Supreme Court decision that 'It is unconstitutional to confess PC passwords to suspected children'
by
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court said that the prosecution requested the disclosure of a PC password for a 64-year-old man who was being investigated for possession of child pornography. It is a violation of the constitution.
[J-42-2019] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIAMIDDLEDISTRICT
(PDF file) http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-42-2019mo%20-%2010422940787775633.pdf
Pennsylvania's top court upholds right to withhold computer password | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
https://www.post-gazette.com/news/crime-courts/2019/11/23/pennsylvania-supreme-court-right-withhold-computer-password-child-pornography/stories/201911210186
Victory: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules Police Can't Force You to Tell Them Your Password | Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/11/victory-pennsylvania-supreme-court-rules-police-cant-force-you-tell-them-your
Joseph J. Davis, who lives in Luzern County, Pennsylvania, was arrested in 2014. The prosecution found that Davis shared images that corresponded to child pornography on the Internet, but the hard disk data seized at the time of arrest was erased, and the image file in question was not found It was. However, as the investigation proceeded, it was discovered that Davis shared child pornography even at an IP address different from the original. The prosecution once again searched Davis's home and found a different PC than the one previously seized.
However, the PC was strictly protected by a password and could not be analyzed, so the prosecutor asked Davis to disclose the password. However, Davis refused to disclose the password. The prosecution said, “The password is 64 characters long, so you have to tell me why you have to give it the password. You know what ’s in your PC. 'I have to do it.'
by
In a trial over password disclosure, Davis argued that compulsory password disclosure was a violation of the constitution, based on Article 5 of the Amendment to the United States Constitution, which stipulates 'the right not to be forced to make self-unfavorable statements .' One prosecutor insists on the doctrine of “exception of known outcome” and argues that “if the content of the document requested to be disclosed is already clear, Article 5 of the constitutional amendment is not applicable.” Did.
The Pennsylvania lower court, where the issue was first considered, acknowledged the prosecution's allegation that 'the disclosure of the password only allowed the investigating authorities to regain known evidence,' and issued a password to Davis. Requested to reveal. However, because Davis appealed the decision, the trial was brought to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. David A. Harris, Professor of Law at the University of Pittsburgh, who was asked to speak at the Supreme Court, said, 'The law applies to immoral people who have done wrong, but the benefit of child pornography is that it is protected from excessive investigation by public power. I don't deserve it. '
by Alexas_Fotos
As a result of the Supreme Court hearing, three judges expressed opposition to Davis's claim that password disclosure was unconstitutional, but the four judges, including the presiding judge, agreed, so many And Davis's claim was accepted.
Judge Debra Todd, who compiled the Supreme Court's view, said, “The password is something that you remember, so you ca n’t disclose it without revealing your secret. With the implicit understanding that it will be used to guilty, so forcing the disclosure of passwords in light of Article 5 of the Constitution is essentially considered a compulsory testimony. ' He indicated that the enforcement of password disclosure was unconstitutional.
At the same time, Todd said, “It is true that constitutional rights can be a barrier to the state. Especially if we cannot conduct an investigation without the support of the accused. Often we are accused of 'privileged refugee privilege', but we are aware that it is for 'protecting the innocent'. The above rights will be drained. '
Andrew Crocker, senior front lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation , who defends the right to speech in the digital society, said the latest Supreme Court decision: “This decision will show how technological progress will change constitutional rights. It ’s important to understand that the government should n’t force individuals to make a choice of whether to disclose their passwords and take away the contents of their PCs and smartphones, or to disobey court orders. ” He welcomed the decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
Related Posts:
in Note, Posted by log1l_ks