[HN Gopher] Police can't demand you reveal your phone passcode t...
___________________________________________________________________
Police can't demand you reveal your phone passcode then tell a jury
you refused
Author : oedmarap
Score : 535 points
Date : 2021-10-22 11:16 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.eff.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.eff.org)
| hungryforcodes wrote:
| Sorry-- this is totally unrelated and maybe even inappropriate--
| but how do people sort through 300+ comments on HN to consume a
| topic? I understand that /. introduces bias with its system, but
| I honestly find myself abandoning alot of deeper HN threads
| because it's so difficult to parse all the comments. Perhaps I'm
| missing something.
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| If by "consume" you mean "acquire the contents" of all those
| comments, well, you'll have to read them all.
|
| A more interesting question to me for a while has been, how to
| follow the evolution of a deep thread in which the time it
| takes to read a larger amount of comments, even more are made.
| How to know where all the new ones are? It'd be cool to be able
| to diff a thread based on timestamp.
| IPTN wrote:
| https://github.com/insin/hn-comments-owl does exactly that.
| Makes following threads so much better.
| pdimitar wrote:
| Formally the police can't demand a lot of stuff. Informally,
| they'll put you in a room and tell you that they have the legal
| right to keep you anywhere from 24 to 72 hours in there and they
| definitely can make you reconsider during that period -- to put
| it very mildly. Hint: some cops are _really good_ in the skill of
| inflicting pain to people without lasting medical trace to prove
| it afterwards.
|
| Until there's true accountability and 100% transparency, these
| legislations and/or idealistic slogans don't mean much.
|
| Technically airport security can't make you unlock your phone in
| many countries as well but I've known two former colleagues who
| were "convinced" to do so in the airport's back room; the one
| where problematic passengers are held for 8-24h.
|
| So yeah, thanks for nothing -- namely for stating the ideal
| theoretical state of things -- but a lot of people out there need
| actual real-time protection, on the spot. Address that.
|
| "Raising awareness" doesn't work on ruthless cops. I guess that's
| a mind-blowing revelation to many Westerners.
| [deleted]
| kingcharles wrote:
| I held out until the police threatened my wife and then I
| broke.
| kspacewalk2 wrote:
| >Hint: some cops are really good in the skill of inflicting
| pain to people without lasting medical trace to prove it
| afterwards.
|
| Sorry, I don't buy that this happens with any kind of frequency
| in the 21st century United States, such that a person could
| reasonably expect this to happen to them. Do you have more than
| ambiguous innuendo to back up this claim?
| _bohm wrote:
| Rough rides are an example of a fairly well documented
| practice [0]. I personally know someone who was taken on one.
|
| [0]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_ride_(police_brutality)
| xandofish wrote:
| You are a fool.
| pdimitar wrote:
| What you "buy" makes no difference to what happened to people
| out there. Believe what you will.
| aardvarkr wrote:
| Around these parts we like to see some evidence before
| making wildly speculative claims.
| pdimitar wrote:
| You can just say "I don't believe you", I'll just say
| "OK, I came here to state an observation and not to
| emulate a court room, and I have other things to do
| afterwards" and we can all be on our merry way.
| kspacewalk2 wrote:
| I don't believe your argument even rises to the level of
| being anecdata. It's a tier or two below.
| pdimitar wrote:
| It's not an argument. It's a stated observation. You can
| question it until the end of time, won't change something
| that already happened.
|
| Why are we doing this at all? You add absolutely nothing
| to the discussion, except maybe question if I haven't
| imagined things.
| kspacewalk2 wrote:
| I simply observed that, without a lot of elaboration, it
| is you with your claims that added nothing to the
| discussion, despite appearing to do so. Saying wild
| things with no elaboration and evidence is worse than
| adding nothing, in fact. It's subtracting, or detracting
| from the conversation. Discussions in higher-quality
| forums sometimes involve calling out such lazy third-
| person maybe-accounts presented as valid discussion
| items.
|
| You're getting salty for being called out and say "I
| don't care". Fine, you don't care. This, however, is not
| your personal page, it's a public discussion where claims
| are challenged. When I reply to your comment, I'm not
| necessarily replying to "you", I'm contributing to the
| overall discussion that others read, and make their own
| conclusions from all of it.
|
| And I don't think there's any reason whatsoever for a
| dispassionate observer who may not be aware of how things
| are in the US these days to come away thinking that US
| cops ubiquitously and habitually torture detainees by
| beating them.
| pdimitar wrote:
| You can keep repeating the same things, I don't mind.
|
| I'll say again as well: I stated things that are
| impossible to prove in an internet forum. I've admitted I
| got no solid proof -- you can just say that you don't
| believe me and that could have been the end of it.
|
| Why do you continue is beyond me. I already said that I
| haven't stated a fact. If you think I should not post
| anecdotal evidence then please, by all means, pester the
| mods to delete EVERY SINGLE ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE posted
| here on HN. Let me not stop you.
| adwn wrote:
| They asked for any evidence beyond _" it's like this, trust
| me"_ and you answered with _" really, it's like this, trust
| me"_. Do you realize that if someone isn't convinced after
| the first "trust me", they won't be convinced by the second
| "trust me"?
| [deleted]
| pdimitar wrote:
| Sure.
|
| A better reply is: "I am here to state an observation and
| not to prove anything to anyone since it's not a court
| room. Believe me if you want, I'll not stick around to
| find out".
| rootusrootus wrote:
| That amounts to taking a dump in the middle of the
| conversation and walking away. If you aren't here to
| participate in the discussion why say anything at all?
| pdimitar wrote:
| I said it, the other guy says he doesn't believe me. What
| discussion? That's the discussion stopper, not what I
| said.
|
| I can't prove anything except say it. And it's your
| choice whether to believe it.
|
| What's unclear?
| notyourwork wrote:
| What's unclear is you are making pretty wild accusations
| and saying trust me because I said so. That's as good as
| any other unfounded claim made on the internet and it
| doesn't contribute value to the conversation.
| pdimitar wrote:
| If you don't like it, report me to the moderators and let
| them delete my comment(s) if they feel you are right. As
| far as I am aware, I have a right to post anecdotal
| evidence without a huge legal trail proving that I am
| right. And it's your right to not believe it.
|
| Why not stop there?
|
| EDIT: And yes, this absolutely is one of the unfounded
| claims that can be found all over the internet. Have I
| claimed otherwise?
| adwn wrote:
| Well, have you observed that behavior first-hand? Did
| someone you know and trust observe it first-hand and tell
| you about it? Etc. We don't ask you to "prove" anything,
| but some more information instead of vague hints would be
| helpful.
| pdimitar wrote:
| I thought the standard benefit of the doubt implies that
| I am not here to tell stories just because I am bored.
|
| I've known such people, yes, three of them. Law-abiding
| normal people whose only mistake was that they were in a
| hurry and were slightly rude to the police officers
| because of it.
|
| Technically, each and every claim of somebody can be
| disputed to death. That's why I invoked your right to not
| trust what strangers say on the internet. Still, I
| thought it was a given that I have some exposure to the
| claimed phenomena.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| Did any of your acquaintances do anything after their
| release in response to the police torturing/brutalising
| them? Go to the press for example, or sue, raise a
| complaint, etc.?
|
| Reading between the lines you're saying torture/brutality
| following arrest for speeding has been the experience of
| 3 of your friends?
|
| Aside, your combative tone really isn't helping make a
| useful discussion. Something like "I have no evidence,
| sorry" would have been far better than attacking people
| requesting evidence.
| pdimitar wrote:
| > _Something like "I have no evidence, sorry" would have
| been far better than attacking people requesting
| evidence._
|
| Agreed, and I started correcting afterwards. I thought it
| was super obvious that I am sharing an anecdotal evidence
| and an opinion. I reacted hostile to claims that I
| somehow have to prove either of these (and both aren't
| clear-cut facts).
|
| EDIT: To answer your questions, no, they haven't pressed
| charges (and it wasn't speeding, it was "a routine
| check"). They were even let go on the oral condition that
| they'll not pursue.
| jandrese wrote:
| Sometimes the cases come out because "standard procedure"
| ends up killing someone with an underlying medical issue. One
| case involved cops who would strap a suspect to a chair and
| then cover their bodies with pepper spray including spraying
| directly up their nose and into eyeballs. One guy had a heart
| condition and died. The cops involved usually get some paid
| vacation if the case is severe enough to make it to the news.
|
| This has happened repeatedly and nobody seems to care.
|
| 10 seconds on Google turned up another case from this year.
|
| https://www.keranews.org/news/2021-03-19/north-texas-man-
| die...
| joncrane wrote:
| I was once arrested wearing nothing but a t shirt on a
| freezing night. The police officer intentionally left the
| windows open in my compartment while blasting the heat in the
| driver's seat. I asked him to roll up the window and he
| ignored me. This was in Montgomery County, MD.
|
| It happens.
| codezero wrote:
| 85% of the people in Rikers haven't been convicted of
| anything.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| That seems expected, it's a jail not a prison. At any given
| time a lot of the people there are in the midst of a trial.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Rikers is a jail, not a prison. Jails are meant to hold
| people who have not yet completed their trial. Once you're
| convicted you get sent to prison.
| codezero wrote:
| Exactly the point. The police can waste your time. Those
| people can't go to work and will likely lose their job
| because they are being jammed up by police.
| kingcharles wrote:
| I just spent 8 years in the county jail while the police
| wasted my time to try and get a conviction out of me.
| They offered to let me walk free on my first court date
| if I plead guilty, but I refused, so I did 8 years locked
| up. I'm actually still in custody now, just not at the
| jail. Might be in custody for another couple of years
| until the case is dismissed.
|
| Looking at the statistics for Cook County Jail, there are
| a number of unconvicted people who have been in there for
| almost 12 years waiting to go to trial.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Yea, the bail situation in this country is fucked.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| It varies a lot by state, however. Not every state has
| private bail bondsmen, bounty hunters, etc.
| nerdponx wrote:
| It's not just _time_.
|
| Rikers is as much of a violent, torturous,
| psychologically-toxic shithole as any prison, and people
| (often teenagers) can spend years stuck there [0].
|
| [0]: https://revealnews.org/article-legacy/for-teens-at-
| rikers-is...
| notyourwork wrote:
| This and OPs question are not related.
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| Thankfully people can use the fact that their trial
| hasn't yet completed to console the fact that they will
| be in Rikers for months.
| literallyaduck wrote:
| https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/albertsamaha/this-
| teena...
|
| Oh sorry that one left evidence, are you asking people to
| prove something without evidence?
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_ride_%28police_brutali.
| ..
|
| A practice so frequent it has a wiki article.
|
| https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/chavis-carter-
| comm...
|
| Oops, that one is a "suicide".
| edgyquant wrote:
| These examples definitely leave medical traces though
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| Ever protested anything that the conservative majority of
| your city supports, esp. the police? Try it some time, its
| fun! You'll find out pretty damn quick that the riot police
| love to hurt people, once something is declared a riot, it
| becomes a free-for-all. If you think this is innuendo, let me
| direct you to the 2 years of BLM protests around the country
| that have videos of cops behaving just lovely.
| RansomStark wrote:
| Didn't the Chicago PD run a black site a fee years back...
| Found it:
| https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-
| news/201...
| mywittyname wrote:
| Anyone whose even been handcuffed knows this is a fact. They
| make no effort to hide the fact that they are intentionally
| causing you pain because they can.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I've been handcuffed, albeit only once in my life, and
| aside from the cop being exceedingly efficient (I didn't
| really see it coming until the cuffs were already on), he
| was actually entirely polite and professional about the
| whole thing.
|
| I've no doubt that there are bad cops out there. Probably
| more than a few. But I don't think it's helpful to portray
| the entire profession that way, even if they do bring a lot
| of the bad PR on themselves by how they handle the
| situations where a cop does behave badly.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Maybe it's because I've lived in Chicago my whole life,
| but I've only ever dealt with cops who could be
| generously described as evil. The cops at my high school
| sat in the lobby all day harassing students, one of them
| was fired for starting a relationship with a student. The
| union contested and got his job back after he was elected
| president of their union. I've never had a government
| employee other than cops tell me to "fuck off" or "shut
| the fuck up". In fact, I can count on you hand the number
| of times anyone other than a close friend has said that
| to me, yet it seems like everyone I meet has been
| verbally abused by cops.
| kingcharles wrote:
| Chicago is bad. I've suffered bad abuse in Chicagoland by
| the police. I just did 8 years in the county jail due to
| the police violating the law and violating my rights.
| edgyquant wrote:
| Don't you mean 8 months? In Illinois you can only be
| sentenced to less than a year in county jail unless you
| are awaiting trial in which case 8 years seems a bit
| much.
| kingcharles wrote:
| No, I mean 8 years. Over 8 years. I'm still in custody
| now.
|
| There are others in the jail for almost 12 years.. here
| are the stats: https://www.cookcountysheriff.org/wp-
| content/uploads/2021/09...
| edgyquant wrote:
| I wouldn't post that, if I'm correct you've just doxed
| yourself since your nickname corresponds with the name of
| a gentleman who has been there for over 8 years awaiting
| a murder trial.
| kingcharles wrote:
| Different person, although I did a double-take when I saw
| that name on the list a week ago when I found it. I'm
| King Charles, he is Charles King.
| onychomys wrote:
| That guy was 19 in 2013, and elsewhere our allegedly
| felonious friend here mentions being a web developer in
| the 90s, so it's not the same person.
| DennisP wrote:
| Seems this case isn't so much about what the police can do in
| the interrogation room, as what evidence is admissible in
| court. It's quite easy to enforce the provision that they can't
| tell juries you refused to hand over a password.
|
| That's a moot point if you do reveal your password, but
| coercion is a separate issue we could try to address, which
| would be pointless to address if they could get you convicted
| simply because you refused.
| testfoobar wrote:
| You can beat the rap, but not the ride.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Freddie_Gray
|
| Edit: Just to be clear, this is an illustrative example. Not a
| flippant response. Gray should not have died in police custody.
| legutierr wrote:
| > I've known two former colleagues who were "convinced" to do
| so in the airport's back room; the one where problematic
| passengers are held for 8-24h.
|
| What country(ies)?
| pdimitar wrote:
| USA and Netherlands.
|
| Draw your own conclusions. :P
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| That's why you need a good lawyer, to bring your story to the
| public, sue the damn police department and get justice!
|
| And then the cop gets 2 weeks of paid suspension, taxpayers pay
| you 20k in 'damages', and your lawyer costs only 35k.
| avs733 wrote:
| the one part of this I will defend is taxpayers footing the
| bill.
|
| Frankly, the government employs cops on our behalf and they
| act on behalf of the population. This type of behavior is
| part of the American culture of policing, it is not
| 'individual bad actors'. We should bear the cost of them
| acting improperly. I vehemently object to us creating a
| culture where police are expected to behave in this way but
| then are personally responsible when they get caught doing
| what is expected. Cops should pay the criminal costs for
| their actions, but the liability belongs to those who employ
| them and empower them - us.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| But we didn't employ bad cops... we employed cops, they
| just turned bad.
|
| If I hire a plumber, to fix my sink, and the plumber rapes
| my neighbor and burns his/her house, why should I pay for
| the damages? If a cop rapes someone, again, why should I
| pay?
| remram wrote:
| And without breaking the law, the threat of spending 24-72h
| locked in that room is already a big one.
| ziddoap wrote:
| > _So yeah, thanks for nothing -- namely for stating the ideal
| theoretical state of things -- but a lot of people out there
| need actual real-time protection, on the spot._
|
| I don't understand why you would be upset that an organization
| that spends most of its time with court-related battles is,
| once again, dealing with court-related things. Should the EFF
| be putting boots on the ground in some sort of vigilante
| project that defends people in real time? What is the
| alternative you're suggesting the EFF do, if doing things in
| court is only worth a "thanks for nothing"?
|
| > _Until there 's true accountability and 100% transparency_
|
| Where would this come from do you think? Because I'm thinking
| we start at the courts, but it seems like you might have other
| ideas.
|
| The EFF can't fix everything, especially not in airport
| backrooms of other various countries. But that does not mean
| there efforts are a waste.
| pdimitar wrote:
| The only thing I'll say is that all of this has been parroted
| to death, ever since the 70s, and I am not seeing an
| improvement anywhere. People love this fuzzy feeling that
| they are "spreading awareness" and that "we must start
| somewhere" but historically, I've lived long enough to not
| see those make any difference so far.
|
| But I really don't want to debate. I came to state anecdotal
| evidence + opinion. Neither of which is an indisputable fact
| and I have not claimed otherwise.
| ziddoap wrote:
| There is a vast difference between reaching the supreme
| court with your amicus briefs and "spreading awareness" in
| a blog post.
|
| They also aren't mutually exclusive.
|
| > _But I really don 't want to debate. I came to state
| anecdotal evidence + opinion._
|
| This is always funny to read. Write a strongly worded
| opinion, but refuse to engage with others.
|
| >but historically, I've lived long enough to not see those
| make any difference so far.
|
| Out of curiosity, in your long lived life, how many times
| have you seen amicus briefs written to the supreme court
| defending 5th amendment rights?
| pdimitar wrote:
| Funny -- only if you don't know what the words mean. Both
| are not strictly facts so any discussion around them is
| bound to derail into... exactly what's going on here.
| ziddoap wrote:
| My apologies, I forgot discussions can only happen
| involving strictly provable facts!
| pdimitar wrote:
| 1. I have stated non-strictly factual observations.
|
| 2. I am being called out to prove them.
|
| 3. I cannot and I state this.
|
| 4. I get mocked for it.
|
| I get it, you are here to "win" but I'll keep calling
| things like they are. You keep patting yourself on the
| back, I don't mind.
| samhw wrote:
| > how many times have you seen amicus briefs written to
| the supreme court defending 5th amendment rights?
|
| Are you serious? There are 5th Amendment cases in the
| Supreme Court practically every month, to which plenty of
| groups will submit amicus briefs. I don't see how the
| tone of awe is warranted - it's really not a remotely
| unusual event.
|
| Hell, you can see countless ones on Google from the EFF
| alone: https://www.google.com/search?q=eff+supreme+court+
| amicus+bri...
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| > Hint: some cops are really good in the skill of inflicting
| pain to people without lasting medical trace to prove it
| afterwards.
|
| What a useless statement. Some? Out of how many? Do you have a
| source?
| 63 wrote:
| It's crazy to me the amount that people who have never dealt
| with the cops think "I'll just show them x legal code so they
| can see they don't have the right to do that." Turns out, they
| don't care. For minor infractions, they'll use whatever
| intimidation and coercion they want, then make you feel lucky
| for letting you out because they didn't feel like prosecuting.
| In most circumstances, the word of the person with the most
| power is law, regardless of what the actual law says, and
| usually that's the guy in the uniform with the gun.
| BobbyJo wrote:
| It's also amazing the amount of people who have never dealt
| with cops who think it's a giant, unthinking, unfeeling blob,
| and make broad generalizations about how it behaves and what
| its flaws are.
|
| I've dealt with lots of cops for minor stuff (trespassing,
| traffic infractions, crashed parties), and have only had a
| bad experience (turned out fine anyway) once. I have several
| relatives who have been in and out of the system, and from my
| point of view, they were probably treated more fairly than
| they deserved. I get that that is not everyone's experience,
| but it makes me skeptical that the problem is somehow grand
| and structural and not just "some people are assholes."
| monocasa wrote:
| And pretty much every interaction I've had with cops has
| been extremely negative. From stealing money out of my
| wallet, making up DMV issues to steal my license, to
| threatening my friend with jail time for trying to report a
| violent rape inflicted on her.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| The problem is that the assholes too often don't face
| repercussions.
|
| If you have the right to refuse to unlock your phone for a
| cop, then a cop that demands it even after the suspect has
| actively refused it should be reprimanded.
|
| The meme of "We investigated ourselves and found no
| wrongdoing" runs rampant because it's often true. Police
| have literally gotten away with murder, either because the
| DA or whoever decides to not press charges, or the
| prosecution literally sabotages their own case to protect
| the police, as in the case of the shooting of Daniel
| Shaver, where the prosecution and defense attorneys asked
| the judge to not show the bodycam footage to the jury [0].
| Anybody who's seen that video knows how damning it was, and
| it's absolutely reprehensible that a prosecutor would want
| to not show it to the jury. What made it so much worse was
| that the police department released the video only a couple
| hours after the trial had completed with the Not Guilty
| verdict.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Daniel_Shaver#Bod
| y...
| ineptech wrote:
| Every profession has abusive people; it's a structural
| issue when a profession can't or won't weed them out.
| lr4444lr wrote:
| What profession has an effective method of weeding out
| abusive people?
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| This is 100% a bad faith question. And even if it's being
| asked in good faith, it's entirely irrelevant. It's
| essentially whataboutism. But I'll address it anyways.
|
| If I have an abusive co-worker in my tech job and my
| manager and HR refuse to do anything about it, it just
| makes work suck.
|
| But an abusive cop ruins lives with bullshit charges and
| bullshit handling of innocent people. In worst-case
| scenarios, they're murderers that get away with it.
|
| So yeah...it's a pretty clear distinction, and I refuse
| to believe you're asking this question in good faith.
| BobbyJo wrote:
| It's not whataboutism, it raises a good point: What's the
| best we can do with regard to weeding out bad cops? Like,
| what does doing a good job of that even look like?
|
| The ideal is obviously 'no bad cops' but everyone here
| can agree that's not really achievable, so what does
| doing a reasonable, or even great job look like. How many
| bad cops are on the force if we do everything we can?
| lr4444lr wrote:
| It's not in bad faith, but it is rhetorical: people
| protecting their own, at an industry or occupational
| level, is the rule, not the exception.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| Yeah, the problem is, as I mentioned, the consequences to
| society are very different between a cop being abusive
| versus your local plumber or other $JOB.
| ineptech wrote:
| For violence? Really? When was the last time you found
| yourself defending a coworker who beat someone up in the
| workplace?
| cogman10 wrote:
| You can't talk yourself out of being arrested. This is why
| the advice of "keep your mouth shut" is the best advice out
| there.
|
| https://oakleylawky.com/am-i-being-detained-6-questions-
| you-...
| [deleted]
| melony wrote:
| Too much of legal procedures relies on 'discretion' rather
| than protocol.
| ALittleLight wrote:
| My first interaction with the police was in college. I had
| locked my bike to a bench near the student union. Might have
| been obnoxious, probably shouldn't have, but it was also very
| common for students to lock bikes to those benches. Someone
| from the University's parking and transportation department
| had come by and double locked my bike with a notice saying it
| would be impounded and I'd have to come by the Parking and
| Transportation office to pay a fee and pick it up.
|
| It didn't seem right to me that I would have to pay a fee for
| something that everyone did and that wasn't counter-indicated
| anywhere I was aware of. I did a little reading and
| discovered what I thought were two relevant city ordinances!
| I forget the exact language of the ordinances but it was
| something like "There needs to be a visible sign prohibiting
| locking bicycles in the area or to the fixtures to issue
| citations" and "Citations should be issued by police officers
| only who should be specifically named in the citation." I
| thought both of those applied to my situation as my citation
| was issued, not by an officer, but just generally by the
| Parking and Transportation department and there were no signs
| about not locking your bikes to benches.
|
| I made the case to the woman behind the desk at the parking
| and transportation department. She was unmoved and insisted I
| had to pay the fine to get my bike back. I tried arguing
| along the lines that taking my bike against my will and in
| disagreement with the law was basically theft. She countered
| by saying that if it was theft I should call the police. When
| I repeated the accusation that it was theft she slid her desk
| phone across to me and told me to call the police again.
| Writing this, it seems crazy to me that I actually did - but
| I found it hard to back down in the moment and thought I was
| in the right on a legal basis. So, I called the non-emergency
| number for the campus police and explained the situation. The
| police person told me they'd send someone by.
|
| A few minutes later a couple of cops showed up and asked to
| speak to me outside. I stepped outside with them and tried to
| explain the situation. Pretty quickly, before I even got into
| my legal arguments, one cop said "We got a call that you were
| disturbing the peace in there. That you were threatening
| people and acting violent." The second cop stepped extremely
| close to me, coming face to face in a threatening manner and
| asked me something like "Why are you threatening people?"
|
| It was, first, completely untrue. I had never raised my voice
| or been threatening. I actually enjoy such arguments and I
| had been having a good time trying to rescue my bike. The
| Parking and Transportation Department woman had been unamused
| and maybe a little cynical or dry, but certainly never acted
| like there was a threat of any kind or like I was being
| hostile. And, of course, ultimately, I knew they were lying
| because I was the one who had called them and I definitely
| hadn't reported myself as causing a disturbance or being
| violent.
|
| Realizing they wouldn't help me, I thanked the police for
| their service and left. From their perspective, they probably
| felt they had solved the problem. They got called over a
| problem and they made the problem go away. I've always felt
| the situation was a bit galling but looking back on it I see
| I was navigating the system the wrong way. The police are
| physical problem solvers, not legal arbiters, and should not
| be called for non-physical problems. And, maybe I was morally
| wrong anyway to lock my bike there.
| hellojesus wrote:
| Morality has nothing to do with it. If the law says one
| thing and you did not violate it, no problems.
|
| Spirit of the law is dumb and generally not applicable here
| from what I can tell.
|
| Though your observation is correct. The cops don't solve
| these things nor do they enforce the laws properly. Suing
| the university or specifically the Transportation admin
| would have been the proper move.
| quacked wrote:
| You're absolutely right, and it's insane that people don't
| realize this. So many people that want police reform in the
| US think that somehow we can continue to let the police be
| mostly made up by people with a certain political persuasion
| and education level, and that we can simply control them with
| laws and incentives.
| sethammons wrote:
| > political persuasion and education level
|
| Sorry, I'm not following. My understanding is that the job
| attracts bullies and I see bullies from all political
| persuasions and all education levels.
| goodpoint wrote:
| > I see bullies from all political persuasions
|
| Absolutely not in equal amounts. The _far_ right loves to
| infiltrate police forces while the far left is often very
| untrusting of the police.
| quacked wrote:
| I think the commenter you're responding to was just
| mistaking my assertion that most bad cops match a
| particular demographic due to the type of person to
| become a cop for an assertion that you can tell someone
| will be a bully if you know what their demographics are.
| macintux wrote:
| I think the recently-departed administration in the U.S.
| has done a good job of helping bullies self-select
| themselves into its party.
| quacked wrote:
| I find that bullies can be found in equal proportions in
| both parties, but I do agree that the type of bully who
| is willing to walk the street with a gun in the name of
| justice does have a more welcoming home in one major
| party than the other.
| aksss wrote:
| You should talk to some homicide detectives, or even the
| people who deal with the day-to-day issues at the street
| level in downtown areas. The things they see on a regular
| basis are pretty mind-blowing, and not just per-incident,
| but cyclically and systemically. Their perspective on
| government policy and it's effects are far different than
| ours by the nature of their jobs. That is a partial
| factor in how they vote and how they donate, particularly
| as of late.
|
| Their life experience is dealing with the
| disproportionately _bad_ aspects of society, just like
| you probably have a disproportionately _good_ existence.
| There are assumptions and biases that come from both
| these exposure models.
|
| And maybe it's just a problem with their delivery, but if
| you hear a political party (unfortunately the loudmouth
| fringe more often than not) incessantly talking about how
| you suck, should be presumed to be an evil murderer, and
| advocate policies that you feel put your daily safety at
| further risk, you might rethink your donations and voting
| history as well. Not defending the bad cultures and
| actors whatsoever, but there's more room for nuance in
| discussing the issues we have policing this large,
| individualistic, culturally heterogenous, heavily
| medicated and critically unmedicated country. The problem
| is a hard one, so easy simple answers should be viewed
| with skepticism. There is no "just do what Norway does"
| answer to the problem that can be made in good faith.
| quacked wrote:
| Oh, I completely agree with you. My views on police are
| mostly based on first-person reports or bodycam footage
| of what detectives, highway patrol, etc. have
| encountered. I also have some personal experience with
| witnessing a violent arrest up close, and was incredibly
| grateful for the police in that instance. People who
| pitch hardcore police reform have absolutely no idea what
| the police deal with, and their childish demands to
| "abolish the police" are missing a ton of context about
| the depths of depravity and evil that exist within
| society.
|
| I don't think that necessarily factually disqualifies
| anything I said already, though. The police are a
| necessary branch of the state monopoly on violence, but
| right now in the U.S. I don't think the demographics and
| tendencies of the police force line up with our
| collective expectations for transparency, honesty, trust,
| and justice. There are too many opportunities for
| intimidation and corruption that are taken and defended.
|
| Edit: Also you're completely correct about one political
| party listening to and supporting the police.
| genericuser314 wrote:
| Based on political contributions, police officers have
| donated their money to Democrats and Republicans almost
| in equal proportion for quite awhile... until 2018, when
| they became overwhelmingly Republican.
|
| https://archive.md/bacrC#selection-1400.0-1404.0
| quacked wrote:
| What about based on internal beliefs and voting patterns?
| A "police" administrator at the city level is liable to
| donate a lot more money than a rural patrolman.
| quacked wrote:
| The police job attracts most people who do not have a
| college degree, are white, and lean into
| conservative/justice-heavy politics. Many of those people
| are bullies. That doesn't mean anything about people that
| do not have a college degree, or white people, or
| conservative/justice-heavy politics, it just means
| something about the police job and the people who agree
| to take it. We're looking at probability of (white AND
| lower college education) given (bully AND police
| officer), not probability of (bully) given (white AND low
| college education).
|
| The closer you get down to beat-cop-that-interacts-with-
| citizens, the less likely you are to find a four-year
| degree or "conventionally liberal" beliefs. (Not that a
| college education or liberal beliefs confer any useful
| predictors about common sense, wisdom, ethical beliefs,
| or honesty.) This implies that anyone with a four-year
| degree and conventionally liberal beliefs is going to
| have a hard time understanding or influencing police
| officers by using any tactics that work on other liberal
| college graduates.
|
| I agree with you that there are bullies from all
| political persuasions and education levels, but a very
| specific type of aggressive personality self-selects into
| the police job at a higher rate than in other jobs that
| require a similar background. Additionally, even if 99%
| of police officers in the US weren't aggressive and
| weren't bullies, that still leaves 10,000 "bad cops". It
| doesn't take many "bad cops" to make people angry and
| uncomfortable with the police in general.
|
| In case my original message wasn't clear, I'm actually
| criticizing U.S. supporters of police reform for wanting
| police work to be perfect and ethical without actually
| volunteering to become police themselves. These (mostly
| left-leaners) entrust the enforcement of civil society to
| a group of people who mostly don't respect or agree with
| them, which is ineffective and hypocritical.
| banannaise wrote:
| Good cops become bad cops, fired, or dead. None of those
| things are helpful. You can't change the system from
| within, especially not starting at the bottom.
| grasshopperpurp wrote:
| Agree with a lot of your points, but I think you're
| asking for an unrealistic amount of self-sacrifice. Not
| to equate film to rl, but we're all familiar with
| Serpico, right? You think these power-hungry bullies are
| just going to let you infiltrate their gang and make
| changes for the greater good?
|
| Maybe you're talking about leadership/management
| positions? But, even then, you're talking about one of
| the stronger unions in country and a group of employees
| who will fight your attempts at progress.
|
| Again, I agree with just about everything else, and there
| isn't an easy solution, but I think your criticism is
| either unclear or misplaced.
| quacked wrote:
| It's interesting that you focused on
| leadership/management as an option--no, I actually really
| am talking about going to the academy, learning about
| escalation of force, patrol work, and basic procedural
| law, and then manning the city streets.
|
| I'm not expecting left-leaners to go in and "take down
| the corrupt cops from the inside", just to go in and do
| police work. Most cops that get away with murder don't
| appear to be nakedly corrupt or part of an overt/explicit
| conspiracy to commit murder and theft; they're just
| incompetent, malicious, and protected by the brotherhood.
|
| I have the same criticism of left-learners in other
| fields, like business and engineering. I come from a very
| left-leaning community and family; they will talk up one
| wall and down the other about things like bank loan
| disparity, police response disparity, treatment by retail
| employees disparity, etc. but very few of them actually
| consider becoming a loan officer or a police officer or a
| grocery store owner and then choosing how to treat people
| that would normally be treated poorly. People in my
| familial and social circle want to work $70-100k white
| collar administrative jobs and tell everyone else how to
| run society, when it would be far more effective if
| everyone with their same viewpoints simply become part of
| society and ran it themselves.
|
| More self-sacrificial behavior and working in "real" jobs
| would also solve a lot of problems with what I saw as a
| flaw in liberal/left thinking. It's hard to be friendly
| and forgiving to thieves and violent robbers when it's
| _your_ retirement plan that 's getting jacked up twice
| per year and losing a third of profit to theft and
| another third to taxation.
| bmn__ wrote:
| If the US were to adopt the requirement of a police
| candidate having an A-level (or whatever the local
| equivalent is called, I can't figure it out), I predict
| the problem would solve itself within a generation. This
| requirement is not just an idea, but tried-and-working
| policy elsewhere.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > The police job attracts most people who do not have a
| college degree, are white, and lean into
| conservative/justice-heavy politics.
|
| 12.4% of police officers are black, compared to 11.9% of
| the US population. "White" is slightly over-represented
| as well. Both of these are mainly a result of "Other" and
| especially "Asian" being significantly under-represented.
|
| The primary disparity is by sex. 84.5% of police are
| male.
|
| https://datausa.io/profile/soc/police-officers
|
| The percentage of police officers with a four year degree
| is ~30%, about the same as the adult general population.
| fennecfoxen wrote:
| Of course you can't control them with _laws_. The
| prosecutors are their allies, the courts are their
| enablers, and Qualified Immunity is all but _carte blanche_
| to ignore laws.
| quacked wrote:
| This is obvious to me, but it seems to be lost on many
| people who want to change how police work is done. It's
| like saying that chefs ought to be responsible for
| punishing each other when they spit in people's food.
| dnautics wrote:
| Though that's not really the point of those things in the
| legal code; the point is not for you to stop a cop from doing
| it at the point of abuse, but for you to have a legal arm to
| sue the fuck out of them afterwards, or to get a pass out of
| jail because the cops violated procedure. Yeah, it sucks for
| you, but it's supposed to be a deterrent to prevent cops from
| abusing their power in the future.
|
| Now, that obviously that is not super effective for _other_
| reasons (QI; courts - an agent of the state - being overly
| deferential and siding with the state; etc.).
| voakbasda wrote:
| The problem with expecting accountability is that system
| will fail you at the next step: the courts. You have to
| survive that process too, where the judge and prosecutor
| will believe the cop nine times out of ten. As a sitting
| federal judge once said, "truth and justice have no
| relevance; it is a court of law." The law will take the
| side of the system.
| kingcharles wrote:
| This. The police will lie and the judge will take their
| word. In my case the police said they can break 2048-bit
| AES encryption easily and as a backup could unsolder the
| chips (they didn't say which chips) and put them in
| another device to get the data. The judge believed it
| all. The police had no qualifications in computer science
| or encryption.
| godelski wrote:
| This is a bit insane. You mention in another comment you
| spent 8 years in jail because you didn't give your
| password. Does a judge not connect the two things and say
| "okay, well why haven't you done that then?" Seems like
| if they could (I know they can't) then they would be
| wasting everyone's time.
| kingcharles wrote:
| The law is a bit complicated. I did give up my password
| when they threatened my wife. The judge ruled they
| obtained my password by coercion so they weren't
| permitted to use it. But then they came forward and said
| they would have eventually cracked my encryption anyway
| as they can crack 2048-bit AES easily, and even if they
| couldn't have cracked the encryption they would have
| unsoldered the chips (which chips?) and put them in
| another device and got access that way. The judge said in
| that case you can use the password you got through
| coercion because you would have got in anyway. That is
| allowed by the law, in the USA at least.
| godelski wrote:
| I assume that your lawsuit is that they couldn't have
| actually done that? Honestly sounds like a shitty judge.
| That's fucked up (even if you did something fucked up).
| dnautics wrote:
| > The law will take the side of the system
|
| >> courts - an agent of the state - being overly
| deferential and siding with the state
|
| I am highly cynical about this methodology but it DOES
| work for the group, even if it is inefficent at it (and
| progressively getting more inefficient). Over the long
| run cops learn that they can't do X or Y, except for a
| few "new" abuses (e.g. civil asset forfeiture) we are
| probably better off than we were 50 or 60 years ago. At
| some point if we get too inefficient about it (which we
| _may_ have already crossed), though, the equilibrium
| change will move towards regression since it is a cat-
| and-mouse game to some degree; cops are clever and talk
| to each other to strategize against protections, too.
| andrei_says_ wrote:
| > cops are clever and talk to each other to strategize
| against protections, too.
|
| Like playing popular music while being recorded by
| bystanders so that the videos get taken down for
| copyright infringement.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| You're being unnecessarily negative here. You're claiming
| that the system is broken wherever it could possibly be
| broken as evidenced by...your own paranoia.
|
| If you want to suggest an alternative, you have a captive
| audience including myself. Otherwise you're just
| fearmongering to fearmonger.
| nosianu wrote:
| > _as evidenced by...your own paranoia._
|
| You just blatantly ignored years and years of news in all
| media and occasionally even here.
|
| Usually I'm against posts making claims without adding a
| link, but please, _this stuff_ has been all over sooooo
| many times, and singling out a few random examples doesn
| 't do it justice.
|
| You could start with long the Washington Post series
| about civil asset forfeitures to begin with something
| that is not just one case: https://www.washingtonpost.com
| /sf/investigative/collection/s...
|
| As for individual examples, I only follow major news
| sources and I see posts about such cases several times
| every single week, have been seeing it for years. I would
| have to intentionally ignore the news to not see them
| all. I don't even want to see them since I can't do
| anything about it anyway and since I already read more
| than enough by now so making my day worse has no benefit
| any more if I read <yet another piece. But I can't even
| avoid it. So I don't understand at all where you are
| coming from claiming
|
| > _You 're being unnecessarily negative here._
|
| All the evidence points to it being realism and not.
| Sometimes it's reality that is "being negative".
| jimbob45 wrote:
| The claims I was responding to were
|
| >not super effective for other reasons (QI; courts - an
| agent of the state - being overly deferential and siding
| with the state; etc.).
|
| and
|
| >The problem with expecting accountability is that system
| will fail you at the next step: the courts. You have to
| survive that process too, where the judge and prosecutor
| will believe the cop nine times out of ten. As a sitting
| federal judge once said, "truth and justice have no
| relevance; it is a court of law." The law will take the
| side of the system.
|
| The claims here are that cop malfeasance against US
| citizens will go unpunished because courts will pardon
| the cop under any circumstances, specifically because the
| "judge and prosecutor" will pardon the cop.
|
| However, judges/prosecutors don't actually find citizens
| guilty - juries do. Furthermore, the defendant has a
| direct stake in how the jury is selected via their own
| attorney during voir dire. Therefore, the claim that
| judges/prosecutors will specifically pardon the cop
| doesn't hold water.
|
| Furthermore, the claim that intimidation are coercion are
| viable strategies for the cops is bold in the face of
| bodycams during arrest and security cams during
| interrogation. Those two combined eliminate 99% of a
| cop's ability to harass or harm a suspect and not face
| repercussions.
|
| So, the individual made two claims that don't stand up to
| scrutiny and did not offer an alternative that would
| solve their claims.
|
| As for your claims of a preponderance of evidence, I've
| seen only anecdotal evidence over the past few years. The
| most evidence I've seen of system violence are the BLM
| riots and the crime statistics showing that African-
| Americans commit 52% of murders in the US[0].
|
| [0]https://www.informernet.com/opinion/how-to-respond-to-
| africa...
| kingcharles wrote:
| I just spent 8 years in jail waiting for the judge to rule
| on whether the police could use my password.
|
| Always try to stop the police at the point of abuse.
| soperj wrote:
| Hard to sue people when you're dead.
| sp332 wrote:
| Doesn't the settlement money just come from taxes?
| dnautics wrote:
| file under "other" reasons. To be sure, the governments
| don't want to keep getting sued so they start putting in
| policies to mitigate damage, but it is a source of
| inefficiency. It's also too easy for state and locals to
| float bonds and go into debt to cover these things, push
| the payoff problem to a future generation of
| voters/future generation of immigrants into the city. If
| there were a real hammer up against their heads (say, if
| municipal bonds and state bonds were outlawed), the
| efficiency would go up.
| kingcharles wrote:
| Getting sued is just seen as a cost of business for the
| government. Having sued and won against the government I
| have seen that 99% of the time they do not change policy
| to avoid getting sued again. I'm currently suing the
| government for violating the Constitution in a case they
| already lost a couple of years ago and didn't fix the
| problem and just kept committing the violations.
| dnautics wrote:
| You're right most of the time. But eventually some things
| change. I never said it was efficient as it is.
| Consultant32452 wrote:
| Law/Constitution:Conservatives::Gun Free Zone signs:Liberals
| anonymousiam wrote:
| The fallacy of this analogy is that Law/Constitution being
| valued by conservatives refers to the direct rights of an
| individual, whereas Gun Free Zones are not a "right" of an
| individual, and actually infringes on the right of other
| individuals to "keep and bear arms".
| Consultant32452 wrote:
| That's not the meaning of the analogy.
|
| A Constitutional right or law prevents the state from
| harming you in exactly the same way a gun free zone sign
| stops a school shooter from murdering you.
| giantg2 wrote:
| It probably would have been more clear if that was stated
| this way. The analogy could have multiple levels of
| meaning.
| dTal wrote:
| I think some people are reading it as some kind of cheap
| political shot, since it got flagged. From the responses
| it seems they were trying to make a more nuanced point,
| so I've vouched it.
|
| In general, it's not a good idea to try and make a
| nuanced political point with something short and pithy.
| People invariably project the worst interpretation onto
| it. You need to spell out what you mean.
| copo233 wrote:
| That makes even less sense, somehow.
| Consultant32452 wrote:
| Conservatives tend to think in terms of structure and
| order. That is why you will hear them babble on about
| things being "Unconstitutional!" all the time as if that
| has any meaning in the real world.
|
| Liberals tend to think they can manifest reality just by
| saying the right thing. This causes them to be very
| vigilant about the words we use to describe things and
| they also think things like putting up a gun free zone
| sign at a school will prevent school shootings.
|
| When a cop is beating a liberal to death with a stick,
| the liberal understands the cop is exercising his power
| and will get away with it. When a cop is beating a
| conservative to death with a stick the conservative will
| righteously complain about how that's illegal and I want
| this bad apple's badge number.
| dTal wrote:
| >When a cop is beating a liberal to death with a stick,
| the liberal understands the cop is exercising his power
| and will get away with it. When a cop is beating a
| conservative to death with a stick the conservative will
| righteously complain about how that's illegal and I want
| this bad apple's badge number.
|
| So, conservatives are the starry-eyed idealists and the
| liberals are the hard-nosed realists? That's an
| intriguing reversal of the usual framing.
| guerrilla wrote:
| I think their point was that they're both starry-eyed
| idealists but it manifests in different ways.
| Consultant32452 wrote:
| Now do the other side of the analogy with liberals and
| gun free zone signs.
| dTal wrote:
| To be honest, I don't really understand the analogy. Guns
| have been prohibited in school zones since 1990. It was
| signed into law by George H. W. Bush. Is there some new
| angle on this that implicates liberals in unreasonable
| behavior?
| Consultant32452 wrote:
| I doubt we have the same understanding of what
| constitutes reasonable behavior, so I'm not sure I can
| answer that directly.
|
| However, when a mass shooting of some sort occurs there
| is a distinct difference between how conservatives tend
| to respond to such a thing and how liberals do. Liberals
| will want more areas to be gun free zones. They will
| pressure businesses like grocery stores to put up gun
| free zone signs or push for stricter gun regulations that
| would not have prevented the event in the first place.
|
| This behavior is directly analogous to the conservative
| behavior. The state does not care about Constitutional
| rights any more than mass murderers care about gun free
| zones. Hopefully it's understandable why this analogy
| might be difficult to get for both conservatives and
| liberals because it is difficult to step outside ones
| entire worldview.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > It was signed into law by George H. W. Bush.
|
| The law signed by Bush in 1990 was struck down in 1995,
| but Congress made a weaker law after that.
| breakingcups wrote:
| I don't think I understand what you're trying to say. The
| colons aren't making it clear. What do you mean?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Colon notation for analogies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wi
| ki/Colon_(punctuation)#Mathematic...
|
| It translates as "Law/Constitution is to Conservatives as
| Gun Free Zone signs are to Liberals".
| edot wrote:
| That's the notation for an analogy. A is to B as C is to
| D. For example, Fins:Fish::Feet:Humans, or
| Green:Trees::Blue:Water.
| mogopugh wrote:
| "X:Y :: A:B" an anachronistic way of saying "X is to Y as
| A is to B". Meaning, "A and B are related to one another
| in a similar kind of way that X and Y are related to one
| another".
| singlow wrote:
| I don't think it's anachronistic, maybe arcane. Its a
| formal logic symbol which was also used by standardized
| test writers like the SAT. The SAT removed those
| questions because they were ineffective at assessment,
| not because the notation was out of favor.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colon_(punctuation)#Mathema
| tic...
| mogopugh wrote:
| _> Its a formal logic symbol_
|
| I've never seen this notation used in modern mathematical
| logic papers. I've even had (non-US) logic phds ask me
| about this notation.
|
| _> which was also used by standardized test writers like
| the SAT. The SAT removed those questions because they
| were ineffective at assessment, not because the notation
| was out of favor._
|
| Yeah, standardized tests that have since phased it out
| were really the only place it was used. Hence
| anachronistic. If you didn't take the SAT during a
| certain period of time there's a god chance you didn't
| see this notation.
| pdimitar wrote:
| Yep. My philosophy is to always cooperate (unless they ask
| for something super egregious) and show myself as friendly.
| This immediately reduces the alarms in their heads. I even
| say things like "sure guys, here are my docs, here are the
| contents of my backpack, hope you catch the guy you are
| after" and smile.
|
| Very often the mere fact that you are not trouble makes them
| pay less attention and the whole thing ends really quickly.
| shwoopdiwoop wrote:
| This is terrible advice.
| letitbeirie wrote:
| Depends on the context.
|
| If you're not on their radar, being polite and
| forgettable is a great way to stay that way.
|
| If you're already in custody, anything you say while
| being friendly can and will be used against you in court,
| so your vocabulary should probably be limited to the word
| "lawyer."
| bentcorner wrote:
| The problem starts when being polite and forgettable puts
| you on their radar. Police look in your backpack, and hey
| - it's a bike lock just like the one that was used to
| assault someone down the block a few minutes ago! You
| look about the right height. Which direction did you say
| you were coming from again?
|
| Some situations can be lose-lose. Best you can do is
| don't talk to the police, and if you absolutely must, say
| as little as possible and don't lie.
| thehappypm wrote:
| It is and it isn't, there are circumstances where the
| best outcome is to be helpful and compliant, and other
| circumstances where you'll want to protect yourself from
| search.
| pdimitar wrote:
| Absolutely, if I travel with a company laptop and I am
| asked to unlock it I'll outright refuse and cite that I
| can and will be sued by my employer if I unlock it, and
| will direct the airport security to my employer's legal
| team.
|
| I don't want to open myself up for litigation so I'll
| definitely put up a fight in this case.
| lr4444lr wrote:
| Your employer has no grounds to sue you with no tangible
| damages. Unlocking your computer for an airport security
| meat head isn't gonna compromise your employer's trade
| secrets.
| pdimitar wrote:
| They might have no grounds per se but when they make you
| sign a contract stating that they do, then they do. I
| shouldn't have signed it, I know, but I haven't planned
| on traveling anyway so didn't care at the time.
| gkop wrote:
| Would you say more about your employer suing you if you
| cave under pressure and unlock the laptop? That sounds to
| me like your employer is asking a lot of you! Or, if you
| are bluffing to security about the suing, why are you
| putting your personal safety on the line to protect your
| employer?
| pdimitar wrote:
| It's a weighing of risks, really. I don't value neither
| airport security or my employer's secrets as highly as my
| own safety but will weigh in the risk as the situation
| develops.
|
| If I am asked to accompany them to the dark room I'll
| just give up, unlock the laptop, hand it to them and then
| quietly inform my employer's legal team that a potential
| security breach has occurred (after I get safely to a
| hotel).
|
| I really don't want to spend time in jail because of a
| nervous cop.
| gkop wrote:
| Very prudent. Thanks.
| genericuser314 wrote:
| Anecdotally, I can confirm that my employer requires me
| to:
|
| 1.) Not allow my phone to be unlocked by
| fingerprint/face.
|
| 2.) Not carry USB sticks or similar portable storage
| devices on my person, to only transport them by courier.
|
| 3.) Not unlock my computer for anyone, including the
| police, unless directed to by our compliance office.
|
| Or it's breach of contract and they can reclaim part of
| my compensation. I don't work on anything exciting, just
| Big medical data.
| gkop wrote:
| Yikes, I hope you are well paid! (Re: 1 and 3. 2 is table
| stakes in this day and age. In fact re: 2, would you be
| willing to share a scenario that calls for sneakernet by
| courier vs a network storage/transfer?)
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| tyler569 wrote:
| Interesting that your employer would be so zealous about
| it, my employer's written policy is "Always cooperate
| with security/customs. If they want your computer
| unlocked, unlock it. Your safety is more important than
| our secrets, just call corporate security when you're
| released."
| pdimitar wrote:
| Yeah, they kind of said that too, with the addition of
| "resist for a bit, don't immediately comply, only back
| off if there's no choice". But yeah, I get what you're
| saying. Don't think I'll ever sign such a contract again
| though.
| giantg2 wrote:
| In some instances maybe, in others it might be good. It
| can also be a gamble.
|
| If you're afraid for your safety or they are clearly
| overstepping their bounds, then complying and fighting it
| in court is basically the only option (even though it's
| possible you still get screwed). Otherwise, knowing an
| asserting your rights can be good, but you have to hope
| the cop isnt unhinged, dirty, or totally incompetent.
| dTal wrote:
| This isn't some kind of cunning hack, it's literally what
| they're trying to accomplish by being bullies.
|
| Society needs people to stand up to the police when they
| exceed their legal remit, or they will continue to exceed
| it. I won't blame people for choosing personal convenience
| over the good of society, but we should be clear that that
| is the choice being made.
| ddingus wrote:
| Agreed.
|
| Having faced potential costs associated with exercising
| rights, I must say it can go very bad, very quick.
|
| Done right, even when it does go bad, means a likely win
| in court.
|
| In my case, preventing warrantless home entry involved:
|
| Personal beating, like ouch! People will notice it
| happened to you type ouch!
|
| An evening in holding.
|
| Long walk home. (I could have gotten a ride, but was a
| mess mentally and just walked 10 miles.
|
| A few thousand for a defense attorney.
|
| 10 court appearances called for at expensive and tiresome
| times.
|
| Trial.
|
| Tort to recover fees.
|
| Personal unease for about 6 months while it all played
| out.
|
| Not recommended.
|
| Unless it is worth it. In my case it was more than
| standing on principle.
|
| Finally, public defenders are not generally what you want
| in rights violation type scenarios. Be ready to pay up
| for experienced representation.
|
| Be ready to take the ride, take the beating, pay the
| money, lose the time.
| voakbasda wrote:
| Standing up to a bully is asking to be punched in the
| face. Cops can make your life difficult. And they will.
| pdimitar wrote:
| I am 100% clear on it and it's indeed a conscious choice
| towards the path of the least resistance.
|
| I don't like it anymore than you do, I am simply a
| realist that I can't change the reality of a lot of cops
| being bullies.
|
| It's a "partial hack" only insofar as it's making them
| drop their guard and look to finalize the interaction
| quicker. I've seen these people's faces up close; they
| are on the edge and any non-cooperation will push them to
| physically abuse you or even drag you to the station. So
| I found a way to make them not think of me as a threat,
| even if two of the times when it happened I had not a
| minute to waste.
|
| And sadly, when it comes to "people must stand up", it's
| never us. Always has to be somebody else. Sigh.
| polynomial wrote:
| Are you from Tivoli?
| ddingus wrote:
| There is a lot to be said for a little charm and candor.
|
| I do this too, and will flip the switch in a second if it
| looks like it will go bad.
|
| One other way to improve ones police interactions is to
| have one go really bad, then win in court.
|
| Happened to me, and I lack time to tell the tale fully.
|
| Basically, I came home to my family all angry. I sent
| everyone to their rooms, wife included lol, and stepped
| onto my porch to have a smoke and think it through.
|
| Sidebar: I really miss that, and am a non smoker today.
|
| Three officers walked up and made demands to enter my home,
| which I denied and they beat my ass and took me to jail.
| And it was a non trivial beating.
|
| What they expect is for people to plead down, and I took it
| to trial and was found not guilty.
|
| Ever since, I have great interactions...
| oogali wrote:
| A former colleague summarized this as "you can beat the rap,
| but you can't beat the ride".
|
| Meaning, your exit via means of reciting legal code matters
| in a court room or in front of a prosecutor, but it won't get
| you out of the ride to the police station -- or in this case:
| a trip to the coercion back room.
| revolvingocelot wrote:
| "the process is the punishment"
| 35fbe7d3d5b9 wrote:
| I listened to a legal symposium once that was held by
| lawyers who specialize in self defense/use of force. Think
| "I have a concealed weapon and I killed someone in self
| defense - now what?"
|
| They all agreed that their clients worry _far too much_
| about being arrested. Their legal advice was unanimous: you
| just took someone 's life, you are _absolutely_ going to be
| arrested, nothing you could possibly say will change that.
| But if you say the wrong thing to the arresting or
| investigating officer, you are at risk of derailing your
| legal strategy.
|
| A night or two in jail won't change your life, but what you
| say to the police absolutely can. So shut the fuck up until
| your lawyer gets there, and then stay shut up until your
| lawyer tells you otherwise.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| Is Alec Baldwin in jail yet?
| banannaise wrote:
| "Hey, this well-known rich white guy isn't getting abused
| by the cops, this must mean the cops don't abuse people!"
| Klathmon wrote:
| >A night or two in jail won't change your life
|
| A night or two in jail absolutely can change your life.
|
| A night or two in jail means not being able to pick your
| kid up from daycare or take care of pets/family, A night
| or two in jail means missing work without any notice.
| Hope your boss is understanding, because if you lose your
| job you're on your way to losing everything.
|
| A night or two in jail means you now need enough in
| savings to get your car out of the impound lot, pay bail
| if needed, pay for a lawyer, and have a couple of years
| to spend on defending yourself in court or you might
| actually go away for a longer time.
|
| A night or two in jail means having an arrest record, if
| you live in a state with "sunshine laws" you'll forever
| get extortion calls about how they'll remove your mugshot
| and information from their website for $500. That makes
| getting future jobs harder, or you need to spend even
| more time and money getting the records sealed/removed.
|
| And that's not even touching on the physical toll that
| being arrested and treated like sub-human has on you.
| Being shoved to the ground, physically thrown into a
| cell, fearing for your life while multiple guns are
| pointed at your head knowing you are one misunderstanding
| away from dying, getting tazed while multiple cops laugh
| and yell for you to stop resisting.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > A night or two in jail absolutely can change your life.
|
| I think the idea is "you're (probably) not going to talk
| your way out of that night in jail if it's a homicide
| scenario".
|
| (And that you might talk yourself into a much longer stay
| in trying to do so.)
| atdrummond wrote:
| My takeaway from the post you were replying to is that
| these individuals - the ones who have not just lawyers
| but self-defense lawyers, prepared in advance - are the
| type of persons who can weather the storms you describe
| that would be absolutely debilitating for the typical
| person/family.
| abfan1127 wrote:
| now, in addition to that, imagine not shutting up, saying
| the wrong thing, and getting thrown in prison for 5-10
| years. Relatively speaking, all of what you mention is a
| "walk in the park". It doesn't make it ok, it doesn't
| make to fun. It doesn't mean we don't need reform.
| [deleted]
| tomlin wrote:
| A lot of people think that standing on the constitution is a
| blocker for all negative possibilities. As we see with the
| Gabby Petito case, Brian Laundries parents did more harm to
| their case by pleading their constitutional rights. In other
| words, it makes it impossible to live in your neighbourhood or
| communities you frequent afterwards
| rootusrootus wrote:
| There's very little you can do when the internet mob comes
| for you. Staying silent was likely their least bad option.
| giantg2 wrote:
| I feel like it's only a matter of time until enough people get
| screwed by the system, see the blatant hypocrisy, realize that
| this is an oligarchy, and the system collapses. Maybe I'm just
| an optimist.
|
| One thing that individuals do have power to do (but will be
| fought vehemently on) is jury nullification. Sadly, most don't
| know this, and/or are easily manipulated into believing the
| people in power.
|
| 2-10% of incarcerated individuals are _completely innocent_.
| This doesn 't even include people who are convicted after
| having rights violated or other technicalities.
| NoGravitas wrote:
| The tricky bit about jury nullification is that you must hide
| your knowledge of jury nullification from the DA in order to
| get on the jury. And if you lie in order to do so, then you
| can just be thrown off the jury and replaced with an
| alternate.
| giantg2 wrote:
| True, some jurisdictions will even charge you if you lie
| during selection. Some jurisdictions don't ask about it
| though.
| jjk166 wrote:
| You don't get justice in a police station, you get justice in a
| courtroom. The cops may do all sorts of things to you that
| they're not supposed to, and there's nothing you can do to stop
| them. But now you have a good chance of getting the whole case,
| or at least any evidence they obtain as a result of these
| actions thrown out the window, and potentially stand to gain
| from a profitable civil suit.
|
| Be compliant, be quiet, be observant, lawyer up.
| magicalist wrote:
| > _You don 't get justice in a police station, you get
| justice in a courtroom. The cops may do all sorts of things
| to you that they're not supposed to, and there's nothing you
| can do to stop them. But now you have a good chance of
| getting the whole case, or at least any evidence they obtain
| as a result of these actions thrown out the window, and
| potentially stand to gain from a profitable civil suit._
|
| Much more likely that you'll be offered a plea bargain to
| either end it with time served or go to trial and be
| threatened with 15 years or whatever. Then you have to
| balance just having it be done against how much you want to
| risk a jury having a bad day, lawyer bills, and months or
| years of process to maybe have a moral victory when the judge
| says "yeah, this evidence is inadmissible". Meanwhile you're
| not getting a payout unless they beat you and it's on camera.
|
| The system knows how to take care of itself.
|
| edit if you'd like to know more:
| https://www.cato.org/commentary/prisons-are-packed-
| because-p...
| kingcharles wrote:
| I was offered release on my first court date if I plead
| guilty. Instead I spent over 8 years in a county jail
| waiting for justice.
| zionic wrote:
| >The cops may do all sorts of things to you that they're not
| supposed to, and there's nothing you can do to stop them.
|
| Well, this isn't strictly true. But it's a quick way to get
| to 5 stars.
| pdimitar wrote:
| Technically you are right but 99% of us have places to be and
| things to do. Most will suck it up and never even mention it.
|
| I don't like it and nobody likes it, but it's very often the
| case. :(
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Technically airport security can't make you unlock your phone
| in many countries as well but I've known two former colleagues
| who were "convinced" to do so in the airport's back room; the
| one where problematic passengers are held for 8-24h.
|
| Which is why I refuse to travel outside of the Schengen area.
| Even if I'd _really_ like to visit the US one day once corona
| passes, there is absolutely _no way_ I 'll consent to
| essentially a digital striptease search with orifice controls.
|
| Our digital devices - smartphones and laptops especially - are
| mirrors of our minds and our thoughts. Border control and
| police are not allowed to use torture to get access to our
| minds, they should not be given the power to circumvent that by
| accessing our phones.
|
| > "Raising awareness" doesn't work on ruthless cops. I guess
| that's a mind-blowing revelation to many Westerners.
|
| No wonder, given that
|
| - the US has its pupils pledge allegiance to the country every
| single day
|
| - authority and police are _consistently_ shown as "the good
| guys" who don't have to respect rules in all forms of media and
| culture that don't originate from people of color and
| immigrants (like rap/hip hop)
|
| - protests against said police overreach and abuse (as well as
| other forms of social injustice) are downplayed to outright
| vilified in mass media, and police abuse itself is ignored
| until protests turn extremely large and/or violent (such as
| with the George Floyd/BLM protests)
|
| - anything "left wing" is branded "communist", and "communist"
| itself is branded as the devil - not just in the US but also
| across wide swaths of Europe.
| toast0 wrote:
| > Even if I'd really like to visit the US one day once corona
| passes, there is absolutely no way I'll consent to
| essentially a digital striptease search with orifice
| controls.
|
| Don't take your phone and laptop with you on the plane. Maybe
| take an older phone (check lte bands and what not) that has
| been wiped and don't sign into things until you clear
| customs.
|
| If you need a laptop, options are ship it seperately or wipe
| before transit and do a recovery later.
| vlod wrote:
| Chromebooks are good for this.
| auganov wrote:
| > Which is why I refuse to travel outside of the Schengen
| area.
|
| Just one data point:
|
| A few days ago was pulled over in Germany, I assume, for
| travelling on foreign plates from a small (Schengen area)
| country. Initially we thought we must have broken some
| traffic rule we weren't aware of. But it seemed more like an
| immigration check. Asked for passports, searched the car and
| asked a lot of questions. Didn't even check the driver's
| license and the likes, so definitely not a traffic stop.
|
| Not particularly paranoid about this kind of stuff and they
| seemed nice, but I'd certainly try to push back if this has
| happened in the US. Don't know much about German law, I may
| be wrong, but I'm assuming like in most of Europe you don't
| have much of a right to refuse unless it's a very unusual ask
| (which searching a phone may be)
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Schengen traffic stops (allowed on/near transit highways
| and train lines, as well as either 20 or 50km next to
| national borders) exist, indeed, but the cops do _not_ have
| the right (or the equipment) to acess your digital devices.
| They are only allowed to search you and your vehicle for
| contraband (e.g. guns, drugs) and people without a legal
| status (visa, perma residence, citizenship).
| xadhominemx wrote:
| > Which is why I refuse to travel outside of the Schengen
| area
|
| That's really a crazy mindset man. The US receives ~100m
| foreign visitors annually. There is nothing special about
| you, they don't care about your Facebook profile. Worst comes
| to worst, you just refuse to unlock your device and they
| deport you back to where you came from.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Worst comes to worst, you just refuse to unlock your
| device and they deport you back to where you came from.
|
| Who says they won't image my device using yet-unknown zero
| day exploits, or that I get it back at all? And I'd still
| be out thousands of dollars in travel costs.
| xadhominemx wrote:
| Why would they waste a zero day exploit on you?
| pdimitar wrote:
| > _Which is why I refuse to travel outside of the Schengen
| area. Even if I 'd really like to visit the US one day once
| corona passes, there is absolutely no way I'll consent to
| essentially a digital striptease search with orifice
| controls._
|
| Same here. I am curious about the USA but after reading and
| hearing a bunch of stories... really, no thanks. I know
| chances are slim but I still don't want to risk it.
|
| > _No wonder, given that..._
|
| Yeah. USA has a really strong propaganda system and it's a
| shame that even on HN, where people should be more critical
| thinkers, this is not widely recognized.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > USA has a really strong propaganda system and it's a
| shame that even on HN, where people should be more critical
| thinkers, this is not widely recognized.
|
| That's the fault of "American exceptionalism". At least one
| positive thing happened as a result of the 45th - Americans
| can no longer deny that their nation is immune from falling
| into the hands of a proto-fascist and a gang of cronies and
| goons in his wake.
|
| Anyway, the list of points is (sans the pledge) applicable
| across most countries in the Western world... partially
| because a lot of _our_ culture is US-influenced (social
| networks, but first and foremost Hollywood 's media
| industry) and because our media isn't much better.
| Germany's most influential BILD tabloid is a rag that
| spreads authoritarianism and right-wing ideology, and the
| cop show _Tatort_ consistently has peak TV attendance
| rates.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > Yeah. USA has a really strong propaganda system and it's
| a shame that even on HN, where people should be more
| critical thinkers, this is not widely recognized.
|
| OTOH, I recommend strongly you consider how strong the
| anti-US propaganda is online, including on places like
| Reddit and HN. It's an entire art form now, how to be
| critical of the US in every possible way. Whether it's
| cops, health care, or imperial measurements.
|
| The reality in the US is _much_ different than portrayed on
| here, and you ought to be aware of that.
| pdimitar wrote:
| > _The reality in the US is much different than portrayed
| on here, and you ought to be aware of that._
|
| I agree and I admit I've never even been there. But even
| when chatting with Americans -- here included -- the
| culture and thinking differences are immediately
| apparent.
|
| I don't actively seek out any anti-anything propaganda,
| and started disengaging myself from political discussions
| lately (this thread is the shameful exception, sadly).
|
| I can't claim I am completely unbiased, sure. But I am
| mostly commenting on impressions I have from hundreds of
| interactions, virtual and physical.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| It is entirely possible that as an American I am just
| getting oversensitive to this. But all I ever seem to
| hear on HN (and Reddit) is everything _bad_ about the US.
| To someone who has never lived here, I suppose it must
| seem pretty dystopian.
|
| I do think you should visit :). Every time I visit a new
| country I am struck by just how different it is in real
| life compared to everything I've ever heard about it.
| It's the primary reason I like to travel at all. I'm not
| really into the tourist stuff, I love to get off the
| beaten path and see how people actually live.
|
| At least go visit Canada. Might be surprising, or not,
| but it shares a _lot_ of cultural similarities with the
| US.
| [deleted]
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| Any interaction with authorities should be legally required to
| be recorded. If you are held for 72h, there should be 72 hours
| of videos, not one minute less.
| refurb wrote:
| How does transparency help? If cops have a legal right to hold
| you for 72 hours that doesn't change if more transparency
| happens.
| pdimitar wrote:
| Well, I mean, transparency means that footage of the cells of
| arrested people don't routinely disappear due to "technical
| glitches" as it regularly happens in my country. :(
| austincheney wrote:
| > some cops are really good...
|
| That's why you ask for a defense attorney. Police even tell you
| this in your Maranda rights. If they fail read you your rights
| prior to detainment any thing they get in response to their
| questions or requests cannot be used against you.
| Floegipoky wrote:
| > If they fail read you your rights prior to detainment any
| thing they get in response to their questions or requests
| cannot be used against you.
|
| That's not true in theory or practice. They are supposed to
| issue a Miranda warning at the time of arrest or prior to
| interrogation; detainment is not arrest, asking questions is
| not interrogation. If they pull you over and ask how fast you
| were going, if you confess to speeding it is admissible. Even
| when Miranda violations do occur, if they're not on video
| they can lie about it. Police are allowed to lie about most
| things and they're trained to lie, it's probably their most-
| used tactic. Since they're human, once they step outside the
| truth it's tempting to remain there, especially if it
| benefits them. The word of police is generally accepted by
| the court as fact unless evidence directly contradicts them
| and that evidence is not suppressed.
| clarge1120 wrote:
| Men can address that.
| underscore_ku wrote:
| we are talking about democracies not shitholes like russia,
| china, iran etc
| stevespang wrote:
| Yes, just examine the concept of "qualified immunity", more
| B.S. jargon for "we can kill you and get away with it", which
| is just more evidence we live in a gestapo police state . . . .
| driverdan wrote:
| This is why the first thing you should always do is invoke your
| right to a lawyer. Be polite but don't say anything without a
| lawyer present.
| Asooka wrote:
| The fact is also the police in the USA are one of the least
| bullyish. The right to refuse to speak without a lawyer present
| isn't part of most of the first world's police code. It's one
| of the areas where the USA is absolutely the best at respecting
| people's rights and freedoms and I wish you all the luck in the
| world in pushing for even better Police Reform, since holding
| you guys as a symbol of how to do things right is extremely
| helpful in pushing for reform in other parts of the world.
| rangerdan wrote:
| Classic EFF, having gone completely downhill and capitulated
| after Snowden, writes another idiotic article about police "noooo
| ... can't do that!" in spite of overwhelming evidence they can
| and do. But it's cool because EFF wrote an article saying they
| can't! They're the good guys!
| crate_barre wrote:
| I would not put it past a cop to hold a phone up to someone's
| screen and FaceID unlock it and then say you unlocked it
| yourself.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| They're allowed to do that anyway.
| KingMachiavelli wrote:
| My understanding is that in the US this would be completely
| legal anyway.
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| Lots of posts on here about US folks taking bizarre measures to
| avoid being harassed by authority: travel with burner phones, not
| using unusual OSes, not using techniques to record, wiping phones
| before travel.
|
| We're just normalizing a slow roll to a police-state.
| annoyingnoob wrote:
| No, we have Qualified Immunity. The cops can do whatever the
| fuck they want and then lie about it without any repercussions
| whatsoever. Even in a case where it can be proven that a cop
| lied on the stand the court will side with the cops and there
| is no perjury for cops due to qualified immunity.
|
| If we can ever hold police to the same standards as every other
| citizen then we won't need to try to evade police detection.
| Pretty sad that police are so dishonest on a regular basis.
|
| The police in the US are really government sanctioned gangs of
| thugs.
|
| Next time you see a politician get up and talk about being
| 'tough on crime' you'll know how things got this way.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > and there is no perjury for cops due to qualified immunity.
|
| Qualified immunity prevents private parties from suing the
| cops. But isn't perjury a crime? Qualified immunity doesn't
| apply to criminal prosecutions.
| annoyingnoob wrote:
| What does it mean when laws are not enforced or even
| overlooked in favor of immunity?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity
|
| To quote from wikipedia: A 2020 Reuters report concurred
| with Sotomayor, concluding that "the Supreme Court has
| built qualified immunity into an often insurmountable
| police defense by intervening in cases mostly to favor the
| police". The report reviewed over 200 cases involving
| excess force by police since 2007, and found since the 2009
| Pearson change from mandatory sequencing to discretionary
| sequencing, plaintiffs have had a more difficult time
| moving their case past the qualified immunity stage.
|
| http://www.november.org/stayinfo/breaking06/Muckraker.html
| SauciestGNU wrote:
| Not exactly a slow roll, recently a group of my friends engaged
| in a sit-in, and the police beat them then charged them with
| resisting or obstructing causing injury, a 5 year felony
| because despite not resisting the officers complained of
| soreness after beating them.
|
| I just want to say the police are almost universally monsters,
| and if you find yourself on a jury where someone is accused of
| violence against the police, consider not convicting, since the
| police are probably either lying or the accused acted in self-
| defense.
| BingoAhoy wrote:
| Yup I was detained by a police, where he broke my rib, and in
| car ride over he nonchalantly said consider myself lucky he
| wasn't pressing charges for me grabbing him. That itself
| being a remarkably bold lie.
| jsilence wrote:
| If the government has my fingerprints, would they be allowed to
| use them to unlock the confiscated phone?
|
| Might explain why in Germany s of lately you have your
| fingerprints taken when getting your personal ID
| (Personalausweis).
| rob74 wrote:
| I'd be very surprised if evidence obtained this way would be
| admissible at a trial. But if you want to be safe, use another
| finger for your Id card than for your phone...
| dylan604 wrote:
| 10 fingers, 10 attempts before wipe. Better hope there's no
| misreads.
| mikro2nd wrote:
| Ah... in South Africa they print all n fingers (however many
| you have.)
| pasabagi wrote:
| It is. Germany has no 'fruit of the poison tree' principle.
| Police can use whatever no matter how it was obtained.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Are you sure? Because in neighboring Czechia, a court can
| definitely rule evidence inadmissible if its gathering was
| legally unsound.
|
| For example, call recordings that were obtained without
| lawful permission can be thrown out and actually currently
| were in a highly visible case.
| pasabagi wrote:
| Well, according to the wikipedia article, it goes to the
| extent that even if you've got evidence through, say,
| coercion, while that evidence would be invalid, you could
| use that information so obtained to collect further valid
| evidence, or even just get the suspect to repeat the
| previous statements (not under coercion) then resubmit
| it.
|
| But I've mostly just got this from my wife complaining
| about it. There's very little structurally in place to
| prevent the police from abusing their power in germany,
| and when it comes to evidence collection, they are
| definitely incentivized to do so.
| jsilence wrote:
| Thank you for detailing this!
| LinuxBender wrote:
| Sortof off topic question. I've never owned a smart phone but
| might get one soon assuming I can find a decent one that will run
| grapheneOS.
|
| Is there an app that can be given permission to intercept the
| unlock code and upon receiving the _panic /under duress_ code,
| discretely put the phone into a "parental controls" configuration
| that sandboxes all your data and only presents the storage you
| want the law enforcement _children_ to see? Some cops use a USB
| device that pulls all the data from the phone. Is there a way to
| sandbox that data so they only get the data from approved apps
| and the forensics USB device does not know any better? i.e. not
| denied data, but rather can only see what you want it to see. Or
| should this be a feature request to the alternate phone operating
| systems developers?
|
| Maybe this duress code should also activate a timer. If the _all-
| clear_ code is not entered in a user-defined period of time, the
| phone wipes all user data in the background resetting it to a
| brand new phone. Or maybe wipe the data for specified
| applications to not appear to destroy evidence? Maybe also send
| network notifications(s) to specific _in case of mission
| compromise_ destinations?
|
| [Edit] Feature request update. This duress system should also log
| all the data that was added _or planted_ after the duress code
| was entered, to log people planting evidence. Upload encrypted
| manifest,timestamps and checksums to remote site in the event law
| enforcement tamper with evidence.
| gwbas1c wrote:
| I think an easier approach is not to do anything incriminating
| on your phone.
| titzer wrote:
| I for one, think we should not normalize a gestapo state and
| should absolutely push back on all forms of intrusion. Police
| have been caught planting drugs on suspects and it's really
| foolish to think they cannot plant digital evidence too.
| NoSorryCannot wrote:
| If no one is testing the rights we're supposed to have, then
| it's unclear that we actually have them. Auditing should seem
| eminently sensible to all the engineers here.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| True, but I accept the possibility that what is legal today
| may not be legal tomorrow and ignorance of the law is no
| excuse as they would say. I like having options.
| delecti wrote:
| It's generally advised to not talk to the police because
| anything can potentially be incriminating. Given that, your
| advice effectively becomes "don't have/use a phone in the
| first place," and I don't fault someone who doesn't want to
| settle for that.
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| Hello privilege.
|
| "Incriminating" is whatever the man with the badge decides it
| is at that time. If you're aren't the right color, sex,
| orientation, or religion, you could be doing something
| considered incriminating by cops and courts in most of the
| US. It is a very red, conservative place outside of the
| cities.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Not sure why you had to add that last sentence. The prior
| statements can be true in cities or "blue" places too.
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| True, Portland, Ore. police department are documented
| white supremacists and clan sympathizers, and there's not
| many places bluer than PDX. But my last statement is 100%
| true. There's only one side in the corrupt police debate,
| regardless of your feelings of "both sides are the same".
| Show me where the liberal cops standing up for social
| justice and BLM are hiding, please, I'd love to live in
| that town.
| giantg2 wrote:
| It's not about standing up for BLM. It's that there can
| be corrupt liberal cops, or cops supporting liberal
| ideals in a corrupt manner.
|
| One issue that this can be common with is gun rights -
| people lawfully carrying/owning a firearm who are
| harassed by police who support the liberal policies
| related to gun control. This has been a common thing in
| Philadelphia.
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| Stop it with the "both sides." Just stop. We're done with
| that after Trump's nonsense. There is a stark problem
| facing the US today, and you're trying to obfuscate it
| with bullshit talking points.
| liaukovv wrote:
| Second part of your nickname is certainly true
| giantg2 wrote:
| I'm trying to have a factually correct and thoughtful
| conversation. My talking points are not bullshit. They
| are not obfuscating "it". In fact, it's an important part
| of the conversation - showing that "both sides" should
| come together to support reforms that are universally
| protective. The root cause is not one side or the other.
| The root cause is insufficient oversight and a broken
| system.
| devmor wrote:
| Or - hear me out here - we could protect our reasonable
| expectation of privacy and not bend over.
| [deleted]
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Look, we live in a society where drywall dust can get you
| jailed for 90 days because the cops think it's drugs.
|
| https://www.wftv.com/news/local/powdered-drywall-mistaken-
| fo...
| kingcharles wrote:
| And powdered milk: https://www.channel3000.com/homeless-
| man-told-court-powdered...
| celeduc wrote:
| "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most
| honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang
| him."
| Jowsey wrote:
| I wonder if there'd then be a worse penalty if police were to
| discover you were doing this, were the wipe timer not to
| trigger, and if that'd be worth the risk. Definitely an
| interesting idea, though
| sumthinprofound wrote:
| check out the Guardian Project's PanicKit. I'm not sure if it's
| still in active development but it looks like what you just
| described.
| colechristensen wrote:
| The correct thing to do if you want your phone not to be
| searched is to shut it off. The tools used to search phones
| generally work with unpatched vulnerabilities and you don't
| want to do anything that looks like tampering with evidence.
|
| When off the encryption of the device will be most effective
| and resilient to attack because nothing will be unencrypted
| until you enter your passcode at boot.
| hanniabu wrote:
| Couldn't turning your phone off be seen as tampering with
| evidence?
| [deleted]
| dredmorbius wrote:
| <strike>Siri</strike> <em>iOS</em> has an "I'm being pulled
| over" keyphrase which begins recording.
|
| There'be been a few "I'm being arrested" apps, which typically
| trigger by holding hard buttons (volume, home, and/or power),
| though I'm not aware of specifics. Most of these seem to date
| to the OWS protests of ... how did that happen ... a decade
| ago:
|
| https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/help-im-getting-arrested/
|
| Freedom of the Press Foundation offers this advice doc:
| https://freedom.press/training/mobile-security-for-activists...
|
| (Initial misattribution corrected to iOS, not Siri.)
| latexr wrote:
| > Siri has an "I'm being pulled over" keyphrase which begins
| recording.
|
| To clarify, it's not a Siri feature but an iOS Shortcut
| (which you'll need to download or recreate) invoked with
| Siri[1]. The actions and key phrase are customisable.
|
| [1]: https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/17/21293996/siri-iphone-
| shor...
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Thanks, corrected above.
| [deleted]
| kingcharles wrote:
| The idea about planting data is important. The police did all
| sorts of weird shit to my digital devices. Would not have known
| about it except that a forensic guy was taking photos in the
| room and accidentally caught the police in the background
| making changes.
|
| Try getting your own forensic guy to see what changes were
| made. You need money for this. The court is supposed to supply
| you one, but often they do not, so you cannot show that the
| data was planted.
| calvinmorrison wrote:
| I don't know - but 1password absolutely does have this! Useful
| if you're in a scenario where you don't have the American
| version of human rights. You can hide stuff for a period of
| time
| crispyambulance wrote:
| They call it "Travel Mode"
| (https://support.1password.com/travel-mode/).
|
| It's good to know it exists.
|
| The sad thing is, however, that even just knowing a
| name/identity is enough for motivated entities to "pull the
| thread" and go fishing on the internet for whatever they
| want.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| IMO, just reset the phone to factory before you head to the
| airport, and leave it that way as long as you are in a
| jurisdiction that makes you think your phone is in danger of
| being searched. Restore from a backup when you get home.
|
| If you do get searched, give them the phone and let them search
| it.
| abandonliberty wrote:
| There's a strong possibility that Signal is already breaking
| Cellebrite https://signal.org/blog/cellebrite-vulnerabilities/
|
| >For example, by including a specially formatted but otherwise
| innocuous file in an app on a device that is then scanned by
| Cellebrite, it's possible to execute code that modifies not
| just the Cellebrite report being created in that scan, but also
| all previous and future generated Cellebrite reports from all
| previously scanned devices and all future scanned devices in
| any arbitrary way (inserting or removing text, email, photos,
| contacts, files, or any other data), with no detectable
| timestamp changes or checksum failures. This could even be done
| at random, and would seriously call the data integrity of
| Cellebrite's reports into question.
|
| ...
|
| >In completely unrelated news, upcoming versions of Signal will
| be periodically fetching files to place in app storage.
|
| I strongly advise against pissing off Signal by claiming you
| can hack them.
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| If the police are aware of this "feature", that's an easy
| contempt and destruction of evidence charge among others. I'd
| recommend just not doing it.
| aaaaaaaaaaab wrote:
| Plausible deniability.
| kryogen1c wrote:
| Are you joking? This is the exact opposite of plausible
| deniability. This feature requires premeditated user action
| to hide evidence in an attempt to mislead law enforcement.
| It is illegal.
| aaaaaaaaaaab wrote:
| No. I meant that "plausible deniability" is a thing, that
| if implemented properly will protect against these
| charges.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| What happens when it becomes popular and police
| departments catch on? "plausible deniability" escalation
| is a two way street as others in this thread attest.
| hanniabu wrote:
| Then anybody trying to stop them from continuing this
| will be demonized for "trying to take away law
| enforcements tools needed to do their job properly" and
| say that this person supports terrorism and all the usual
| tricks to manipulate public perception.
| joconde wrote:
| ...until the cops learn about that and add a
| countermeasure, then send you to jail for using it.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| Agreed. That's why I believe it might be super handy if every
| or at least many phones had this in place so that you don't
| really stand out. At least every phone using an alternate OS.
| If all the mainstream operating systems had this I would
| expect an arms race between the OS devs and the forensics
| device devs.
|
| As a side note, this would not necessarily be only used for
| law enforcement authorities. It could be that an armed phone
| thief requires you to unlock your phone. Sending a duress
| message, maybe even camera footage, GPS coordinates could be
| quite useful in the event you vanish. Teaching your kids to
| use this feature on their phones could also be very
| beneficial.
| nerdponx wrote:
| > It could be that an armed phone thief requires you to
| unlock your phone.
|
| This exact scenario happened to me. They made me do a
| factory reset right in front of them, before handing the
| phone over. I didn't have any opportunity to do anything
| other than what they asked, and I probably would have been
| killed if I tried.
|
| I don't see how I would have been able to make use of such
| a feature in that scenario or any similar scenario (e.g.
| getting arrested at a protest). It's a nice idea, but I
| think its usefulness might be limited to things like
| airport security lines.
|
| Fortunately, they didn't realize that Find My iPhone
| persists through factory resets (nice!).
|
| Unfortunately, I couldn't figure out how to use the web
| interface, and ended up accidentally wiping my phone,
| including the Find My iPhone tracing stuff, so I never
| managed to trace it anywhere.
| Diederich wrote:
| > I probably would have been killed if I tried
|
| Wow...are you comfortable sharing more details? Thanks.
| renaudg wrote:
| >Fortunately, they didn't realize that Find My iPhone
| persists through factory resets (nice!).
|
| Wouldn't a thief that knows enough to ask you to do a
| factory reset also know to ask you to disable Find My
| iPhone ?
|
| I mean you're even prompted to do so during the "erase
| all content & settings" process, right ?
| nerdponx wrote:
| > Wouldn't a thief that knows enough to ask you to do a
| factory reset also know to ask you to disable Find My
| iPhone ?
|
| No idea, I guess not! This was several years ago, I think
| Find My iPhone was relatively new.
|
| > I mean you're even prompted to do so during the "erase
| all content & settings" process, right ?
|
| I don't remember being prompted.
|
| They might also not have been that smart. In addition to
| my phone and cash, they took my debit card (I was able to
| convince them to let me keep my various other cards like
| driver's license, train pass, etc.) and asked for my PIN,
| but I just called the company and canceled the card
| within the hour. They didn't take any of my credit cards,
| my (admittedly cheap) headphones, or (fortunately) think
| to check my backpack with my $1000+ work laptop in it.
|
| I figured they were looking for a quick buck, and it was
| easier/faster/safer to just grab the cash and the phone
| than to be thorough and risk someone wandering or driving
| by. I am also very lucky, I know people who've been
| robbed in that same area and got beaten up pretty badly,
| even while trying to comply.
| kingcharles wrote:
| This. People on this thread seem to think you'll have
| time to do something clever with your phone. If someone
| puts a loaded gun to you, like they did to us, then
| you're inclined to do as they say.
| judge2020 wrote:
| You might not stand out but it would still be contempt of
| court. Not turning over evidence with a constitutional
| defense is easier to defend in court than malicious fake-
| compliance.
| thatcat wrote:
| wouldn't the judge need to have ordered the search for it
| to be contempt?
| LinuxBender wrote:
| Possibly true in court at least, but I think the end user
| should have the option to make this decision. Maybe give
| them a disclaimer that says _In bold red text_ ..
| "Depending on your jurisdiction you may have legal
| problems using this feature! Research this and consult an
| attorney before enabling. You have been warned". In the
| US this would only apply in courts. AFAIK this would not
| be the case when interacting with the executive branch
| such as law enforcement but I am no lawyer.
|
| If courts want this data, they can issue a subpoena and
| follow due process. Law enforcement can pound sand all
| day long if they are trying to circumvent due process.
|
| Using this feature with armed phone thieves would not be
| a legal risk unless you are filming them in their home.
| Even then I would be happy to accept any legal risk when
| interacting with outlaws.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Define "due process".
|
| My experience is that the courts will define/apply it
| however they feel like, usually to your detriment.
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| Even if the feature warned users, Apple and Google would
| not be off the hook. It's entirely possible a prosecutor
| will go after them for implementing a feature designed to
| evade police and destroy evidence.
|
| Us programmers tend to thing the law is black and white
| and a legal disclaimer solves all issues, but it's not.
| The law can be (and is) a gray area determined by the
| courts on an individual basis. Judges don't look fondly
| on technicalities for skirting the law. After all, they
| are humans, too. Not computers.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| I would actually prefer that Apple and Google do not
| implement this. Even if they accept the risk, it would
| create an arms race between the phone developers and
| forensics developers assuming they don't put a back door
| in this feature. I would prefer this only be implemented
| by the alternate phone OS developers or by someone
| maintaining an open source add-on.
|
| I should also add this is only a legal risk if you are
| using this against the courts AND select the options to
| wipe data. AFAIK you can disavow knowledge to cops all
| day long in most first world countries with little risk.
| Again, not a lawyer but it seems this is true based on
| cases I have followed. And this feature would not just be
| to protect from police. It could be to protect from phone
| thieves getting sensitive financial information which
| arguably should not be on the phone. It could also be
| used to alert people if people and/or their kids are
| being robbed. Actually the more I think about it, this
| feature could save the lives of some police officers.
| Some people may _in poor judgement_ have data that could
| carry a longer sentence than killing a police officer. I
| recall a case where a professional thief killed all the
| guards because the punishment for the information they
| were stealing was more detrimental legally than homicide,
| but this is a bit of a rare tangent.
|
| I also have to factor in that some locations there is a
| very thin gray line between law enforcement and outlaws.
| Maybe pushing the system to follow due process and maybe
| even prevent cops from planting data on the phone could
| be useful. That could be a logging feature of the
| sandbox. _What data was added after duress was activated_
| kingcharles wrote:
| Unlikely, in my courtroom experience. I would highly
| recommend making sure the police can't get to your data. It
| is unlikely you will be charged with anything. And what you
| get charged with if they get to your data might be 1000X
| worse than any minor obstruction of justice charge, depending
| on what sort of crime you are committing.
| ChrisKnott wrote:
| What crime were you charged with?
| selectodude wrote:
| Per his other comments, he spent 8+ years in Cook County
| so it would almost certainly have to be first degree
| murder.
| ChrisKnott wrote:
| I can't reconcile the amount of time in jail with
| apparently being offered a plea deal with no custody
| selectodude wrote:
| The criminal justice system in Chicago is a total mess.
| None of it makes sense on any real level.
|
| Total speculation, since obviously I don't know the
| details of this specific case, but I would guess pled
| down to 2nd degree murder and received a sentence of time
| served.
| kingcharles wrote:
| No. Nonviolet, victimless felony. The maximum sentence
| was actually 3 years in prison. So I've done almost three
| times the maximum sentence because I refused to plead
| out.
|
| I'm British and a felony conviction would impact my
| immigration status and also I'm innocent. So I refused. I
| actually thought I'd be in jail for a few weeks. Then 8
| years later.
| Ansil849 wrote:
| Here's the thing: you can have all sorts of detached, academic
| discussions on a forum like HN or on a blogpost about what the
| best thing to do is, or the most pragmatic thing, or the worst
| thing when dealing with a police encounter.
|
| But if you ever find yourself in a situation where a police
| officer is pointing a gun at you, none of this discussion
| matters. I've had that happen to me (when an AirBNB owner failed
| to mention that they have a silent alarm system which calls the
| police). It is not pleasant, and there are no clever things to do
| or say. You will do whatever the cop wants, because you do not
| want to be shot.
|
| People don't like hearing this. They like to think of themselves
| as being smart, as having self-respect and dignity, as being able
| to 'speak truth to power' or at least stand their ground. That,
| unfortunately, is not the reality.
|
| Should you encounter, at some point in your life, a situation
| where a police officer is pointing a gun at you, you will do
| whatever the fuck they are telling you to do. That's the grim
| reality.
|
| It is an utterly dehumanizing, degrading interaction. There are
| no witty things to say or do. You will do whatever you are told,
| because a person is pointing a deadly weapon at you and telling
| you to do them.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > Should you encounter, at some point in your life, a situation
| where a police officer is pointing a gun at you, you will do
| whatever the fuck they are telling you to do. That's the grim
| reality.
|
| I'm not sure if that's grim, though; don't most people _want_
| it to be exactly that way? We grant the police extraordinary
| power and some amount of immunity _on purpose_.
| maxbond wrote:
| > [D]on't most people want it to be exactly that way?
|
| The people who are not having police encounters with any
| regularity, who aren't drawn on when they do get pulled over,
| who perhaps have property or other reasons to be invested in
| the status quo, often want things this way.
|
| The people on the wrong side of the gun feel differently.
| Giving cops lethal power does not create safety. It shifts
| around what the danger is and who is in danger.
| coliveira wrote:
| American society created this situation because of its
| obtuse laws, which give anyone the power to carry guns. In
| this scenario, police is also forced to have guns and to
| assume that anyone can have a gun. It is a spiral to hell.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I agree 100%. As someone who owns guns, I don't want to
| have them taken away. But I don't want criminals to have
| them. Personally I would give up mine if everyone else
| did, including the police, but that isn't going to
| happen. And at this point there are so many guns in the
| US that I'm not sure what a realistic solution is. Even
| if we could get past the politics, mass confiscation
| would probably be ineffective (to make it work would
| require the use of significantly more force than US
| citizens will accept and far more police than we have, or
| near universal compliance).
| craftinator wrote:
| The hard thing about making guns illegal is that
| criminals will still have them...
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I do not disagree with you, and I don't see that you
| disagree with me. The majority of people prefer the status
| quo. That strikes me as a tautology.
|
| We're up to something like 1/3 of the population having
| some kind of criminal record, though, so the balance could
| tip in the coming years. The culture wars we are
| experiencing right now may be a manifestation of that.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > The majority of people prefer the status quo. That
| strikes me as a tautology.
|
| That is definitely not a tautology. It is common that the
| majority of people views the status quo as undesirable.
| Dudeman112 wrote:
| No we don't.
|
| But then I live in a place where gun control is a thing and
| has 6 times less homicides than the USA after adjusting for
| population, so there's that.
|
| The popo are mostly unarmed and I'd rather things kept that
| way.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I guess I wasn't clear enough with my comment. I was
| talking about US citizens. We have exactly the police we
| vote for, every single election. Yes, there are loud people
| online who wish it wasn't so, but when people get into the
| privacy of the ballot box they reliably vote for "law &
| order".
| tw600040 wrote:
| No one is complaining against "law & order". The whole
| thread is about police misuse of power. You really don't
| see the difference?
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I'm not sure what you think this line of discussion was
| about, but having a cop point a gun at you because he
| thinks you are possibly in the process of committing a
| felony is not a misuse of police power.
|
| If he beats you up after you are compliant, then we are
| talking about abuse. Forces you to confess, abuse. Any
| unnecessary roughness while you are in custody (e.g. The
| Ride), also abuse. But if he legitimately suspects you
| are committing a crime and asserts his control to stop
| it, then he is merely doing _exactly_ what we (society)
| have paid him to do. It only becomes a problem if he
| abuses that power after control has already been gained.
| andrei_says_ wrote:
| I don't remember voting on laws related to police
| immunity or them carrying weapons or anything allowing
| them to act as if they have a permission to kill.
|
| Could you provide some examples of anything on the ballot
| that influenced police behavior?
| rootusrootus wrote:
| That is entirely dependent on your local voting system,
| not every place in the US has citizen initiatives on the
| ballot AFAIK. But it's a representative democracy anyway,
| so you vote for polices by who gets your vote.
|
| Sure, a lot of people just vote party line. But a lot of
| local elections are non-partisan.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Honestly, I live in a country with 4 times more homicides
| than the US after adjusting for population. Our laws state
| very clearly that the police does not get much extra
| immunity either (although, corruption gets in the way
| there), and our courts have no trouble at all to discard
| any piece of information the police acquires while they
| have a gun pointed at somebody's head.
|
| I really don't understand how the US justice system works
| the way it does.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| The police in the US can point a gun at you and get you
| to comply, but if you think the courts are going to
| accept evidence collected while that gun is unholstered,
| then you definitely don't understand the justice system
| here. That's probably the single easiest win for a
| defense attorney in court.
| coliveira wrote:
| In many of these cases its your word against the cop's
| word. Guess whose side the justice system takes...
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Yes, a police officer is considered an officer of the
| court [1]. His exposure to consequences for lying is
| higher than the average citizen under oath. Given two
| conflicting statements that cannot be resolved with
| evidence, it isn't a surprise that the judge is going to
| defer to the cop.
|
| [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/officer_of_the_court
| coliveira wrote:
| > consequences for lying is higher than the average
| citizen
|
| This has never stoped them from lying, since they already
| know who will be believed.
| giantg2 wrote:
| It _should_ be surprising that they defer to the cop.
| That 's basically assuming that one is guilty without
| proving it. At a minimum, it should objectively provide
| reasonable doubt.
|
| I have an experience where a trooper lied to the court
| twice and I have evidence to back it up. _Nobody cares_.
| I tried a the ACLU (bigger fish to fry), a complaint with
| the department (they counseled him and made the excuse
| that they have a lot of new guys at this station), I
| wrote my state representatives multiple times (no reply,
| except for one, which was a form letter not even
| applicable to my scenario), we tried the DA 's office
| (they participated in multiple rights violations), we
| tried the DoJ for civil rights violations (no updates for
| about 6 months), we submitted complaints against a
| magistrate and a judge with the board of conduct (no
| updates and over 6 months), we submitted complaints
| against the ADAs who participated in incompetent or
| misconduct to the Bar (was told they only investigate
| prosecutors if the court formally determines there was
| prosecutorial misconduct), talked to an civil rights
| lawyer (was told it was a violation, but the courts don't
| care unless large monetary damages were involved), and
| talked to an investigative journalist (ran a story
| similar to this but said to keep him posted if I find
| anything explosive).
|
| There's literally nobody to turn to. Almost every person
| involved in the system made mistakes or misconduct during
| the process (cop, 2/3 magistrates - 3rd was arrested for
| an unrelated matter, the judge, 2 ADAs, etc). I have
| absolutely zero faith in the system.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Are you talking about a judge, or a jury? An officer of
| the court is compelled to tell the truth, under oath or
| not. A jury is not required to give an officer of the
| court any more weight than they give to anyone else.
| giantg2 wrote:
| The trooper lied to "the court", twice. It was a bench
| trial. Both lies took place in front of the magistrate
| with no jury present. I have documentation that shows the
| statement were factually incorrect and that for one of
| those statements he said the opposite a few minutes
| beforehand and the evidence supports the out-of-court
| statement.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Well, the downside of calling them judges is that
| sometimes they make a call we don't agree with. Maybe
| legitimately, maybe not. But it isn't necessarily
| evidence of a systemic problem, even if it is entirely
| unjust for you.
| giantg2 wrote:
| What does that have to do with a cop lying in court and
| continuing to be a cop after that? Judges won't be able
| to make just decisions if lying cops are allowed to
| continue to be cops. Allowing garbage-in-garbage-out
| seems like a systemic issue to me.
|
| Judges generally aren't involved I'm the removal of an
| officer. That typically happens via IAD, and even then
| the union tells them to resign so the IAD investigation
| ends and they can just go to a different department.
| throwaway946513 wrote:
| Following this conversation, it reminds me of the film
| 'The Chicago Seven' regarding the problems within the
| court, and the judge's inherent bias for the officers.
| ChrisKnott wrote:
| Do you mind just explaining in simple terms what actually
| happened? I'm not really following. Do you have a hidden
| audio recording of him outside court or something?
| giantg2 wrote:
| The situation would require a book, but here's the
| simplest I can do, yet it will miss many of the more
| detailed legal points and citations.
|
| My wife an I both witnessed him say he was amending the
| charge because he made a mistake. He then went into the
| court and told the magistrate he was amending the charge
| to "cut us a break". The magistrate then issued a
| continuance (instead of dismissing if he knew the true
| reason). The incorrect charge carried pretrial
| restriction only found under that charge and the trooper
| knew that the charge was incorrect for about 6 weeks.
| State law only allows amendments if the rights of the
| defendant were not violated (there were 2 other rights
| violated later, and multiple procedural mistakes too).
| Subjecting someone to pretrial restrictions under a
| charge that is _known_ to be wrong is unusual punishment
| and also a violation of the state constitution. So it
| would require dismissing the case. We found proof
| supporting this in the trooper 's later testimony where
| he stated that he knew it was incorrect for those 6
| weeks, yet held it against us anyways. The IAD
| investigation found that he did tell us the correct thing
| and then told the court something wrong 10 minutes later.
| The report said it was a "misunderstanding", without any
| details or explanation.
|
| Later he claimed that a picture he introduced in court
| was in the investigative file "since the beginning", yet
| it was not furnished to us when we subpoenaed the file.
| Another IAD investigation found that the picture wasn't
| placed in the file until a later time. The magistrate did
| not throw out the picture because he thought we had
| access the whole time and we didn't have access to that
| IAD finding until after the trial (not sure if I trust
| this or they were covering). Furthermore, the picture was
| exculpatory evidence under the incorrect charge and
| should have been furnished to us regardless of the
| subpoena. So much for Brady...
|
| He made 2-3 other factually incorrect statements that I
| did not have hard evidence of (just our word against
| his). These included things like changing his story in a
| contradictory way. We did have a recording of his
| testimony and a phone call with him (both consistent with
| law).
|
| The complaint process also treated us adversarially,
| which is a violation of feral policy (hence complaint to
| DoJ). The state police claim they can knowingly hold
| incorrect charges against people.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Why do US people always put so much emphasis on never
| talking to the police?
|
| Are you talking only about evidence literally gathered
| with a gun pointed to your head? If, so, well, my comment
| wasn't that literal. As a rule, if you have any chance of
| becoming a suspect, the police here will refuse to
| interrogate you without your lawyer around, because
| listening to you can jeopardize their work.
| craftinator wrote:
| > Why do US people always put so much emphasis on never
| talking to the police?
|
| There are two classes of damages police can enact on you
| in the US, both of which makes interacting with them in
| any capacity dangerous.
|
| The first class is that they can completely ruin or end
| your life. This includes anything from killing you,
| leaving you with lifelong injuries or stress disorders,
| felony charges, etc. Anything that permanently scars your
| enjoyment of life.
|
| The second class is non permanent, but extremely
| inconvenient damages. These are very common, take little
| effort or thought on their part, and ranges from
| impounding a car, charging you with a misdemeanor,
| harassing you, taking large sums of cash from your
| person, disturbing your house or belongings, trespassing
| you, holding important belongings or documents as
| evidence, etc.
|
| Either of these classes of damages can be the result of
| an interaction with police, stemming from saying the
| "wrong thing", "acting nervous", "acting suspicious",
| being in the vicinity of a possible crime, being accused
| of witnessing an event, being too close while they are
| conducting police business, "making them feel
| uncomfortable or unsafe", being the victim of a crime,
| etc.
|
| Each time you speak to police, you risk a chain of events
| occurring that result in one of these two classes of
| damages. It's just not worth it. They aren't worth
| talking to, given some of the possible outcomes.
| banannaise wrote:
| If you define "most people" as the people with the most
| economic power, then yes, because the police are their
| enforcers. Then you have middle-class types who have been
| inundated with pro-police information for their entire lives,
| and who _usually_ aren 't on the business end of the gun.
| Most of them are on board too, obviously. But you're still
| missing some very large demographics there.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > But you're still missing some very large demographics
| there.
|
| Quite possibly. But the cold truth is that the only people
| who matter _at all_ are the ones who show up to vote. And
| yes, "most people" is literally defined as everyone with
| enough economic power that they aren't forced into a life
| of crime. That's by far the majority.
| Ansil849 wrote:
| This whole 250 comment thread is basically people discussing
| what they'd do or what you should do when finding yourself in
| a police encounter. My counterpoint is that none of that
| discussion actually applies.
|
| As for most people wanting it that way, I think it is because
| most people have not actually encountered it. They want it in
| the abstract, likely not so much when it happens to them.
| Kind of the classic...the people who want wars typically
| don't want their children in those wars.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I agree with you, everyone wants the cops to be be all
| powerful, because everyone assumes they will never be on
| the business end of that gun.
|
| It's basically the same advice Dr. Phil gave, and just
| about the only advice of his that ever resonated with me.
| Some people get it, some people don't, and when the cop is
| putting his boot on your face you aren't going to back
| talk. People fantasize online about all the things they
| will do in such a situation, but only people who have a
| good bit of experience with cops are going to be
| comfortable enough to talk smack to them.
|
| And frankly, for most of us, "don't ever talk to the
| police, never, never, never" will actually lead to worse
| outcomes on average. The trick is to recognize when you
| should follow that advice, and when you should not.
| Sometimes it's obvious.
| jandrese wrote:
| The danger is that the policeman in question may not be
| all that interested in the truth of the situation, only
| in catching a "bad guy". So even if you are innocent they
| may assume you are guilty and look for anything at all
| that would get a conviction.
|
| You might think that the courts would sort this out,
| since the cop obviously won't have any solid evidence,
| but it turns out that they don't have solid evidence in a
| great many cases and still manage to get convictions. The
| truth matters less than the system, and the system is
| designed to put people in jail.
| stackbutterflow wrote:
| This is a very USian take. There are many countries in the
| world where people aren't scared to death when police come
| knock on their door. There are many countries where police
| officers are actually scared of using their weapon. In
| these countries it helps to know the law and how to deal
| with these situations.
| foxfluff wrote:
| Yep. Where I live it's very rare for cops to use their
| guns, and when it happens, you hear about it in the news.
| And if it wasn't just a warning shot to the air, you're
| going to hear about it again when they try to find out
| whether the gun use was justified.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I'm guessing that where you live, guns have been
| effectively outlawed. Imagine arming your citizens to the
| teeth, what affect do you think that would have on your
| police?
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I'm not frightened at all when the police come knock on
| my door. Why do you think that's normal in the US?
|
| > There are many countries where police officers are
| actually scared of using their weapon.
|
| I'm curious 1) the countries, and 2) why the officers are
| afraid.
| jandrese wrote:
| If every time you fire your weapon you are brought before
| a review board that treats firearm discharge as a serious
| matter and may lose your job if you acted in a panic or
| without reasonable justification then it's going to make
| you think twice about blasting that perp that maybe
| twitched his arm when you told him to hand over his
| driver's license and registration.
| ddingus wrote:
| Right on the money. Have been there, done that.
|
| I will add even when they do not have guns drawn, the
| interaction can go from discussion to whole hog, hands on big
| and quick!
| II2II wrote:
| A police officer compels you to turn over a password at
| gunpoint. You do so in an act of self preservation. Will any
| evidence acquired as a result be admissable in court?
| kingcharles wrote:
| It depends. The password would be suppressed because it was
| coerced from you, but the police can now say they would have
| obtained your data anyway through another method, and then
| the court will let them use the data.
|
| For instance, in my case the police said they could break
| 2048-bit AES encryption and so they were allowed to keep the
| data after the password was suppressed.
| 0x0 wrote:
| 2048-bit AES encryption? Considering AES usually is 128bit
| and sometimes 256bit, that's a tall order. In fact, can you
| even call it AES with a straight face if you are dealing
| with 2048bit keys? AFAIK the AES standard only covers
| 128/192/256 bit keys.
| kingcharles wrote:
| This is my fault for not checking before I typed. It is
| AES with a 256-bit key. It was Microsoft Bitlocker.
| ChrisKnott wrote:
| Isn't the key issue what your password was, though? If
| your password was "123", then they probably could have
| cracked it regardless of how strong the encryption was.
| kingcharles wrote:
| The password was secure. The prosecutor did have a
| forensic guy come in who was very honest and talked about
| the techniques he uses at the FBI for cracking passwords,
| e.g. dictionary attacks. The problem was that the police
| were also allowed to testify and their non-expert
| testimony was allowed in the trial court even though they
| are not experts in the subject.
| [deleted]
| marricks wrote:
| Well if the officer lies and says you gave it willingly, I
| imagine yes!
| hef19898 wrote:
| If you are rich enough to pay a top defense lawyer,
| probably the whole case gets thrown out on that
| technicality.
| syspec wrote:
| Just as our forefathers intended I'm sure
| [deleted]
| testfoobar wrote:
| Had a similar situation. Neighbor called cops because he saw a
| prowler outside his house at 2am. I woke up hearing commotion
| and went outside to my backyard. Nice young cop was in my yard
| (no fence between properties) and pointed his drawn gun right
| at me. My hands went up and I stopped moving. Probably even
| stopped breathing.
|
| It was a terrible situation for everyone.
|
| No prowler was caught.
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| You're right. A corrupt cop is unstoppable, especially one with
| a corrupt municipality supporting their behavior.
|
| However, like netsec, it is a matter of lots of small steps.
| Asserting "I do not consent to this search" aloud may not stop
| the search, but it can be used it court, where it may not
| matter, or it might. The point is, you have to protect
| yourself. Maybe someone caught recording of you saying that
| which shows up later, and changes the outcome in a retrial.
| jakeinspace wrote:
| This is why, in a just society, the penalties for corruption
| and abuse of power for LEOs should be extreme. Same goes for
| elected officials I suppose, but abuse of the state's threat
| of violence is antithetical to a free society.
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| 100% with you. I don't like it, and I'm not condoning a
| "let it slide attitude". I protest, I vote for reform, I
| get peppersprayed, I worry when cops drive behind me that
| my face popped up on some alt-right hit list for going to
| protests...
| kiba wrote:
| _This is why, in a just society, the penalties for
| corruption and abuse of power for LEOs should be extreme.
| Same goes for elected officials I suppose, but abuse of the
| state 's threat of violence is antithetical to a free
| society._
|
| I don't think it would be fair nor that I think it would
| work.
|
| If people are afraid to do anything, they will cover their
| asses than do their jobs.
|
| I think, ultimately, the problem is multifaceted. I believe
| we start with decreasing the role of police and punishment
| in our society.
| jsilence wrote:
| If the government has my fingerprints, would they be allowed to
| use them to unlock the confiscated phone?
|
| Might explain why in Germany as of lately you have your
| fingerprints taken when getting your personal ID
| (Personalausweis).
| avianlyric wrote:
| What do American constitutional protections have to do with
| German ID?
| jsilence wrote:
| Also in other jurisdictions people have the right to not
| incriminate themselves by refusing to answer questions.
|
| If I am allowed to refuse giving my pin code for unlocking
| the phone, it would be interesting whether the police is
| allowed to use your fingerprint to unlock your phone.
| hutrdvnj wrote:
| I think it's possible to deny that.
| jsilence wrote:
| It was possible to deny it. As of July this year it is
| mandatory.
| nikkinana wrote:
| ACLU is a communist front.
| remram wrote:
| There should be a second passcode that erases the phone or locks
| it for 3 days.
| polyterative wrote:
| this would really be cool
| joecool1029 wrote:
| Change the damn topic please, this is just for Utah at the
| moment. It may be that after the state decides this will go to
| SCOTUS but I really don't know if Utah works different than my
| home state, New Jersey (which has to send cases like this off for
| consideration to SCOTUS). Even if it makes it there, they'll
| probably decline to review it, because they suck.
|
| In New Jersey you can absolutely be compelled to reveal your
| passcode: https://www.eff.org/cases/andrews-v-new-jersey. Again,
| as with many of our (non-1A) bill of rights cases, SCOTUS
| declined to hear the case: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-
| files/cases/andrews-v-new-je...
| anonymousiam wrote:
| I'm a long-time EFF supporter, but I am always concerned when
| they (or any other organization that defends civil rights)
| chooses to intervene in a loser of a case like this. The
| defendant will likely be convicted of kidnapping, and hopefully
| the Supreme Court will not use some form of twisted logic to
| rationalize what the cops did. The correct ruling here is to
| force a mistrial and forbid any testimony about refusing to
| provide passcodes at the retrial.
| nerdponx wrote:
| Maybe it would be better if they were more explicit about the
| "what should have happened" part, instead of just saying "no,
| the police shouldn't have done that and shouldn't be allowed to
| do that."
| bb611 wrote:
| The downside to being a principled legal defense organization
| is that effective defense of common rights generally requires
| intervening on the side of people who are real criminals. A
| significant amount of 1st Amendment case law comes from the
| ACLU defending from people whose speech is abhorrent, but
| nonetheless protected. A failure to establish desired precedent
| often means allowing the court to establish the opposite
| precedent.
|
| As the saying goes, "bad cases make bad law". In this case the
| EFF is weighing in at the appellate level to make sure that
| this otherwise abhorrent case doesn't lead to precedent that's
| damaging to all Utahns.
| phrz wrote:
| You would be appalled to know that the defendant in _Miranda v.
| Arizona_ very likely did, in fact, kidnap and rape his victim,
| and yet that case established one of the most important
| substantive rights in criminal investigations.
| withinboredom wrote:
| It's about Due Process. It doesn't matter if you are guilty,
| you still have the same rights as someone who is not guilty.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| That's not how it works: you're [supposedly] not guilty until
| conviction and so, like all not guilty people, have the same
| rights. But, on conviction your rights are severely curtailed
| if the sentence is custodial.
|
| So I guess you could say "It doesn't matter if you are _later
| found_ guilty [...] " to be consistent with the presumption
| of innocence.
| withinboredom wrote:
| Yeah, I could have been more clear. Thanks!
| RNCTX wrote:
| The EFF from its inception has been a corporate-funded
| astroturfing project.
|
| They're the originators of the business model Elon Musk employs
| for his own self-promotion
| nerdponx wrote:
| Citation needed?
| RNCTX wrote:
| https://thebaffler.com/salvos/all-effd-up-levine
|
| https://www.wired.com/2011/11/eff-palantir/
|
| If you know something or someone's name, which / who claims
| to be some sort of advocacy for individuals against the
| overreach of an industrialized nation's government, and
| that person / thing is not being COINTELPRO'd, MKULTRA'd,
| GLADIO'd, PAPERCLIP'd, etc, it's because that person /
| thing is complicit in some way with the thing they are
| claiming to be against.
| nerdponx wrote:
| I think you're seeing patterns that don't exist.
|
| Maybe there is a 3-letter agency that allows the EFF to
| exist for strategic reasons. That's almost so unavoidable
| that it's irrelevant.
|
| But the EFF happening to side with Apple is more a sign
| of Apple having smart PR people than the EFF being a
| fundamentally untrustworthy organization.
|
| I'm willing to be paranoid, but I'm not willing to be so
| with paranoid as to shit on the one organization that
| actually gets things done.
| RNCTX wrote:
| It's less what they get done and more what they willfully
| ignore (such as the Cambridge Analytica story when
| Facebook became a donor of theirs).
|
| There's also the case of Shahid Buttar pretending to
| challenge Nancy Pelosi in an election, which is a way of
| saying "ensured that Nancy didn't have a real
| challenger."
| socrates1998 wrote:
| Don't talk to the police. It really isn't in your interests at
| all. They are there to arrest people, not be your friend.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
| jollybean wrote:
| "In Valdez, the defendant was charged with kidnapping his ex-
| girlfriend after arranging a meeting under false pretenses. "
|
| 'Valdez' is not going to be arbitrarily charged with kidnapping,
| he'll have the ex-girlfriend as a primary witness.
|
| If I were innocent and accused of kidnapping someone I'd check
| with my lawyer and then hand over my phone because it would
| exonerate me.
|
| I'm inclined with the ruling, but let's be pragmatic here for a
| moment and recognize whether or not we're seeking actual just
| outcomes.
|
| I'd imagine they should make getting a court order for such a
| serious crime very quickly kind of a priority.
| WkmYq wrote:
| > If I were innocent and accused of kidnapping someone I'd
| check with my lawyer and then hand over my phone because it
| would exonerate me.
|
| I think it's very unlikely that there would be any exculpatory
| evidence on the phone of someone wrongly accused of kidnapping.
| It's way more likely that there would be something innocent
| that can be used as an indication of guilt by the prosecution.
| I can't imagine any lawyer advising their client to voluntarily
| give the prosecution that kind of evidence, especially as the
| client almost certainly doesn't remember everything that's on
| their phone. Lawyers don't like asking witnesses questions they
| don't already know the answer to. This is like asking a million
| such questions with next to no probability of any favorable
| answer.
|
| > I'm inclined with the ruling, but let's be pragmatic here for
| a moment and recognize whether or not we're seeking actual just
| outcomes.
|
| It sounds like you are assuming that the defendant is guilty.
| Do you have anything beyond a flawed and (at least for now)
| overturned trial to support that assumption?
|
| > I'd imagine they should make getting a court order for such a
| serious crime very quickly kind of a priority.
|
| It should never be legal to force someone to give up passwords
| or otherwise aid in their own prosecution.
| jollybean wrote:
| "A jury convicted Alfonso Margo Valdez of kidnapping,
| robbery, and aggravated assault, after his ex-girlfriend (Ex-
| Girlfriend) testified that he forced her into his car with a
| gun, threatened her, hit her with the gun, cut her face with
| a knife, and stole her purse and phone."
|
| ...
|
| "I think it's very unlikely that there would be any
| exculpatory evidence on the phone of someone wrongly accused
| of kidnapping. It's way more likely that there would be
| something innocent that can be used as an indication of guilt
| by the prosecution. "
|
| First, this is kind of besides the point.
|
| Second, it's likely false.
|
| GPS location information is collected by many apps, that
| right there is quite a lot of good evidence.
|
| Also, communications. That I was writing a long business
| email to my colleagues indicating the list of 30 or so
| outstanding bugs in our new delivery software, while I was
| supposed to be 'kidnapping' someone, isn't going to help
| their case.
|
| "It sounds like you are assuming that the defendant is
| guilty. "
|
| I'm assuming that someone charged with kidnapping where the
| person kidnapped is still alive to identify them - is
| probably guilty, yes. Because that's reality. Obviously, he
| may not be, but I'm not judging here, this is all besides the
| point when we're using it as an anecdote.
|
| Someone charged with kidnapping has a very reasonable
| likelihood of actually being guilty, which is why we allow
| police to look at records.
|
| "It should never be legal to force someone to give up
| passwords or otherwise aid in their own prosecution. "
|
| Ideological rubbish.
|
| It's shameful the magical, academic thinking, detached from
| the reality of crime and victimization, especially among the
| hacker crowd.
|
| If there is reasonable grounds that evidence exists
| somewhere, then the authorities should be able to examine
| that evidence with oversight and due process.
|
| In this case, it looks pretty much like this guy is guilty,
| and getting off on a technicality i.e. 'the jury was
| influenced because of his unwillingness to provide evidence'
| is total rubbish.
|
| Everyone here is effectively arguing to let someone who
| literally kidnapped someone at the point of a gun, and cut
| her face, off on a technicality. It's shameful.
|
| ....
|
| FYI this is the guy:
|
| "Valdez and Ex-Girlfriend dated and cohabited for a timein
| 2017 and, as Ex-Girlfriend recounted it, their relationship
| was a volatile one. She described Valdez as accusatory and
| violent, sometimes hitting and choking her, other times
| confining her in a locked room and once beating her so
| severely that her injuries required hospitalization. After
| their relationship ended, Ex-Girlfriend moved out of Valdez's
| apartment, but Valdez continued to contact her via phone and
| text message.Ex-Girlfriend maintained that, after they parted
| ways, she largely tried to keep her distance from Valdez but
| acknowledged that she had willingly seen him "a couple times"
| after their breakup, but before the incident at issue here
| occurred. P3About two months after their relationship ended,
| Valdez sent Ex-Girlfriend a text message telling her he had
| some mail to give her and asking her to meet him.Although Ex-
| Girlfriend had concerns about meeting Valdez, she thought it
| was "nice of him" to reach out for the purpose of passing
| along her mail, and she "had hope" that their meeting "would
| be decent." Ex-Girlfriend told Valdez to meet her early one
| morning near her workplaceafter she finished her night shift.
| When Valdez pulled up in an SUV, Ex-Girlfriend approached the
| passenger side of the vehicle. She later testified that when
| she leaned into the open passenger-side window to speak to
| Valdez, he pulled out a revolver and told her to get in the
| car. Frightened, she complied, and Valdez began driving.
| P4After Ex-Girlfriend got in the vehicle, Valdez told her
| "how stupid [she] was" for agreeing to meet him before
| saying, "I hope you have talked to your kids today, because
| you are not going to get away from me this time." Valdez also
| pulled out a twelve-inch knife, which he wedged, blade
| pointed upward, between Ex-Girlfriend and the vehicle's
| center console. Ex-Girlfriend testified that, as Valdez
| drove, he held the gun in his left hand, hit her in the head
| with it, and struck her "several times in the head and face"
| with his other hand. He also demanded that she give him her
| phone and purse, which she did, and that she take off her
| clothes, a demand she perceived asan attempt to prevent her
| from escaping. Other than beginning to unlace her shoes, she
| did not remove her clothing. P5At one point, while the
| vehicle was stopped, Valdez dislodged the knife and ran it
| down Ex-Girlfriend's face, cutting her lip. Ex-Girlfriend
| testified that, soon thereafter, she went into "survival
| mode," and began attempting to get out of the vehicle, an
| endeavor Valdez impeded by putting his hand around her throat
| and holding on to her hair. Eventually, Ex-Girlfriend was
| able to spin out of Valdez's grip, open the car door, and
| exit the vehicle. She then ran toward nearby houses, first
| knocking on a door and receiving no answer, and then
| attempting to flag down a passing vehicle. Finally, Ex-
| Girlfriend noticed a woman (Witness) standing on a nearby
| front porch and made her way toward that house. P6Ex-
| Girlfriend explained to Witness that she was trying to escape
| from Valdez, and that Valdez had a knife and a gun and was
| trying to kill her. Ex-Girlfriend did not mention any
| injuries, and Witness did not see any blood on Ex-Girlfriend.
| Witness called the police, and a detective (First Detective)
| soon arrived and took statements from both Witness and Ex-
| Girlfriend. "
| FDSGSG wrote:
| >"It should never be legal to force someone to give up
| passwords or otherwise aid in their own prosecution. "
|
| >Ideological rubbish.
|
| The same ideological rubbish keeps many of us from
| advocating that people with ridiculous opinions like yours
| be shot on the street. I think that without this
| ideological rubbish we'd live in a rather more grim world.
| nerdponx wrote:
| > I'd imagine they should make getting a court order for such a
| serious crime very quickly kind of a priority.
|
| That's the whole point. This was done without a court order,
| and they used his refusal . There should have been a court
| order.
|
| Also, the rule is not about unlocking phones. It's about what
| happens if a defendant _refuses_ to unlock a phone: that fact
| can 't be used against the defendant in court.
|
| The purpose of this rule is not to protect kidnappers, but to
| protect other people who might be browbeaten or manipulated
| into incriminating themselves for crimes they _didn 't_ commit.
| andrewshadura wrote:
| The title should start with "In the US".
| evgen wrote:
| Claim the EFF, but headline statement is not an assertion that
| has held up in court.
| WalterGR wrote:
| Seems to have held up in the Utah court of appeals:
|
| "Instead, during trial, the prosecution offered testimony and
| argument about his refusal. The defense argued that this
| violated the defendant's Fifth Amendment right to remain
| silent, which also prevents the state from commenting on his
| silence. The court of appeals agreed, and now the state has
| appealed to the Utah Supreme Court."
|
| In that text, "prevents the state from commenting on his
| silence" is a link to
| https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/380/609/
| evgen wrote:
| Fair point. It has held up in a single state court of
| appeals, so I was definitely wrong about this being without
| substance on appeal, but the jurisdiction of the ruling is
| quite small and I am unaware of anything federal backing the
| claims being made.
| eynsham wrote:
| See e.g. p. 10ff. of the amicus brief where quite a lot of
| federal precedent is cited.
| joshjdr wrote:
| I'm not sure this is correct. A state court of appeals made
| this ruling, but it wasn't a matter of state law (the "law"
| is the US constitution and the precedent was a US Supreme
| Court case); I believe the "jurisdiction" (e.g. where this
| ruling establishes precedent as far as how the 5th
| amendment applies in this situation) is the entire US
| (unless a higher court rules otherwise).
|
| Not a lawyer but I think a future defense attorney with a
| client in a similar situation in a another state would
| reference this ruling and try to convince a judge that
| their client's situation was similar enough to invoke that
| ruling, whereas a prosecutor would be making the case that
| it was different enough that it did not apply (vs saying
| that it was a different jurisdiction and did not apply).
| redis_mlc wrote:
| So far it has held up in the court of appeals, but there's
| another hearing upcoming.
|
| Note that a defendant is in a much stronger position if they
| have maintained complete silence even before the password is
| requested - you can't just clam up halfway through a
| conversation.
| Zak wrote:
| You most certainly can clam up halfway through a
| conversation, and the fact that you did cannot be used
| against you in a criminal trial. It's a common (but not
| mandatory) part of the Miranda warning that a person being
| questioned in custody can stop answering questions at any
| time.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning
| colinmhayes wrote:
| This isn't how the rulings involving phone passwords has
| worked out. The supreme court has not ruled on this
| question so each state has its own interpretation of the
| fifth amendment here. Some states have found that the fifth
| amendment provides no protection for passwords, others have
| found that the fifth amendment does protect passwords, but
| only if you have refused to give any evidence from the
| locked device. Once you give some evidence from the device
| I believe every state says you can be forced to give up
| your password.
| CapitalistCartr wrote:
| That has not always worked out. For instance, "clamming up"
| in the midst of questioning, but not verbally invoking your
| right to remain silent has been used against a defendant.
| The entire process is a minefield which is only avoided by
| immediately stating your rights, and not cooperating with
| the police _at all_. Unfortunately, in the USA, treat the
| police as a third-world country.
| j-bos wrote:
| IIRC under the 5th amendment, you can indeed clam up at any
| time you so choose,except in court under oath. And even then
| it's not cut and dry.
| alisonkisk wrote:
| > you can't just clam up halfway through a conversation.
|
| You certainly can.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| > you can't just clam up halfway through a conversation
|
| Why?
| elliekelly wrote:
| I'm not the person you're replying to but I think they're
| getting at the state/a jury's ability to draw inferences
| from when and in response to which question you decided to
| invoke your fifth amendment right to remain silent.
| MerelyMortal wrote:
| I'm not a lawyer, but I've heard that the 5th Amendment is
| an "all or nothing" thing - that a judge might say you
| answered all these other questions, so you can't pick and
| choose which ones you don't want to answer, so now the
| court is compelling you to answer.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| No. The Miranda warning explicitly states:
|
| > If you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer
| present, you have the right to stop answering at any
| time.
|
| If the questioning goes from "what's your name, what's
| your job, where do you live" to "why did you murder so-
| and-so", you're allowed to invoke the Fifth there, even
| if you answered the innocuous questions earlier.
|
| At trial, you can't start testifying on your own defense
| and invoke the Fifth part way through, but you can during
| police interrogation.
| https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/fifth-
| amend...
|
| "Once the defendant takes the witness stand, this
| particular Fifth Amendment right is considered waived
| throughout the trial."
|
| (Witnesses have full Fifth Amendment protections while
| testifying, oddly enough. The above is specific to a)
| trial and b) the defendant)
| emilfihlman wrote:
| But wait, does this say that another court order can compel you
| to unlock it anyways?
|
| That doesn't seem logical at all.
| lelanthran wrote:
| > But wait, does this say that another court order can compel
| you to unlock it anyways?
|
| If a court can compel speech, then they may as well go ahead
| and compel the suspect to confess.
|
| There's no difference, once the courts compel speech.
| warkdarrior wrote:
| It does not make sense to compel someone to confess, because
| that presumes the person is guilty. But it may make sense to
| compel someone to share factual information ("the PIN is
| 1234") or to provide access to information.
| lelanthran wrote:
| > But it may make sense to compel someone to share factual
| information ("the PIN is 1234") or to provide access to
| information.
|
| No, it does not, because "compel" means that if they do not
| comply you punish them until they do.
|
| How are you to know whether or not they actually remember
| the information you are asking ("The PIN was, err ..
| 1235?"). This leads to effectively punishing them for not
| giving the "correct" answer, which is no different from
| punishing them for not confessing.
|
| Once you go down the path of punishing people for not
| divulging the contents of their mind, you may well just
| punish them for the crime itself and not bother with a
| trial.
|
| If you allow compelled speech, there is no reason to have a
| trial.
| postingawayonhn wrote:
| Right to remain silent vs. a court order to provide access to
| evidence.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Yeah but that access has to come from your brain; doesn't it
| therefore fall under the 5th amendment that you have the
| right to remain silent and something something self-
| incrimination?
|
| I mean I'm trying to think of other instances of getting
| access to evidence, and the only things I can think of is
| companies having to provide certain administrative
| documentation that may not even be their own. But that's
| probably me lacking imagination.
| NineStarPoint wrote:
| On companies providing documentation, the big point is that
| collective entities are not protected by the fifth
| amendment. You cannot invoke the fifth to protect a group
| you are a member of from liability, the fifth is a purely
| individual right. So anything related to companies and the
| fifth amendment doesn't transfer over to individuals and
| the fifth amendment.
| lugged wrote:
| Don't a lot of cp cases hinge on being able to compel
| computer owners to decrypt hard drives?
| namelessoracle wrote:
| Yes, but the case law for this is beyond complex and
| changes by jurisdiction.
|
| I think it hinges on if the search for the hard drives is
| for specific files or exploratory. IOW "we saw traffic
| that led us to believe he downloaded this specific piece
| of CP on this date and we want to verify its there" vs
| "we believe there is CP on his hard drive based on
| testimony from this person who said he shared CP with
| that person".
|
| But the case law for this is super complex and changes by
| jurisdiction.
|
| But if a judge tells you to unlock the hard drive they
| will 100 percent throw you in jail until you unlock it.
| For years even. If what they did was "illegal" then there
| will be no consequences for the judge.
| buildbot wrote:
| I feel like this precedent makes it a liability to have
| any old encrypted drives around that you've forgotten the
| password too...
| HideousKojima wrote:
| Generally speaking a court can compel self-incriminating
| testimony if they first grant you immunity:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_immunity
|
| Say, for example, you were a low level drug dealer and the
| court wanted evidence from your phone to convict your
| boss/supplier/whoever. They could compel you to unlock your
| phone, but could not use the evidence on it against _you_ ,
| only against your supplier, thanks to the 5th Amendment.
| jandrese wrote:
| It's a risky option to take, as prosecutors will then
| ignore the immunity agreement and put you in jail anyway.
| I mean they tried that vs. Bill Cosby even though he had
| access to high priced lawyers. A regular person would
| have been screwed.
|
| I think a lot of people have this idea of courts being
| highly technical and finding cases with precision, but in
| real life it's a lot more lazy and stupid people trying
| to avoid having to do work while still getting their job
| done. A great many miscarriages of justice come down to
| "the guy didn't want to do the work and lied about it,
| and nobody wanted to make the effort to verify what he
| said". There is a pervasive attitude of "that guy must be
| guilty, even if not this crime then of something, I'm not
| going to let him go over a mere lack of evidence. Society
| will be better with him behind bars."
| goodcanadian wrote:
| Legally speaking, I don't think they can compel self-
| incriminating testimony simply by giving you immunity.
| They can certainly encourage it by offering immunity in
| exchange, but that is not the same as compelling it.
| bb611 wrote:
| They can: https://freemanlaw.com/immunity/
|
| If you invoke your Fifth Amendment right not to self-
| incriminate you can be served with Statutory Immunity and
| then forced to testify, with contempt charges if you fail
| to testify.
|
| There are also several different types of voluntary
| immunity, which is what you're describing. Those can't be
| compelled because they may not prevent the government
| from using your testimony against you in other venues,
| statutory immunity does not.
| goodcanadian wrote:
| Hmmm . . . that is the first I have heard of it. It
| appears that Kastigar v. United States[1] may be the
| relevant case law. I think it a stretch to imply that it
| derives from the 5th amendment, however, as the
| grandparent seemed to do. It seems more a determination
| that the practice does not violate the 5th amendment.
|
| 1.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kastigar_v._United_States
| ceejayoz wrote:
| The answer to that is unknown.
|
| The most recent case to make its way up to SCOTUS got declined.
| https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/andrews-v-new-je...
|
| There are disagreements at the lower courts on the matter.
| greenail wrote:
| The foregone conclusion doctrine also is something folks should
| know about.
|
| "while the content was itself not protected, the act of
| production could be testimonial irrespective of the content. The
| court reasoned, "[t]he act of producing evidence in response to a
| subpoena nevertheless has communicative aspects of its own,
| wholly aside from the contents of the papers produced. Compliance
| with the subpoena tacitly concedes the existence of the papers
| demanded and their possession or control by the taxpayer." The
| court thus recognized that, in some instances, the Fifth
| Amendment protects the act of production.
|
| Despite the act of production principle, the court in Fisher
| reasoned that "[t]he existence and location of the papers are a
| foregone conclusion, and the taxpayer adds little or nothing to
| the sum total of the Government's information by conceding that
| he, in fact, has the papers. Under these circumstances ... 'no
| constitutional rights are touched. The question is not of
| testimony, but of surrender.'" This is referred to as the
| "foregone conclusion" exception to the "act of production"
| doctrine. In short, the Fifth Amendment is not implicated if the
| government knows of the existence, possession and authenticity of
| incriminating evidence, because the production thereof contains
| no testimonial import. Both the act of production and foregone
| conclusion doctrines are important to our understanding of how
| the Fifth Amendment protects against the compelled production of
| our passwords"
|
| https://www.lawfareblog.com/fifth-amendment-decryption-and-b...
| opheliate wrote:
| Meanwhile, in the UK: https://www.hcsolicitors.co.uk/news/giving-
| the-police-your-p...
|
| If a judge authorises a notice, under RIPA, you can be served a 2
| year sentence for failing to disclose your phone's passcode.
| andi999 wrote:
| So after serving the 2 year sentence, can they ask you again
| for the pass code?
| dylan604 wrote:
| This isn't double jeopordy. If you rob a bank and serve the
| time for that crime, you don't get a free pass to rob more
| banks later because you've already served once. You get
| sentenced per crime.
| ChrisKnott wrote:
| You can't be convicted again for refusing to provide it, if
| that's what you mean
| mrsuprawsm wrote:
| Yes.
| cmpb wrote:
| In the US that would be a (search?) warrant which also comes
| from the judge during a police investigation and authorizes the
| police to get your phone's passcode under threat of prison
| time.
|
| This particular case is different because the police did not
| get a warrant and instead just asked the guy to disclose
| (without a warrant), which he refused to do, then they tried to
| use that against the guy in court, which is a violation of the
| US constitution.
| thehappypm wrote:
| No, a search warrant does not mean you need to hand over
| passwords.
| nerdponx wrote:
| How does this work with physical things, like a safe locked
| with a passcode, or a closet locked with a key?
| colonwqbang wrote:
| They'll just break it open if you won't do it for them?
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Only some states have ruled that the state can force you to
| reveal your password. Others have ruled that the 5th
| amendment protects you and your passwords.
| soco wrote:
| I think the difference is from where the request comes - from
| the police during interrogation, or from the judge during
| trial.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| The difference is also that the UK doesn't have a Fifth
| Amendment, and their right to remain silent is subtly but
| importantly different.
| teh_klev wrote:
| Indeed, in England and Wales:
|
| "You do not have to say anything, _but it may harm your
| defence if you do not mention when questioned something
| which you later rely on in court_. Anything you do say may
| be given in evidence. "
|
| In Scotland it's different:
|
| "You are not obliged to say anything but anything you do
| say will be noted down and may be used in evidence. Do you
| understand?"[1]
|
| [1]:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence#Scotland
| zarzavat wrote:
| The English right is much misunderstood.
|
| What it is referring to is a situation where you rely on
| some evidence that you could have fabricated, the
| prosecution is entitled to point out that you had the
| opportunity to fabricate it.
|
| For example, you claim you were at your friend's house at
| the time of the crime, but you didn't mention this to the
| police at the time of the arrest so that they can go and
| interview your friend to corroborate your alibi.
|
| A jury may take from this that your alibi is not very
| convincing, because you may have arranged this alibi with
| your friend between arrest and trial.
|
| In neither England nor the US can someone be convicted
| based on silence alone. Silence isn't evidence. It is
| simply the lack of evidence.
| clarkmoody wrote:
| The intent of the Bill of Rights is that all humans have
| those rights, and the document restrains the federal
| government concerning them.
|
| So the people in the UK have the right against self-
| incrimination, but the state systematically violates it.
| oohaargh wrote:
| This is such a hilariously weird take on how rights work.
| I don't want to tar all Americans with the same brush,
| but I think only someone from the US could possibly have
| come up with this
| andrewxdiamond wrote:
| Ideologically, this is exactly how the US Bill of Rights
| works.
|
| The rights listed in the Bill of Rights are unalienable,
| natural, and apply regardless of your citizenship status.
|
| Of course this is weird from another country's
| perspective, but it is the mentality that many Americans
| take because to us, it is right.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > The rights listed in the Bill of Rights are
| unalienable, natural, and apply regardless of your
| citizenship status.
|
| It's quite clear this isn't the _actual_ policy of the
| US, though, given the existence of Guantanamo Bay.
| andrewxdiamond wrote:
| I agree, I think it's increasing important to separate
| the "people of the US" from the "US Government."
|
| The sentiment of the average citizen is much more inline
| with the ideals of the nation than the Nation itself is
| aspenmayer wrote:
| If the US government can selectively apply Constitutional
| protections to citizens and noncitizens worldwide, others
| should be able to claim those same rights if in a
| jurisdiction arguably subject to US control, presence, or
| influence. Not sure whether a UK citizen in the UK would
| qualify in that case, but I don't find the idea absurd on
| its face.
| clarkmoody wrote:
| Well the idea originates with John Locke and other
| European Enlightenment thinkers...
|
| Locke himself was English, so it's a real shame to see
| the state of human rights in the UK in 2021.
| [deleted]
| ajb wrote:
| Not quite - the police have to ask a judge for authorisation,
| but it's not during a trial, so there is no opportunity for
| anyone to oppose it. It's just that there is a formal record
| so if the system is abused, there is evidence of the fact,
| extent and who is responsible.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| From a legal constraint point of view yes, but from a
| physical laws of the universe, a cop can do whatever he
| pleases in that room, alone, with you, and say anything he
| likes about what transpired.
|
| Cameras? Malfunctioning, those buggers. Your lawyer? You
| waived that right, you said you were innocent and didn't
| need one. Phone? Well the officer explained very nicely the
| situation and you decided to do your best to help. Not sure
| why you're alleging misdeed now, when you handed your
| unlocked phone over without prompting...
| dahart wrote:
| > this case turns on one of the most fundamental protections in
| our constitutional system: an accused person's ability to
| exercise his Fifth Amendment rights without having his silence
| used against him.
|
| A very interesting tidbit I learned here on HN a couple years
| back -- the Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that you have to declare
| out loud an intent to invoke your Fifth Amendment rights, if you
| haven't been formally arrested yet. Literal "silence" may be
| acceptable after being Mirandized, but not necessarily before.
|
| https://harronlaw.com/blog/miranda-rights-texas/
|
| https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-246
|
| "Question: Does the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause
| protects a defendant's refusal to answer questions asked by law
| enforcement before he has been arrested or read his Miranda
| rights?"
|
| No, by 5-4 vote.
| wahern wrote:
| There's a certain irony in people thinking this was a bad
| decision. Let me explain:
|
| The right against self-incrimination originally arose because
| of a quirk in English law relative to continental European law,
| and middle-age French law in particular. See, in France
| judicial execution was only permissible if the accused
| _confessed_. You couldn 't use _evidence_ as justification to
| execute someone; the defendant had to confess. This was
| considered humane and progressive--evidence might be false, but
| surely nobody would confess to a capital crime they didn 't
| commit.
|
| But this logic led down a terrible path. You could have the
| most brutal murderer in your hands, whom everybody knows
| without a doubt was guilty, but unless they confessed you could
| never execute them. (Life in prison just wasn't a thing because
| the state didn't have such an apparatus, at least not for
| common criminals.) So in a cruel twist of logic, there
| developed the system of torture for extracting confessions.
| Torture couldn't commence without eye witnesses, but this type
| of evidence wasn't taken in a proper trial (certainly not like
| we have today, or even as the English had at the time), AFAIU.
| So ultimately what you had in France and some other European
| countries was the most brutal criminal system imaginable, all
| because they were too absolutist and ideological in their
| understanding of how evidence can or should be used to mete out
| justice in light of the risk of error.
|
| By contrast, what developed in England was a much different
| framework. In England _any_ _probative_ _evidence_ could be
| used as proof of a crime, even a capital crime, so long as it
| convinced a jury, and so long as the defendant could likewise
| introduce any probative evidence that could exculpate himself.
| The English thought the French system of torture and extracted
| confessions abhorrent (just as the French, ironically, thought
| it unthinkable the English could execute someone based on
| circumstantial evidence alone), though that abhorrence was slow
| to become comprehensively enshrined directly in the
| constitutional law, thus the notorious instances and regimes of
| torture and extracted confessions in England. But those
| instances don 't detract from the overall weight and
| theoretical foundation of the law.
|
| Anyhow, my point is that in the spirit of English Common Law,
| the foundational rule is that _any_ _probative_ _evidence_
| should be admissible. Silence can certainly count as probative.
| And the core constitutional principle isn 't that self-
| incrimination, per se, is bad, but that reliance on it can
| incentivize inhumane treatment of people. Furthermore, Miranda
| Rights are like a secondary or tertiary safeguard in service of
| preserving the core principles. All of which is to say that,
| while I'm not sure I would have decided the same way as those
| conservative judges, and to the extent we presume their
| sincerity, I can certainly appreciate the _reluctance_ to
| exclude probative evidence based on an overly rigid and
| absolutist conception of how the government can make its case.
| Because history has proven that you can easily end up with the
| precise, extreme consequences--an unfathomably inhumane system
| --you 're trying to avoid. The societal _need_ to prosecute
| criminals will never go away, so there 's always a balancing
| act at play. The lesson the English system took to heart is
| that, all things being equal, the more relevant facts you
| permit, the better.
|
| EDIT: Much of the above was said more succinctly by the 15th
| century Chief Justice John Fortescue in De Laudibus Legum
| Angliae:
|
| > For this reason, the Laws of France, in capital cases, do not
| think it enough to convict the accused by evidence, lest the
| innocent should thereby be condemned; they choose rather to put
| the accused themselves to the Rack, till they confess their
| guilt, than rely entirely on the deposition of witnesses.... By
| which over cautious, and inhuman stretch of policy, the
| suspected, as well as the really guilty, are, in that kingdom,
| tortured so many ways, as is too tedious and bad for
| description.
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| Wild that it never occurred to anyone that the problem might
| be the state-sanctioned murder, rather than the process used
| to justify it. A punitive justice culture truly does result
| in a poverty of imagination.
| chimeracoder wrote:
| > Anyhow, my point is that in the spirit of English Common
| Law, the foundational rule is that any probative evidence
| should be admissible.
|
| You're citing English common law, but this is one of the
| places where the US Constitution _explicitly_ rejects English
| common law. Several clauses of the Constitution - including
| both the Fifth and Sixth amendment - were composed
| specifically to make these rejections explicit.
|
| For comparison, until the early 19th century, under English
| law, people on trial for felony offenses were _prohibited_
| from having counsel represent them at trial. The Sixth
| Amendment guaranteed this right explicitly, in order to
| invalidate any English common law precedent that would have
| otherwise come into effect.
| wahern wrote:
| > where the US Constitution explicitly rejects English
| common law
|
| Or another way of putting it, the U.S. Constitution
| codified American Common Law, which had already evolved to
| guarantee a right to counsel in felony cases. English
| Common Law was already heading in that direction, AFAIU
| (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1923146), but hadn't yet
| affirmed it categorically--there were still exceptions and
| caveats in English law at the time of the American
| Revolution.
|
| In hacker terms, the Common Law is a process, not a
| product.
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| > but surely nobody would confess to a crime they didn't
| commit.
|
| And then we consider the concept of reduced sentences for a
| plea. A plea bargain can allow one to consider pleading
| guilty for a crime which was not committed, but is too costly
| or improbable to defend. So we do get people confessing
| things they didn't do.
|
| Also we get the even further stage in that officers are
| allowed to lie about a reduced sentence being offered for a
| plea. And when it comes to trial the offer is no where to be
| found, but the confession remains.
| that_guy_iain wrote:
| Making a murder showed a kid admitting to murder so he
| could go home and watch wrestlemania.
| titzer wrote:
| > No, by 5-4 vote.
|
| I was curious who voted which way. I was not surprised one bit.
| syspec wrote:
| Share?
| ashtonkem wrote:
| Then there's the absurd case where a defendant was found to
| have not invoked his 5th amendment rights by saying "I want a
| lawyer dawg". The court, with laughably straight faces, decided
| that he might have been asking for a dog lawyer.
|
| Courts can be shockingly corrupt.
| jaytaylor wrote:
| I was skeptical, but a quick web search verified that this
| 100% happened - recently even, in 2017.
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-
| crime/wp/2017/11/02...
|
| > The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that the suspect was, in
| fact, asking for a "lawyer dog," ..
|
| That's bad, dawg.
| ChrisKnott wrote:
| From reading the actual concurrence [0] I would say that,
| yes, it does appear from the way he quotes "lawyer dog"
| near the end, that the judge thought the suspect was making
| a flippant remark referring to a theoretical dog that is a
| lawyer, however, (as the quotes from the lawyers later in
| the WP article point out) it would seem the actual key
| point was that he prefaced his request for a lawyer with an
| 'if' clause, and the precedent is that the request must not
| be "ambiguous or equivocal".
|
| The full quote - _" This is how I feel, if y'all think I
| did it, I know that I didn't do it so why don't you just
| give me a lawyer, dawg, 'cause this is not what's up."_ -
| can be argued to be equivocal. It's a common construction
| to express a hypothetical, e.g. _" well if that's how you
| feel we should cancel the wedding"_ etc.
|
| The precedent should really be the other way around. You
| should treat any reference to wanting a lawyer as
| legitimate unless unambiguously established to not be.
|
| [0]
| https://www.lasc.org/opinions/2017/17KK0954.sjc.addconc.pdf
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| In the WaPo article, it's the DA who is saying that the
| request could be interpreted as subjective, not the
| Supreme Court justice. The relevant line in the
| concurrence:
|
| _> In my view, the defendant's ambiguous and equivocal
| reference to a "lawyer dog" does not constitute an
| invocation of counsel that warrants termination of the
| interview and does not violate Edwards v. Arizona, 451
| U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981)._
|
| "Equivocal" probably refers to Demesme saying "if y'all
| think I did it", but nonetheless it's hard for me to read
| the concurrence as anything other than a bad faith
| interpretation of his request for counsel.
| ChrisKnott wrote:
| Yeah, I wasn't trying to suggest that the quotes were
| from the judge, just that they imply the issue that was
| actually being argued over in the case.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| aksss wrote:
| What case is that, and what court?
| Kranar wrote:
| Louisiana Supreme Court:
|
| https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/10/suspect-asks-
| for...
| markjenkinswpg wrote:
| Tell me an appeals court was unimpressed, dawg.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| I have bad news, dawg. Louisiana Supreme Court declined to
| hear the case, effectively upholding it.
| kingcharles wrote:
| This happened to me. The police wanted my password and refused my
| right to silence, wouldn't let me call a lawyer. I wouldn't talk.
| Then they threatened my wife and I gave up my password to stop
| them from hurting her.
|
| The password was suppressed by the court, but they let the police
| use it anyway because one of the officers (with no formal
| computer qualifications) testified he could have broken 2048-bit
| AES encryption without the password. And worse case he said he
| would unsolder the chips off the circuit board and put them onto
| another board and that would fix it. The judge allowed the
| testimony and believed it.
|
| Make sure you always use a password on your devices though.
| Biometrics are not protected by the 5th Amendment in the USA as
| the police can legally force your finger onto a touchpad or hold
| your face in front of a camera.
| novok wrote:
| Im guessing you were not allowed to produce your own expert
| witness then? Or couldn't afford it?
| kingcharles wrote:
| Right. Could not afford it. And the court is supposed to
| appoint one for you. The reality was that my lawyer and I
| were caught off-guard because the police shouldn't have been
| able to testify like that. My lawyer objected, but the judge
| overruled.
| bleachedsleet wrote:
| Also, if you do use biometrics and ever find yourself in a
| sticky situation most modern operating systems have built in
| features to quickly disable them on demand. iOS, for example,
| allows you to quickly disable Face/Touch ID by holding the
| side+any volume button for two seconds and then quickly tap the
| side button again when the shutdown slide appears.
| chimeracoder wrote:
| > iOS, for example, allows you to quickly disable Face/Touch
| ID by holding the side+any volume button for two seconds and
| then quickly tap the side button again when the shutdown
| slide appears
|
| Android unfortunately doesn't have anything like this enabled
| by default, and what it allows you to enable is much more
| limited.
|
| Lockdown mode[0] has to be enabled manually (it's hidden deep
| in setting that most people won't notice), and all it does is
| add an additional soft button when you long-press the power
| button. That button will disable biometric unlocking and hide
| notifications, but only until the phone is next unlocked.
|
| Unfortunately, in situations where you might want to use
| this, long-pressing the button and then having to tap the
| screen is cumbersome.
|
| To be fair, the third button is the power button, which will
| turn off the device and is effectively another way of
| disabling the biometric unlocking. So if you randomly press
| the top of the screen, you have a 2/3 chance of locking your
| phone as desired... and a 1/3 chance of calling 911 instead
| (which may make the situation worse).
|
| https://screenrant.com/android-lockdown-mode-purpose-
| enable-...
| l3s2d wrote:
| I believe lockdown mode is available in the power menu by
| default in Android 12.
| Ikatza wrote:
| Not really. I have a gesture programmed in Nova Launcher to
| disable biometrics with a pinch. The system allows you to
| do many more things than iOS, just not put of the box.
| chimeracoder wrote:
| > Not really. I have a gesture programmed in Nova
| Launcher to disable biometrics with a pinch
|
| The original statement was
|
| > most modern operating systems have built in features to
| quickly disable them on demand
|
| A custom-made gesture using a third-party launcher is not
| built-in (to say nothing of whether that's accessible or
| feasible for the vast majority of Android users).
| kingcharles wrote:
| Probably won't have time. I had a loaded gun pointed at my
| head and told not to touch my phone. Had every reason to
| believe they would have fired.
| DantesKite wrote:
| Why did the police point a gun at your head?
| boppo1 wrote:
| You have to tell this story.
| HeavyStorm wrote:
| Nobody else is going to ask the parent what was that?
| [deleted]
| steelframe wrote:
| With iPhones you can say, "Hey Siri, whose phone is this?"
| That will disable biometric unlock.
| mekal wrote:
| I just tried this with my iphone 11, just out of
| curiosity... Siri ratted me out and my face still unlocked
| it.
| steelframe wrote:
| I'm running iOS 15.0.2 on an iPhone 12 Pro. The response
| I got was, "I believe this iPhone belongs to Bob," where
| "Bob" is my first name. Then Face ID was disabled, and
| the only way I could unlock my phone was with my
| passcode.
| q1w2 wrote:
| > he said he would unsolder the chips off the circuit board and
| put them onto another board ... The judge allowed the testimony
| and believed it.
|
| I've experienced similar issues with judges. When evidence
| hinges on something very technical - they generally allow it
| and place the burden of arguing it on the defense. ...which
| often allows any other evidence gotten by that means. ...and
| even if/when it's struck out - the prosecutor uses some
| parallel construction argument to say they _could have_ gotten
| the evidence through another means. ...and the judge usually
| accepts that too.
|
| The prosecutor also then takes things like hearsay,
| circumstantial evidence, and literal misrepresentations to
| build a seemingly huge case against the defendant. It's a form
| of intimidation to accept a plea deal.
|
| I've seen TONS of defendants admit to crimes they didn't commit
| in plea deals, just because it's such a huge and long uphill
| battle to fight every single bogus charge.
|
| These aren't straight up innocent or perfect people. They're
| usually guilty of something minor - like small-time possession
| / solicitation / parole violation / DUI / etc... But what
| happens is that when you're guilty of _anything_ , the judge
| treats you like you're guilty of EVERYTHING, and the prosecutor
| loads up the charges with anything they can think of to take
| advantage of that.
|
| Most defense attorneys hate these cases because clients can't
| pay, so they encourage them to settle for a plea deal - even if
| it includes admitting to stuff they didn't do. ...and most
| defendants accept it so they can move on with their lives and
| avoid prison time.
|
| So yeah, people with money hire $700/hr attorneys, and they
| absolutely make things go away. Even prosecutors drastically
| change demeanor when they see a defendant with a high-priced
| lawyer, because the prosecutor doesn't want to invest a lot of
| time on any specific case - and doesn't want his office or the
| police/investigators to be held up to scrutiny with various
| subpoenas - so charges drop off much more easily, and/or
| defendants get off with misdemeanor in a good plea deals.
|
| The point of this story is to help shed some naivete that you
| might have about the system ultimately being fair - even
| through the long and expensive appeals process. It isn't.
| ...and most defendants don't have the time or money to pursue
| appeals. And moreover, when tech is involved, it is markedly
| even less fair because the judge doesn't understand the tech,
| and so will believe whatever BS the prosecutor makes up.
| gknoy wrote:
| > $700/hr attorneys
|
| How many hours of attorney-work should one expect to budget
| for?
| kingcharles wrote:
| On a criminal case? Potentially hundreds. Personally I've
| put in several thousand hours in legal research towards my
| case. The deeper you research the more you find. I'm eight
| years in and only recently did I find some binding case law
| to support some of my arguments about the police
| misconduct.
| kingcharles wrote:
| This. Everything above. I was offered plea for immediate
| release on my very first court date. Turned it down. Spent 8
| years locked up fighting it. It's complicated, but it
| actually got dismissed after 5 years but as I was walking out
| of the jail I got arrested again by some out-of-jurisdiction
| police on a fake arrest warrant that the prosecutors created
| and had entered into the Sheriff's computer system. So back
| to jail for another 3 years to fight again. Trying telling
| anyone the arrest warrant was fake! LOL. I wrote letters all
| over the place to try and get some action on that. I had the
| state government come one time to the jail with the sheriff's
| record people.. "The computer says you were arrested, so you
| were arrested." "OK, who does it say arrested me?" "It says
| the prosecutor arrested you." "Have you ever heard of a
| prosecutor making an arrest before?" "No, but the computer
| says it so it has to be true." FML. Basically no-one would
| accept that it is possible for a fake warrant to be made. I
| EVEN HAVE THE COURT ROOM TRANSCRIPTS WHERE THE JUDGE SAYS
| THERE IS NO ARREST WARRANT.. and still no-one would believe
| me. The system is fucked. If I had $250,000 for some real
| lawyers I would be fine.
| cyphertruck wrote:
| What you are describing is corruption. It's actually a crime.
| But government will never hold government prosecutors or
| judges to account for corruption that favors government
| interests.
| kingcharles wrote:
| Who do you report it to?
|
| For instance, the police committed about a dozen felonies
| in my case. In Illinois, in all counties except Cook
| County, the misconduct has to be reported to the police
| station where the officer works. THEY WILL JUST LAUGH AT
| YOU. They are not going to charge their own police officer
| with misconduct because a "criminal" reported it.
|
| And if you are in jail and try to report anything you can
| only do it by postal mail. In which case all your letters
| just go into the circular filing cabinet under their desk.
| twirlock wrote:
| Thank you for sharing your story. It provides yet more evidence
| that no one should interact with police under any circumstance
| if it is at all avoidable.
| andrei_says_ wrote:
| > Biometrics are not protected by the 5th Amendment in the USA
| as the police can legally force your finger onto a touchpad or
| hold your face in front of a camera.
|
| Where can I read about this distinction?
| kingcharles wrote:
| https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/compelled-
| biometri...
| efleurine wrote:
| Good to know. I'm am getting rid of biometrics asap
| kingcharles wrote:
| Yeah, it's a pain-in-the-ass to always have to enter a code
| to open your phone, but I'd rather suffer that than have the
| cops hold my face in front of the phone to open it up.
| subhro wrote:
| You can keep your eyes closed or not look at the phone. I
| believe iOS needs your attention to allow biometrics. And a
| few times it fails, it will require the password.
| kingcharles wrote:
| I guess the police would just force your eyes open. They
| would be allowed to drug you in this situation too.
|
| The police most often use this kind of power in DUI cases
| where they extract your blood forceably. In the terms and
| conditions of your driver's licences in the USA most of
| them say that you agree to allow the police to do this.
| BeefySwain wrote:
| Did you appeal? Or reach out to the ACLU or EFF? I'll admit I'm
| somewhat skeptical of your account, but if true I would expect
| a post demonstrating so would be on the front page of this site
| quite quickly.
| kingcharles wrote:
| Where I live you can only appeal once you're found guilty at
| a trial. The case is over 8 years old now and I still haven't
| had trial. I would hope the appeal court would reverse, but
| I've had about a dozen cases wrongly denied by the appellate
| courts recently. The appellate courts are pretty much as
| biased as the trial courts, especially at the state level.
| The federal courts are a little bit smarter.
|
| I've tried talking to the ACLU and EFF in the past but
| received no replies.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Sounds like a nightmare, but also unsurprising based on my
| limited experiences. I hope you are outside the statue of
| limitations or speedy trial window by now.
| kingcharles wrote:
| Statute of limitations only applies to charging someone,
| not after they've been charged.
|
| Speedy trial doesn't apply in almost any situation you
| can think of. It's almost impossible to beat a case on
| speedy trial grounds. All my speedy trial motions have
| been denied so far, most recently because of COVID. I'm
| still working this angle though.
| giantg2 wrote:
| I wasn't sure if they formally charged you. My state says
| they have 5 years to complete the trial (or maybe
| initiate after charging).
|
| Good luck!
| kingcharles wrote:
| Thank you!
| dillondoyle wrote:
| Wait, you are part to or accused in about 12 cases?!
| kingcharles wrote:
| No, only two criminal cases. The other 12 cases were
| civil involving detainee rights.
| perl4ever wrote:
| If the court records are public, maybe people would be
| interested in reading about it?
| IceWreck wrote:
| Now I'm wondering what he does for a living. Maybe he's
| an activist or something/.
| kingcharles wrote:
| I made money while I was in jail by suing the jail for
| all their rights violations. But my day job has been web
| development since the 90s.
| xanaxagoras wrote:
| How do you make a living as an activist?
| kag0 wrote:
| https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-
| organiz...
| Threeve303 wrote:
| Nothing stopping them from holding it up to your face to unlock
| it, though, right?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Correct. Five clicks of the sleep/wake button will disable Face
| ID temporarily. If you're prone to keeping incriminating stuff
| on the phone, you should probably have it off entirely.
| angulardragon03 wrote:
| You can also just hold power + a volume button until you get
| the "power off" dialog, which also disables FaceID until the
| next time you enter your passcode.
| r00fus wrote:
| There's no "if" statement required. Everyone should disable
| their phone when encountering law enforcement unless they're
| using it to record (and it's a burner). Who knows how corrupt
| that particular LE is and what agenda they are following.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Yes. People more likely to encounter law enforcement in
| surprise, break-down-the-door scenarios where the cops
| might have a vested interest in keeping you away from the
| phone should probably forgo Face/Touch ID entirely, though.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| Which is why I would _never_ enable using my face to unlock my
| phone.
|
| It's probably the only thing I would ever call an _in_ security
| feature.
| nixpulvis wrote:
| Hmmmm... I was under the impression this was already the case. I
| remember reading about this a while ago when I was learning that
| they _can_ force you to provide a fingerprint or face-scan.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Not having to reveal the passcode has been the rule for a
| while.
|
| Not being allowed to bring that refusal up as evidence of guilt
| on Fifth Amendment grounds during the trial is new. (And
| correct.)
| alisonkisk wrote:
| Why? You have a right to carry a licensed gun to a scene
| where a murder happens, and scream insults at the the (soon
| to be) victim, but the prosecution is allowd in to mention
| that at trial.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Not having to reveal the passcode has been the rule for a
| while
|
| No, its not. It is an issue that is left open in US Supreme
| Court Fifth Amendment case law, and on which lower courts are
| split.
|
| > Not being allowed to bring that refusal up as evidence of
| guilt on Fifth Amendment grounds during the trial is new
|
| No, it is well-established that you can't raise use of Fifth
| Amendment self-incrimination rights to suggest guilt, so _if_
| not revealing passcodes is protected (which is the point in
| dispute that EFF is arguing to the Utah Supreme Court, and
| which the court immediately below agreed with), there is no
| dispute that refusal can 't also be used to suggest guilt.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| You can't say the first is left open but the second is not.
|
| If "can I be forced to reveal the passcode" is undecided,
| "can refusing to do so imply guilt" depends on the
| resolution of the first.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > You can't say the first is left open but the second is
| not.
|
| I didn't. I said, in summary, that the first is left
| open, but that the first necessarily implies the second
| is not.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Which is messed up. That said, biometric unlock is
| identification, NOT authorization; if you have secrets on your
| phone, do not use biometrics. They are a low to medium security
| convenience.
|
| Second, of course, don't keep evidence of crimes on your phone.
|
| And final tip, on an iphone, hitting the lock button on the
| side five times rapidly will disable the biometric unlock until
| the passcode has been filled in. It also pops up with the
| option to call emergency services. Spamming the lock button is
| considered a panic button.
| tzs wrote:
| > And final tip, on an iphone, hitting the lock button on the
| side five times rapidly will disable the biometric unlock
| until the passcode has been filled in. It also pops up with
| the option to call emergency services. Spamming the lock
| button is considered a panic button.
|
| This may vary from iPhone model to iPhone model, but you can
| also disable biometric unlock by holding down both the lock
| button and one of the volume buttons for several seconds.
| This approach is more discrete.
|
| The "spam the lock button" starts the emergency call
| countdown, which is accompanied by a loud alarm.
|
| The "hold lock and volume" method brings up the screen with
| the "slide to power off" button, the "medical ID" button, and
| the "emergency call" button, but does not immediately start
| the emergency call countdown. If you keep holding lock and
| volume it will start the emergency call countdown with a 5
| second countdown and without an alarm.
|
| Edit: Here is Apple's documentation on this [1]. Some of this
| is configurable in the "Emergency SOS" settings.
|
| [1] https://support.apple.com/guide/iphone/make-emergency-
| calls-...
| rabuse wrote:
| Thank you for this. Didn't know the lock and volume trick.
| kibwen wrote:
| On Android, rebooting the phone will disable biometric login
| until the passcode is re-entered.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Kind of hard to do that in front of the coppers though,
| especially if they have already taken it from you.
| 8bitbuddhist wrote:
| You can do the same by pressing and holding the power
| button on the lock screen to pull up a menu, then press
| Lockdown. I'm not sure if it's enabled by default, but it
| is a security option on at least Android 11+.
| NoGravitas wrote:
| At least 10+, and I think it may have been introduced in
| 9 if I remember past upgrades correctly. I don't think
| it's something enabled by default, but it is available to
| turn on in the default security settings page.
| devmor wrote:
| Same on iOS and iPadOS. Power cycling requires the
| passcode.
| tzs wrote:
| > Second, of course, don't keep evidence of crimes on your
| phone.
|
| Also, if you have accomplices in your crimes make sure they
| don't keep evidence of your involvement on their phones.
|
| The Fifth Amendment covers self-incrimination. It doesn't
| cover incrimination against others.
|
| A prosecutor can grant one of your accomplices immunity to
| prosecution based on any evidence found on their phone about
| _their_ crimes, and then it is fine under the Fifth Amendment
| to force them to unlock their phone and then use any evidence
| of _your_ crimes found on their phone against you.
| cat199 wrote:
| > identification, NOT authorization
|
| if a user can't decouple the two and control them as distinct
| mechanisms, the user interaction serves as both and this
| distinction is irrelevant
|
| apologies but bringing this particular distinction up when
| has no bearing on the discussion is a pet peeve of mine
| devmor wrote:
| >on an iphone, hitting the lock button on the side five times
| rapidly will disable the biometric unlock until the passcode
| has been filled in.
|
| I don't know what iPhone you have, but on mine, that brings
| up Apple Pay.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-22 23:01 UTC)