Hacker News Reader

Comment by lesuorac | Hacker News Reader

My god have we come a long way if its even a debate if you have to reveal your password.

Back in the day your personal belongings couldn't be used to incriminate you [1] since the bill of rights prohibits self-incrimination.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_evidence_rule

View on HN

> the government was becoming dissatisfied with the obstruction of criminal investigations that strict adherence to the rule engendered

Also

> The Court recognized that while the rejection of the mere evidence rule may "enlarge the area of permissible searches," the protections of the 4th Amendment, like the reasonableness and warrant requirements, would sufficiently safeguard the right to privacy.

So SCOTUS think that government would be satisfied with Bill of Rights. What if government thinks it is just too frustrating to follow laws?

what do you mean, "what if?"? Its already there. There's plenty of examples. For instance, the FBI is involved in background checks for gun purchases in the US. They are legally required to destroy any results of said check. They have not (to my knowledge) ever passed an audit.

You would think they be forced to stop if they consistently can't pass audit.

That would make too much sense though.

The pentagon announced it had misplaced 2.1 trillion dollars on september 10, 2001. It hasnt gotten better.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-us-government-trillion...

I dont know what this is supposed to imply, they misplaced the money, they couldnt pass audit and decades later they still fail every audit. The implications being, widespread waste fraud and abuse could have taken place and we have no records to hold those responsoble to account. In reality, of course there was widespread waste fraud and abuse, it seems all of our guns keep ending up in the hands of nazis and islamic extremists so this one isnt hard to figure out.

Nowadays it doesn't really matter when people replace passcode by biometrics and passkeys.

These aren't protected.

Won't your device holding the passkey still take passcodes to unlock itself?

iPhones and many Android phones default to biometrics for both screen unlock and passkey usage these days.

Note that self-incrimination only applies to innocent people. If you are guilty, then you don’t have this right. Or something like that.

Hence, I understand, if they find anything illegal, then your password retention was hindrance to justice.

Does it say that in 5A?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com