First report: Important developments and substantive issues, March-July 2016 2016, para. 25
Paragraph- Paragraph text
- The United States Supreme Court Justices in Riley v. California were primarily concerned with outlawing warrantless searches of smartphones in terms of privacy considerations inherent in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It is relevant to point out, however, that the situation regarding cell phone security and encryption may be significantly more complex than one solely revolving around arguments of privacy and security. It may only be a matter of time before the United States Supreme Court Justices are faced with the same dilemma that would face the scores of countries around the world which have recognized the right to silence or the right to avoid self-incrimination as one of the standards of decency that a democratic society subscribes to. This is because the very characteristics of a mobile phone which make it such a special repository of personal data, as outlined in Riley v. California, also make it the most obvious tool which could totally and effectively undermine the right to silence, which has been gradually recognized in various jurisdictions since the sixteenth century and which in the United States is recognized as the Fifth Amendment. Put simply, in many jurisdictions around the world - but not all - an accused person has the right to avoid self-incrimination by remaining silent during criminal proceedings against him or her. There are very few exceptions to or qualifications of this right in places as far apart as Australia, Bangladesh, Germany, India, New Zealand, the United States … the list goes on. Yet a judicial warrant to access data held on a phone could effectively breach that right. The accused - hitherto not a compellable witness - may have the right to remain silent, but his or her phone could speak volumes about the most private of his or her thoughts, interests and actions. The accused's spouse or close family may equally be afforded the same status of not being a compellable witness in many jurisdictions. Yet most people would claim that their smartphone knows much more about them than their spouses, so is the smartphone to remain a compellable witness even with a judicial warrant required to access it? So where should logic - and logical consistency - lead us to?
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Means of adoption
- N.A.
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2016
- Paragraph type
- Other
- Paragraph number
- 25
sorted by
Date added
30 relationships, 30 entities