• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Apple’s Fingerprint ID May Mean You Can’t ‘Take the Fifth’

Yeah I think they are wrong. Leaving a fingerprint at a murder scene doesn't prevent you from taking the fifth. Hell even given a written confession doesn't keep you from invoking the 5th at trial.
 
Yeah I think they are wrong. Leaving a fingerprint at a murder scene doesn't prevent you from taking the fifth. Hell even given a written confession doesn't keep you from invoking the 5th at trial.

yes it does if you make that confession after you was read your rights you can be questioned on anything in that confession
 
yes it does if you make that confession after you was read your rights you can be questioned on anything in that confession

nope. The confession can be used against you but you cannot be compelled to testify. People can reassert their rights.
 
nope. The confession can be used against you but you cannot be compelled to testify. People can reassert their rights.

You're missing the point
The point is that because the Fifth prevents the govt from compelling people from testifying about that they know, people can refuse to give up their passwords. However, because a fingerprint is not something that is known (it is something that is), the govt can compel you to give them your fingerprint, which they can then use to access your email, phone msgs, etc
 
nope. The confession can be used against you but you cannot be compelled to testify. People can reassert their rights.
Not intending to derail my own thread, but I've always wondered about that.

Let's say a person is being interrogated, and they waive their rights. Later, can they reassert their right to remain silent and/or to an attorney? In the same interrogation even?
 
You're missing the point
The point is that because the Fifth prevents the govt from compelling people from testifying about that they know, people can refuse to give up their passwords. However, because a fingerprint is not something that is known (it is something that is), the govt can compel you to give them your fingerprint, which they can then use to access your email, phone msgs, etc

They can compel you to give you your fingerprints when the slap the cuffs on you with or without the iPhone's help. I am not missing the point. The OP is about whether or not using that security feature causes you to waive your 5th amendment rights. It will not. Your identity is not privileged information. Here is a tip--if you are a drug dealer or terrorists, don't use iphones as your burn phone.
 
It's already been broken. they'll eventually be apps out to do it for those who can't do it on their own.
 
nope. The confession can be used against you but you cannot be compelled to testify. People can reassert their rights.

if you wave your right and make a confession you can be questioned on anything in that confession you have waved that right. now you can plead the fifth on any question that isn't related to or included in the confession because you did not wave that right

I want you to stop and think what your implying if what you said is true a lawyer couldn't cross examine a witness. a defense can call a witness have them testify in behalf of the defendant the when the prosecuting attorney tries to cross examine all he has to do is plead the fifth. it doesn't work like that
 
Not intending to derail my own thread, but I've always wondered about that.

Let's say a person is being interrogated, and they waive their rights. Later, can they reassert their right to remain silent and/or to an attorney? In the same interrogation even?

Yes. It is also why I advise people to never consent to a police lie detector test. It is an interrogation outside the 5th amendment invocation. even if the results are inadmissible, anything you say is not. Those are where the problems occur--courts construe anything you say after invoking your rights a waiver of those rights, which is why you need to say zippo, even denying you did something. I have had more clients screw themselves before they were ever even my client by opening their mouths than I can count, most of whom likely never would have been charged, let alone convicted had they kept their trap shut
 
Not intending to derail my own thread, but I've always wondered about that.

Let's say a person is being interrogated, and they waive their rights. Later, can they reassert their right to remain silent and/or to an attorney? In the same interrogation even?

they can be questioned on anything they have said after they have been read their rights but can not be asked additional questions that is not related to the statements they have already made after they plead the fifth. pleading the fith does not grandfather in any statements you have already made you can be questioned on those statements
 
if you wave your right and make a confession you can be questioned on anything in that confession you have waved that right. now you can plead the fifth on any question that isn't related to or included in the confession because you did not wave that right

I want you to stop and think what your implying if what you said is true a lawyer couldn't cross examine a witness. a defense can call a witness have them testify in behalf of the defendant the when the prosecuting attorney tries to cross examine all he has to do is plead the fifth. it doesn't work like that

The rules inside the courtroom as to testimony and what happens outside the courtroom are not the same. Once you take the stand and offer testimony, you are fair game. You cannot be compelled to take the stand against yourself because you made a statement to the police.
 
They can compel you to give you your fingerprints when the slap the cuffs on you with or without the iPhone's help.

True, but that fingerprint won't give them access to info that is protected by a password

I am not missing the point. The OP is about whether or not using that security feature causes you to waive your 5th amendment rights. It will not. Your identity is not privileged information. Here is a tip--if you are a drug dealer or terrorists, don't use iphones as your burn phone.

No, that is not what the OP is about. The OP doesn't say anything original. It merely refers to an article. If you read the article, you will see that the issue it raises is the one I described. The article says nothing about how a fingerprint based security feature will lead to people being compelled to testify in court or during interrogations.
 
First, the contents of a phone are somewhat in flux from a legal standpoint of privacy anyway. It gets even more sketchy if you use things like the cloud or your phone might not technically be your property based on a contract. But if you are worried about it you have two solutions. The first is not to use fingerprint identification and if that is all your product offers find one that gives you another option. The second is not putting incriminating stuff on your cell phone or pad. This may be a viable loophole to gain access to data to be used in court, at least until some law gets passed or judicial decision excludes it, if that ever happens. My thought is if you are putting your plans for crimes on a cell phone you deserve to be busted for stupidity alone.
 
True, but that fingerprint won't give them access to info that is protected by a password



No, that is not what the OP is about. The OP doesn't say anything original. It merely refers to an article. If you read the article, you will see that the issue it raises is the one I described. The article says nothing about how a fingerprint based security feature will lead to people being compelled to testify in court or during interrogations.

I read the article and reread the article. The 5th Amendment applies to testimony. The article alleges that it is a 5th amendment issue. It is not. At best, it would be a 4th amendment issue. If you want to rely upon a blog sensationalizing something without even citing the more appropriate legal issue, then feel free. Either way, I assume Apple stores that stuff on their servers like they do everything else, so they would just have to subpoena the information from Apple, including the ability to unlock the fingerprint and/or the data they have.
 
I read the article and reread the article. The 5th Amendment applies to testimony. The article alleges that it is a 5th amendment issue. It is not. At best, it would be a 4th amendment issue. If you want to rely upon a blog sensationalizing something without even citing the more appropriate legal issue, then feel free. Either way, I assume Apple stores that stuff on their servers like they do everything else, so they would just have to subpoena the information from Apple, including the ability to unlock the fingerprint and/or the data they have.

There's no doubt IMO that the article is trying to sensationalize the issue. However, that doesn't mean that the article is about anything that relates to the 5th Amend.

If you get past the sensationalistic headline (which btw, puts "take the fifth" is quotes) it's clear that the article is about how making access to something dependent on a fingerprint (ie non-testimonial) differs under the law from making access dependent on information (ie testimonial). It is not about compelling someone to testify about anything, either in court or during an interrogation.
 
As I said, it's been broken already. Any time the prosecution tries to use the phone info against folks they simply have to show the phone could easily have been broken into and the info placed there by outside parties.
 
There's no doubt IMO that the article is trying to sensationalize the issue. However, that doesn't mean that the article is about anything that relates to the 5th Amend.

If you get past the sensationalistic headline (which btw, puts "take the fifth" is quotes) it's clear that the article is about how making access to something dependent on a fingerprint (ie non-testimonial) differs under the law from making access dependent on information (ie testimonial). It is not about compelling someone to testify about anything, either in court or during an interrogation.

The phone is registered to you and the phone may be related to a crime. It doesn't take that much. I have had a phone record subpoena issued in a criminal case just on the latter, not the former. as for gaining access, it won't take much if you can get their fingerprints to begin with. It won't be long until they have a tool that allows them to digitize fingerprints to bypass the security feature to leave the person out of the mix altogether.
 
The phone is registered to you and the phone may be related to a crime. It doesn't take that much. I have had a phone record subpoena issued in a criminal case just on the latter, not the former. as for gaining access, it won't take much if you can get their fingerprints to begin with. It won't be long until they have a tool that allows them to digitize fingerprints to bypass the security feature to leave the person out of the mix altogether.

I agree with that. The article was clearly designed to sensationalize an issue that, if one spends just a little time thinking about it, will not have much (if any) impact because the info they're talking about is already accessible.

But that wasn't my point. I was merely pointing out that even the article had a limited scope in that it was only talking about password vs fingerprints, and not actual testimony.
 
You're missing the point
The point is that because the Fifth prevents the govt from compelling people from testifying about that they know, people can refuse to give up their passwords. However, because a fingerprint is not something that is known (it is something that is), the govt can compel you to give them your fingerprint, which they can then use to access your email, phone msgs, etc

While they can probably get to your email in other ways - one thing I've been wondering about this latest Apple thing is - will criminals cut off your finger when they steal your phone so they can access everything?

This might be a good time for two-factor authentication, so it takes more than a fingerprint...
 
While they can probably get to your email in other ways - one thing I've been wondering about this latest Apple thing is - will criminals cut off your finger when they steal your phone so they can access everything?

This might be a good time for two-factor authentication, so it takes more than a fingerprint...

Probably easier to take a wax impression, or just fix the hack. :mrgreen:
 
Not intending to derail my own thread, but I've always wondered about that.

Let's say a person is being interrogated, and they waive their rights. Later, can they reassert their right to remain silent and/or to an attorney? In the same interrogation even?

Yes. As I understand it you can always invoke your rights. "Waiving" those rights is not really a waiver of rights permanently, it's more administrative so that they can prove your words etc were not coerced...it was voluntary. However, that right doesn't disappear once you start talking, you can assert that right later down the road. I do not, however, know the trial standards for this as it relates to testimony.
 
Not intending to derail my own thread, but I've always wondered about that.

Let's say a person is being interrogated, and they waive their rights. Later, can they reassert their right to remain silent and/or to an attorney? In the same interrogation even?

Yes. They absolutely can.
 
Yes. It is also why I advise people to never consent to a police lie detector test. It is an interrogation outside the 5th amendment invocation. even if the results are inadmissible, anything you say is not. Those are where the problems occur--courts construe anything you say after invoking your rights a waiver of those rights, which is why you need to say zippo, even denying you did something. I have had more clients screw themselves before they were ever even my client by opening their mouths than I can count, most of whom likely never would have been charged, let alone convicted had they kept their trap shut

And the rest of society thanks them for that. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom