. |
|
| ▲ | throw0101c 37 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Maybe in a country like the UK, but not in the US. The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination. SCOTUS: Hold my beer… :) |
|
| ▲ | nikanj 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The fifth amendment doesn't do jack shit if they haul you away. After a few years of trials and appeals you might regain your freedom. |
|
| ▲ | wslh 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think that the issue is that the law enforcement personnel could make you pass a bad time even if it's covered by the Fifth Amendment. The enforcement could be later than the arbitrary decision. |
|
| ▲ | izacus 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Self-incrimination yes, but not for cases when the person compelled has evidence to incriminate another process in a case. |
| |
| ▲ | roncesvalles 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | That being said, overlap protects you still. So if answering a question about another person might incriminate you, you don't have to answer. |
|
