Live data from Hacker News

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

eff.org

531–540 of 615 posts

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

#531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 ma…

I have no idea how things really work in e.g. Switzerland or Israel, but one can imagine a stylized regime where every healthy adult undergoes military training, serves for a period of time, learns to use a rifle which they keep, and all other guns are heavily restricted or outlawed, especially handguns. And the rest of the military can be dispensed with.

And then, stringent training can be mandated for drivers too! Just make simulators of the quality used for pilot training and require people to pass difficult tests where they react to unexpected events while driving.

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

#532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 peo…

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.

"Impunity"

In the US there are almost no significant repercussions for any actions taken by a police officer whether correct or not. See also "qualified immunity," where things can happen like officers literally stealing from a crime scene and the victim having no recourse because there's not a previous decided case with exactly that scenario within the same jurisdiction.

https://reason.com/2020/05/19/qualified-immunity-supreme-cou...

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

#533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ma…

The hard thing about making guns illegal is that criminals will still have them...

This cliché bugs me, because it is repeated so much, and it is generic - you can say "if you make X illegal, only criminals will have X" about anything and it's just as obtuse.

Making something illegal for law abiding citizens is the point!

When someone (either in authority or anyone) sees a person with X, and it's legal, then they don't know if it's a criminal or not without further investigation.

When they see a person with X, and it's illegal, then they do know it's a criminal. This is an enormous advantage to enforcement, if that is the goal.

Obviously you can, and many people do, make arguments based on crime statistics that outlawing guns works, but I prefer a logical approach.

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

#534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hard thing about making guns illegal is that criminals will still have them...

This cliché bugs me, because it is repeated so much , and it is generic - you can say "if you make X illegal, only criminals will have X" about anything and it's just as obtuse. Making something illegal for law abiding citizens is the point! When someone (either in authority or anyone) sees a person with X, and it's legal, then they don't know if it's a criminal or not without further investigation. When they see a p…

It isn't obtuse. Maybe you could try making your argument in a less inflammatory way, and those with a different view from yours could see if there's a way to understand one another?

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

#535

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…

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.

If you are ever expecting to be in a situation where a) you have incriminating evidence on you phone, and b) have reason to believe the police will likely try and get access to it at some unpredictable time in the future, I think you'd just be wise to not use biometrics at all.

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

#536
post #223

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…

>that person / thing is complicit in some way with the thing they are claiming to be against

There's a sense in which it's tautological - when anything bad happens, the universal cause is that nobody prevented it, and everyone in the whole wide world is guilty.

Also, even if your dichotomy is sort of correct, surely every non-complicit entity must have a non-negligible amount of time before anyone gets around to "COINTELPRO'ing" it, so it can't be literally true.

The most succinct way I can express my disagreement with you is that loyalty is never wholly binary.

So arguing over whether an entity is for or against something especially when they are composite and not a single person, is a rabbit hole you don't want to go down.

There is a simple way to deal with endless BS and lies - judge by actions, and never make a final judgement.

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

#537

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…

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.

Official document is here: https://support.apple.com/en-au/guide/iphone/iph6d162927a/io...

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

#538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This cliché bugs me, because it is repeated so much , and it is generic - you can say "if you make X illegal, only criminals will have X" about anything and it's just as obtuse. Making something illegal for law abiding citizens is the point! When someone (either in authority or anyone) sees a person with X, and it's legal, then they don't know if it's a criminal or not without further investigation. When they see a p…

It isn't obtuse. Maybe you could try making your argument in a less inflammatory way, and those with a different view from yours could see if there's a way to understand one another?

You seem to be objecting to both the tone and the actual meaning of the word. Since I stand by the meaning, perhaps there is a better way to express it. But if you still disagree with the meaning, perhaps you could elaborate.

A phrase I've seen on HN is "thought terminating cliché". Would that be a better way to express my opinion, by calling it that?

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

#539
post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 con…

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.

That probably never occurred to anyone because these same systems were implemented for non capital crimes.

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

#540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think I filed about 60 cases in total. So, off the top of my head... one that is still ongoing is that newspapers are banned inside the Cook County Jail for "security" reasons. You actually have a Constitutional right to access newspapers under the 1st Amendment, but that doesn't stop an agency from blocking this right and then making you sue them.

The primary reasons given by detention facilities for blocking newspapers are fire, flooding, gang information and hidden messages in classifieds. The argument is that newspapers are easy to burn, that you can block the toilets with them, that you can find out what gang members are upto and that you can get messages from the outside (all communications are monitored in custody).

These excuses used to be taken as gospel by the courts, but lately there has been a little pushback from the rare judge. Fires have been ruled out - you usually have books, magazines, legal work that you can burn instead. Flooding is ruled out - you can use clothing, towels, sheets, blankets instead, and of course, other paper goods. Messages can be hidden inside magazine ads too, and magazines are usually allowed. Gang information - well, you can get this from the TV and telephone. I don't know a single gang member who wants a newspaper to get gang information. They just call their people on the telephone.

This was a similar suit won against the same jail a few years ago: http://archive.today/2021.10.23-004355/https://www.prisonleg...

One suit I won $1000 for was because I used a Freedom of Information law to try to get the disciplinary record of my arresting officer because the prosecutor told me he was bogus. I tried three times and the police refused to reply, so I sued and asked them to settle immediately. They gave me the records and offered me $500. I asked for $1300 and said I wanted them to bring me Five Guys cheeseburger and fries to the jail. They replied $1000 and "lunch is not part of the deal." So I got the cash at least.

They were giving us 45 minutes less sleep than they should, and an hour less than they should out of our cells during the day. I won that, which was a big logistical nightmare for the jail and sent me to the Hole for the 2nd time with a fake contraband charge.

I sued because they put you in the Hole without giving you a hearing to determine if you are guilty of any infraction. I lost that in the trial court and appeal court. They ruled that pretrial detainees can be punished for any reason without any justification.

I sued because county sheriffs in Illinois aren't bound by any limits on punishment. I'll explain. Crimes are regulated by statutes which tell you exactly what you should not do, in detail, and the punishment expected if you commit them. These statutes are written by democratically-elected lawmakers. In county jails the sheriffs make up all the "crimes" and the punishment. Anything they say is a crime. And they can assign any punishment. Therefore if you "cause a disturbance" (one stated crime which is so vague it can mean anything) they can punish you by sending you to the Hole. But they could also just get out a knife and chop your hand off. Or they could just shoot you dead on the spot. There is nothing to protect you right now. I sued to limit this, but the courts said the constitutional protections on proportional punishments (punishment must fit the crime) under the Illinois and federal constitutions do not apply to pretrial detainees in Illinois.

I tried to get workers comp for the people in the kitchen who had lost their fingers in the meatball-making machine, but the statute requires that you must be a "person performing a service for the Sheriff" to get workers comp and the Attorney General basically ruled that detainees do not fit the legal definition of a "person".

I could go on all night LOL

Post reply on HN