
Feds explain (sort of) why they really want data on seized iPhone 5S - nkurz
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/11/feds-explain-sort-of-why-they-really-want-data-on-seized-iphone-5s/
======
cjslep
_Previously on iPhone encryption wars..._

Basically, DannyBee was spot on [0]:

> It's actually significantly more likely they want to unlock the phone to try
> to get more evidence against the other 6 people he was charged with,
> probably because it's lacking.

...but, since IANAL, this to me still doesn't address the question of how much
easier would it then be for the government to attain permission to decrypt any
further iPhones the government wants to peer into? (As mentioned before[1])

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10481952](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10481952)

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10481356](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10481356)

~~~
scintill76
I don't know the proper terms, but I wonder if scope or venue should prevent
the government from doing this. If they got a warrant in order to get this one
guy, and now they have him, maybe it should sort of invalidate the warrant. If
this court case was opened to try this one guy and he's now plead guilty,
maybe the judge doesn't have jurisdiction to order further searches. But I
really have no idea, and I'm hoping an expert will pipe in as they usually do
on HN. :) I guess if it were this obvious, the judge would have said no... but
on the other hand why does he need to hear their opinion on it if it were
obvious in the other direction?

I read the government's letter, and it seemed to be a stretch given what I've
said above, but again I'm not qualified to say. They did add that "the Feng
[guy whose phone they want] matter remains ongoing until sentencing and
judgment is entered in the case", which seems a more fair point to me.

Oh, and what about court-ordering the guy to unlock his phone? I thought that
was legal (but maybe not in this circuit court?) This would make more sense
and overcome some of my objections. It seems a bit contrived that they can put
Apple on the hook to produce someone else's information that wasn't shared
with Apple -- if it had been, third party doctrine would kick in.

~~~
hguant
Court ordering someone to unlock their phone has been ruled as a violation of
your 5th amendment rights and of 4th amendment rights to privacy by an
appellate court (don't remember which, was slightly surprised when it
happened). Basic logic as far as I can remember was that court can't order you
to expose phone to them because phones are essentially an extension of our
private thoughts in this day and age. Even if evidence is demonstrably on it
(say, via looking at metadata), similar to evidence in your own head - court
can't force you to fink.

~~~
mikeyouse
Be wary giving out legal advice if you're not a lawyer.. The courts can force
you to do many things, especially if they're not trying to prosecute you for
information you may have. Much of the case law that I've seen (note: I'm
clearly not a lawyer either) with regard to phone searches has been when the
police were seeking evidence that the phone's owner committed crimes -- not
after they'd been convicted. This distinction can definitely be important.

One concept with specific relevance to the 5th amendment is immunity given for
testimony. You can be compelled to testify (even over your 5th amendment
objections) if the court grants you immunity for the information that they're
after.

Again, IANAL, but I know enough that it's much more complicated than "phones
are protected from all searches".

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Grants_of_immunity)

~~~
jrs235
Can state courts give immunity? I would assume yes. What happens if a state
court grants immunity to get at the evidence or testimony but the evidence or
testimony could lead to federal or other jurisdictional (another state?)
charges or prosecution? How can one be forced in one court to be exposed in
others? It would seem the immunity being granted would have to be universal.
How can one court/jurisdiction grant such immunity beyond its jurisdiction?

------
xenophonf
Since the guy with the locked iPhone already plead guilty or whatever, can't
they give him immunity for anything new and force him to unlock his phone that
way? I'm no lawyer but as I understand it, that's how prosecutors can
generally go about forcing people to give evidence about co-conspirators. From
there it's a straightforward contempt charge and the guy sits in jail until he
gives up the passcode.

