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

511–520 of 615 posts

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

#511

Post by wolverine876 »

q1w2 wrote: post #432
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…

> 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…

Are you a prosecutor or criminal defense lawyer?

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

#512

Post by nullc »

kingcharles wrote: post #495
q1w2 wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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 j…

:(

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computers_Don%27t_Argue

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

#513

Post by wolverine876 »

cyphertruck wrote: post #443
q1w2 wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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.

The public holds the District Attorney accountable, and in many places recently, they have voted out corrupt ones.

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

#514

Post by wolverine876 »

giantg2 wrote: post #475
SavantIdiot wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

> "both sides" should come together to support reforms that are universally protective

When one side doesn't do that, it's not a both sides issue.

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

#515

Post by BingoAhoy »

kingcharles wrote: post #489
IceWreck wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Would you mind going into detail about the right violations lawsuit please? I'm very interested in how you had success and what were the specific violations.

I'm very sorry to hear how your life got turned upside down for a victimless felony. Makes me sick we cage people for some fabricated rule invented by some out of touch legislators.

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

#516

Post by perl4ever »

ceejayoz wrote: post #448
andrewxdiamond wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

The only requirement of an abstract definition is that it be comprehensible and internally consistent.

It is clearly not consistent to criticize Americans for violating inalienable human rights while claiming that inalienable human rights are a concept that does not exist for non-Americans.

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

#517

Post by wolverine876 »

marcosdumay wrote: post #320
Dudeman112 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

> I live in a country with 4 times more homicides than the US after adjusting for population

I didn't know there was such a place?

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

#518

Post by thaumasiotes »

annoyingnoob wrote: post #486
thaumasiotes wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Some people are above the law. I never said I approved of the system.

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

#519

Post by perl4ever »

andrewxdiamond wrote: post #399
oohaargh wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

The International Criminal Court seems like strong evidence that inalienable rights are not "weird from another country's perspective".

Particularly since they have come into conflict with the US over trying to prosecute human rights violations in the mideast.

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

#520

Post by jakeinspace »

kiba wrote: post #361
jakeinspace wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 multif…

Sure, just passing federal legislation wouldn't fix this for the US. This country has a police culture problem that needs to be addressed, which, like any cultural problem, has no single quick fix. I don't know the way to fix things.
Post reply on HN