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

521–530 of 615 posts

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

#521

Post by perl4ever »

oohaargh wrote: post #274
clarkmoody wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Remember "the French don't have a word for entrepreneur"?

Snopes apparently debunked it, however, I was always inclined to believe it happened and was deliberate irony.

I hope your comment is in the same vein.

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

#522

Post by perl4ever »

aspenmayer wrote: post #442
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

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.

You're saying that inalienable rights might exist, depending on US policy?

Or, more specifically, I attempt to paraphrase:

If the US doesn't respect inalienable rights, then non-citizens should have them?

I don't see any connection, and you seem to also be saying you believe in inalienable rights which are alienable.

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

#523

Post by maxbond »

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.

I disagree with you that it is a majority (perhaps a slim one but I doubt it), or that that would be meaningful. The reality we are discussing is, indeed, a grim one.

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

#524

Post by perl4ever »

rootusrootus wrote: post #344
andrei_says_ wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.

A lot of elections only have one candidate.

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

#525

Post by nervlord »

kingcharles wrote: post #393
bleachedsleet wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Yeah this is a press X to doubt story if ever I've seen one.

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

#526

Post by perl4ever »

rootusrootus wrote: post #347
tw600040 wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is complaining against "law & order". The whole thread is about police misuse of power. You really don't see the difference?

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 suspe…

>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

That's hardly something that everyone believes without qualification. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, just that I perceive a social context where it is normal to consider it a potential misuse of power depending on various factors.

For instance, suppose you were stopped and had a gun pointed at you because you resembled someone involved in an armed robbery, but it appeared they had little more to go on than race and gender.

You'd agree it's a fact that some people have perceived a situation like that, as victims, right? And if it was as they perceived, and a pattern, wouldn't it then be correct to consider it an institutional misuse of police power?

One thing to consider is that pointing a gun at a person is not harmless. It carries a risk of inadvertently discharging the weapon. How many times have you heard the admonition to not point a gun without the intention to shoot?

Accidents happen, and sometimes make the news, especially when the officer says they thought they had their taser. Pointing a gun is also a threat that suggests the victim might be shot with impunity. Statistically, there are probably people who have heart attacks or strokes due to the stress. Even if most officers are professional and trustworthy, there's no way to know in such a situation before the outcome.

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

#527

Post by giantg2 »

wolverine876 wrote: post #514
giantg2 wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The first half of that quote (omitted) provides important context that is missing here.

The conversation and showing the "other" side why and how it could benefit them, as well as addressing any concerns they have about any one-sided proposal, is vitally important to a healthy and productive process - the main point that I was trying to make. If we just blame everything on the "other" side, we will drift further apart, get less done, and become weaker as a country. I should also add that we are using simplified stereotypes of the sides here as there is a spectrum of positions and willingness to work together within either side.

It seems you are implying that only one of the major parties has proposed justice reforms. Do you have anything to back up that? I seem to remember both parties suggesting varying reforms. I also seem to remember one party rejecting the proposals of the other party just because they didn't go far enough - an all-or-nothing mindset rather than an iterative or collaborative approach. We could come together on the common ground and pass the lesser bill as a step in the right direction while continuing to investigate and debate the finer points involved with the further reaching bill.

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

#528

Post by fencepost »

marcosdumay wrote: post #440
rootusrootus wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Why do US people always put so much emphasis on never talking to the police?

Basically if you don't interact with police at all you can't have bad (or good) interactions. Since there are lots of things (race, wealth as indicated by clothing or vehicle, someone having a bad day, ticket/arrest quotas, etc) that can make interactions worse and few that can make them better it's often easier to just avoid contact.

Personal example: I'm doing laundry at a laundromat following the tragic death of a washing machine not long ago. On a recent Sunday night the attendant appears to have quit sometime in the afternoon or early evening (note on the counter "back in 2 hours" but clearly gone much longer than that). I cleaned up the place a bit while my stuff was in the dryer, but since I was the last person there and it was after their last load (and no answer on any of the numbers on the call list behind the counter), I called the local police to see if they could have patrols keep an eye open overnight. I felt fine doing that as a late middle age white guy in whitebread suburbia, but if I was a 20something minority? I suspect the wisest move would be to simply finish my laundry and leave just like I would any other visit to the business.

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

#529

Post by perl4ever »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #482
rootusrootus wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe there are two different concepts of "prefer".

The status quo is likely to always be some sort of local maxima/minima.

So most people may prefer it to most available small changes, but most people may prefer a large change if there was a way to get there in a coordinated way.

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

#530

Post by macintux »

quacked wrote: post #465
aksss wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

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 childis…

> … one political party listening to and supporting the police.

Well, not the Capitol Police.

Post reply on HN