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

481–490 of 615 posts

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

#481

Post by godelski »

kingcharles wrote: post #371
godelski wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 pu…

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).

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

#482

Post by thaumasiotes »

rootusrootus wrote: post #360
maxbond wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [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…

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.

> 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.

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

#483

Post by thaumasiotes »

annoyingnoob wrote: post #427
SavantIdiot wrote: post #326

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.

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…

> 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.

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

#484

Post by BobbyJo »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #297
lr4444lr wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What profession has an effective method of weeding out abusive people?

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 mu…

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?

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

#485

Post by kingcharles »

edgyquant wrote: post #439
kingcharles wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

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.

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.

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

#486

Post by annoyingnoob »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #483
annoyingnoob wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

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

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

#487

Post by steelframe »

mekal wrote: post #444
steelframe wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With iPhones you can say, "Hey Siri, whose phone is this?" That will disable biometric unlock.

I just tried this with my iphone 11, just out of curiosity... Siri ratted me out and my face still unlocked it.

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.

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

#488

Post by joecool1029 »

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...

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

#489

Post by kingcharles »

IceWreck wrote: post #417
dillondoyle wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, you are part to or accused in about 12 cases?!

Now I'm wondering what he does for a living. Maybe he's an activist or something/.

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.

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

#490

Post by kingcharles »

novok wrote: post #471
kingcharles wrote: post #264

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 encryptio…

Im guessing you were not allowed to produce your own expert witness then? Or couldn’t afford it?

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.
Post reply on HN