> On Sep 13, 2017, at 1:12 AM, grarpamp <[email protected]> wrote: > > https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/09/judge-wont-release-man-jailed-2-years-for-refusing-to-decrypt-drives/ > https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/man-jailed-indefinitely-for-refusing-to-decrypt-hard-drives-loses-appeal/ > https://arstechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/rawlsstaysinprisonruling.pdf > https://arstechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/rawlsrehearingpetition.pdf > https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/rawlsopinion.pdf > https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/comply.pdf > > Judge won't release man jailed 2 years for refusing to decrypt drives, > suspect to remain jailed pending 5th Amendment appeal to Supreme Court. > > https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/05/jail-looms-large-for-suspects-ordered-to-reveal-forgotten-passwords/ > > Is I forget a valid defense when court orders demand a smartphone password? > The answer seems to be yes and no. But one suspect on Tuesday gets 180 > days jail. >
And now the new "iphone X" unlocks just by looking at it. Cops already have no problem strong arming a finger print, this facial scan shit seems like a horrible idea. > > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15232069 > https://medium.freecodecamp.org/why-you-should-never-unlock-your-phone-with-your-face-79c07772a28 > http://blog.dustinkirkland.com/2013/10/fingerprints-are-user-names-not.html > https://9to5mac.com/2017/06/01/fifth-amendement-passcodes-passwords-law/
