Another pendulum swing.
https://pogowasright.org/d-c-cir-compelling-defendant-to-unlock-his-phone-was-a-5a-testimonial-act/
D.C.Cir.: Compelling defendant to unlock his phone was a 5A testimonial act
The 5th Amendment: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Seen at FourthAmendment.com:
Compelling defendant to unlock his phone was a testimonial act under Hubbell, and it had to be suppressed. (Deciding the Fifth Amendment claim moots need to decide the Fourth Amendment claim.) United States v. Brown, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 1219 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 17, 2025):
So too here. When, in response to the command to unlock the phone, Schwartz opened it, that act disclosed his control over the phone, his knowledge of how to access it, and the existence, authenticity, and ownership of documents within it. In addition, opening the phone was tantamount to answering a series of questions about ownership or control over the phone, including how it could be opened and by whom.
In short, under both the physical-trait and act-of-production caselaw, Schwartz’s compelled unlocking of the phone was testimonial.
Because the compelled opening of the cellphone was testimonial, both the message communicated by that action and any evidence obtained from that communication must be suppressed. See Kastigar, 406 U.S. at 445 (The Fifth Amendment “protects against any disclosures which the witness reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used.”); Harrison v. United States, 392 U.S. 219, 222, 88 S. Ct. 2008, 20 L. Ed. 2D 1047 (1968) (“[T]he same principle that prohibits the use of confessions [wrongfully obtained] also prohibits the use of any testimony impelled thereby—the fruit of the poisonous tree, to invoke a time-worn metaphor.”). In unlocking the phone, Schwartz disclosed that he had access to the phone and therefore also the ability to use it, and the government then used those testimonial acts in prosecutorial actions against Schwartz.
Read more at FourthAmendment.com
(Related)
“Anonymity is not a fundamental right”: experts disagree with Europol chief’s request for encryption back door
Chiara Castro reports:
Crime shouldn’t be an excuse to break encryption. Encrypted communications are either secure – and private – or they are not.
That’s what some experts told TechRadar, commenting on recent Europol’s chief statement. Talking to the Financial Times, Catherine De Bolle said that technology giants have a “social responsibility” to give the police access to encrypted messages used by criminals.
“Anonymity is not a fundamental right,” she said, arguing that law enforcement needs to be able to decrypt encrypted messages to fight back crime.
Experts, however, warn that creating a backdoor for law enforcement will undermine the protection for all, opening up to unmaintained consequences.
Read more at TechRadar.
The official hallucination generator for the government?
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/28/openai-launches-chatgpt-gov-for-us-government-agencies.html
OpenAI launches ChatGPT Gov for U.S. government agencies
OpenAI on Tuesday announced its biggest product launch since its enterprise rollout. It’s called ChatGPT Gov and was built specifically for U.S. government use.
The Microsoft-backed company bills the new platform as a step beyond ChatGPT Enterprise as far as security. It allows government agencies, as customers, to feed “non-public, sensitive information” into OpenAI’s models while operating within their own secure hosting environments, OpenAI CPO Kevin Weil told reporters during a briefing Monday.
Whack-a-mole?
https://www.wired.com/story/deepseek-ai-china-privacy-data/
DeepSeek’s Popular AI App Is Explicitly Sending US Data to China
Amid ongoing fears over TikTok, Chinese generative AI platform DeepSeek says it’s sending heaps of US user data straight to its home country, potentially setting the stage for greater scrutiny.
The United States’ recent regulatory action against the Chinese-owned social video platform TikTok prompted mass migration to another Chinese app, the social platform “Rednote.” Now, a generative artificial intelligence platform from the Chinese developer DeepSeek is exploding in popularity, posing a potential threat to US AI dominance and offering the latest evidence that moratoriums like the TikTok ban will not stop Americans from using Chinese-owned digital services.
DeepSeek, an AI research lab created by a prominent Chinese hedge fund, recently gained popularity after releasing its latest open source generative AI model that easily competes with top US platforms like those developed by OpenAI. However, to help avoid US sanctions on hardware and software, DeepSeek created some clever workarounds when building its models.
(Related)
https://www.wired.com/story/deepseek-chatbot-hands-on-vs-chatgpt/
Hands On With DeepSeek’s R1 Chatbot
DeekSeek’s chatbot with the R1 model is a stunning release from the Chinese startup. While it’s an innovation in training efficiency, hallucinations still run rampant.
The DeepSeek AI chatbot, released by a Chinese startup, has temporarily dethroned OpenAI’s ChatGPT from the top spot on Apple’s US App Store.
The app is completely free to use, and DeepSeek’s R1 model is powerful enough to be comparable to OpenAI’s o1 “reasoning” model, except DeepSeek’s chatbot is not sequestered behind a $20-a-month paywall like OpenAI’s is. Also, the DeepSeek model was efficiently trained using less powerful AI chips, making it a benchmark of innovative engineering.
No comments:
Post a Comment