News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Suspects can refuse to provide phone passcodes to police, court rules. Parent comment

Re:Suspects can refuse to provide phone passcodes to police,... by JoshTriplett on Friday December 15, 2023 @05:31PM (#38659635)
Exactly. Intent also seems like it should matter. If your intent was "destroy evidence if the police comes knocking" that's one thing. If your intent was "have an extra secure safe to protect my secrets from anyone who might steal them" and you made that decision without knowledge of any warrant, that seems like it ought to be fine.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Suspects can refuse to provide phone passcodes to police,... by ska on Friday December 15, 2023 @07:28PM (#38660561)
It's an interesting area, the 5th is actually really narrow (and of course other jurisdictions have something else). It's not obvious what can be compelled; e.g. it wouldn't seem like a court ordering you to defeat such a measure would run afoul of 5th, but maybe something else.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Suspects can refuse to provide phone passcodes to police,... by u32480932048 on Friday December 15, 2023 @11:38PM (#38661771)
I'm not sure it's directly applicable, but courts have repeatedly ruled that you can't booby-trap your own property; I'm not quite sure this applies to, say, [non-explosively] erasing a USB drive by entering a decoy PIN.

https://www.hecklawoffices.com/blog/2020/11/its-illegal-for-...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Suspects can refuse to provide phone passcodes to police,... by friend_and_foe on Saturday December 16, 2023 @06:52PM (#38668974)
Yeah we aren't talking about land mines here, just devices that destroy the owner's property, and more specifically software systems that destroy information. It is well established that weapons that harm people automatically are illegal.
[ Parent | on HN ]