this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2024
66 points (95.8% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26875 readers
2269 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

American law outlines a series of protections for those accused of crimes but not yet convicted. (Like the 4th-6th amendments)

Does your country have any unique/novel protections of the rights of potentially innocent people accused but yet to be convicted?

If not are there any protections you think should be in place?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

All of these are included in the 5th

I can hardly believe that, since I have read (not in movies) about cases when prosecution has forced accused people to give them passwords etc.

[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Circumstances? Passwords are contents of the mind, and therefore protected under the 5th. Someone in a situation where they are accused or under investigation has the 5th to fall back on.

There have been cases recently about the legality of forcing thumbprints on biometrically locked phones, under the theory that a thumbprint is a physical attribute and not something kept in the mind (so you know, lesson there is to keep using a old fashioned passcode). Otherwise, someone on bond or parole or something may have a condition of their arrangement be to allow their devices to be searched. Refusing that is a matter of breaking an agreement made in court.

[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Passwords are contents of the mind

Or contents of a piece of paper.

a condition of their arrangement be to allow their devices to be searched.

Outrageous. This is taking away the defendant's rights. Nobody can ever believe that he made this decision of his own free will.

Here, this right cannot be taken away, therefore such an agreement would be invalid.

[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Or contents of a piece of paper.

In the context of the discussion, I don't know what you are getting at here.

But compelling someone to say or type in a password is something where they could assert the 5th. If the police find the password written down on a piece of paper and then type it in themselves over the protest of the defendant, that is not a 5th amendment violation. That's just using a piece of physical evidence.

Outrageous. This is taking away the defendant’s rights. Nobody can ever believe that he made this decision if his own free will.

This was my speculation on how I imagine it could possibly happen, as you say you have seen it written about. I have never seen it happen as a condition this way, but if you provide more detail I can be more precise in answering.

But if it is say in another hypothetical, a condition on a deferred sentence, then at that point guilt has already been established and a the deferment is an alternative option from the baseline of prison. Again, some specific links to this happening would really help sort what it is you're seeing.

[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

In the context of the discussion, I don't know what you are getting at here.

I was implicitly asking if it would be any different then, in your legislation. For example, can they ask him for the paper where the password is written?

[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

A person is free to not answer any question. They can sit there completely silent.

[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

No, that's not what I meant.

You said above > Passwords are contents of the mind, and therefore protected

So I am asking, isn't it protected in the same way if it is a content of a piece of paper in the defendant's possession?

Can they force him to give it to them, to tell them where it is, to confirm if it is his own piece of paper etc.

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 2 points 3 weeks ago

No, but they can get a warrant to search his property and find the paper on their own.

[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

The knowledge of the location of the paper is a content of the mind. The defendant does not have to answer any question.