Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Police can’t demand you reveal your phone passcode then tell a jury you refused

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 615 posts

Re: Police can’t demand you reveal your phone passcode then tell a jury you refused

#271

Post by dragonwriter »

dTal wrote: post #183
Consultant32452 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now do the other side of the analogy with liberals and gun free zone signs.

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?

> 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.

Re: Police can’t demand you reveal your phone passcode then tell a jury you refused

#272

Post by kspacewalk2 »

pdimitar wrote: post #108
kspacewalk2 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe your argument even rises to the level of being anecdata. It's a tier or two below.

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.

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.

Re: Police can’t demand you reveal your phone passcode then tell a jury you refused

#273

Post by kingcharles »

voakbasda wrote: post #170
dnautics wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

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.

Re: Police can’t demand you reveal your phone passcode then tell a jury you refused

#274

Post by oohaargh »

clarkmoody wrote: post #214
ceejayoz wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is also that the UK doesn't have a Fifth Amendment, and their right to remain silent is subtly but importantly different.

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.

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

Re: Police can’t demand you reveal your phone passcode then tell a jury you refused

#275

Post by nerdponx »

RNCTX wrote: post #223
nerdponx wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation needed?

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 th…

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.

Re: Police can’t demand you reveal your phone passcode then tell a jury you refused

#276

Post by kingcharles »

dnautics wrote: post #262
sp332 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't the settlement money just come from taxes?

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 thei…

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.

Re: Police can’t demand you reveal your phone passcode then tell a jury you refused

#277

Post by ineptech »

BobbyJo wrote: post #251
63 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

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 s…

Every profession has abusive people; it's a structural issue when a profession can't or won't weed them out.

Re: Police can’t demand you reveal your phone passcode then tell a jury you refused

#279

Post by pdimitar »

ziddoap wrote: post #257
pdimitar wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My apologies, I forgot discussions can only happen involving strictly provable facts!

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.

Re: Police can’t demand you reveal your phone passcode then tell a jury you refused

#280

Post by kingcharles »

colinmhayes wrote: post #265
rootusrootus wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

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…

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.
Post reply on HN