
Florida court demands suspect's iPhone passcode - marklabedz
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38303977
======
vivekd
>"We question whether identifying the key which will open the strongbox - such
that the key is surrendered - is, in fact, distinct from telling an officer
the combination," wrote Judge Black.

Well, the circuit court is right, there really isn't much difference between
forcing someone to give you a key and forcing someone to give you a password.

The article did a really bad job of explaining the legal parts of the argument
(as nearly all articles do). The whole key vs combination distinction wasn't a
part of the Doe vs US. decision, it was actually a part of the dissent
(dissent means the opinion of the minority judges which isn't really law).

The issue here was self-incrimination and self-incrimination only applies to
"testimonial evidence", testimonial evidence that is evidence that
communicates some information. If that sounds confusing as hell, that's
because it is, it's an absolutely vague and ridiculous standard that can go
any way depending on who looks at it.

For example, the Supreme court has at various times decided that being forced
to give your name is, and is not a violation of the right against self
incrimination(1). It's a terrible standard and I think that's why it gives
room to so much back and forth. In this case, the courts were trying to decide
if an i-phone password is "testimonial" as described by the Supreme Court and
of course, it can go either way and no one is really sure because the standard
doesn't make any sense.

1\. California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424 (1971) for yes, Pennsylvania v. Muniz,
496 U.S. 582 (1990) for no.

------
cle
What would happen if the defendant forgets the passcode, a la Alberto
Gonzales?

------
londons_explore
Would this case set a precedent?

~~~
jlgaddis
In Florida's Second District.

