Charged with “attempted murder” and “rebellion with weapons” after the knife attack that injured six in Annecy last week, the Annecy attacker refuses to hand over the unlock code for his phone to the authorities. Refusing to give such information in this specific case is a crime.
YO’article 434-15-2 of the penal code states that refusing to communicate the unlock code for your phone may constitute a crime, punishable by three years in prison and a fine of 270,000 euros. This refers to unlock codes, just like fingerprints or facial recognition.
This penalty will be incurred by “anyone who has knowledge of the secret agreement to decipher a cryptology medium likely to have been used to prepare, facilitate or commit a crime or an infraction, will refuse to deliver said agreement to the judicial authorities or to apply it”. this, on the requirements of these authorities issued in compliance with Titles II and III of Book I of the Code of Criminal Procedure”.
And the article specifies: “If you oppose the refusal while the delivery or execution of the agreement would have allowed you to avoid the commission of a crime or misdemeanor or limit the effects, the penalty rises to five years in prison. and a fine of 450,000 euros.
Encrypted content or apps
The secret convention of decryption is the fact that the police prove that it is impossible to exfiltrate unencrypted and exploitable data without unlocking the phone.
Most iOS or Android phones are encrypted, as is access to their content. If the user has activated unlocking their phone with code, fingerprint or face, the device itself is inaccessible. If an encrypted app like WhatsApp is installed on the phone, that would also be enough to claim that some data is encrypted.
In the case of the Annecy attacker, if it turns out that the contents of the phone allowed to prepare, facilitate or commit a crime, as specified in the article, then this may constitute an additional motive.
In addition, the Court of Cassation considers that the analysis of a telephone is similar to a registry. Therefore, the presence of a lawyer is not necessary. On the other hand, a contradictory procedure is mandatory, that is, that the data extraction must be carried out in the presence of the owner of the device.
Firm opposition from tech giants
But in practice, a locked smartphone is practically unusable. It is impossible to make Apple unlock the phone remotely. As for Google, the American company categorically refuses to establish back doors to facilitate intrusions, legal or not. It is even a matter of principle for the group, which guarantees the inviolability of its products.
In 2016, in the United States, Apple already refused to give the authorities access to the encrypted content of the phone of Syed Farook, one of the perpetrators of the San Bernardino massacre. A position still current. Eventually, the FBI managed to hack into the phone’s contents using an outside company.
In 2015, former prosecutor Francois Molins co-signed a column in the New York Times with two American and Spanish prosecutors, where he criticized the widespread encryption of mobile phones and the refusal of technology giants to help the police, speaking of “helping crime.”
Source: BFM TV
