|
|
|
|
|
|
by thephyber
3851 days ago
|
|
|
Your characterization of the protections users have is misleading. There has been no definitive nationwide court case which has settled the issue. In one case, a citizen was protected from giving over the password to their phone, but was compelled under penalty of contempt of court to unlock the phone for investigators to analyze. In other cases, courts have compelled defendants to hand over the passwords. Providers can be compelled, but that is because companies have no strong desire to protect the civil liberties of their customers (or in the case of social media -- their products), but _do_ have a strong desire to prevent financial punitive damages or legal defense fees from being incurred. The FBI wants providers to be able to unlock data because that can be done without the notification to users that there is an investigation about them (which serves multiple purposes). |
|
|
You're right, there has been no supreme court case. Which is why I did not make a definitive statement. However, recent cases support 5th amendment protection more often than not.
[0]http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp-cont...
Are there any cases where the 5th amendment did not serve as protection where the forgone conclusion doctrine was not applied?