Police can’t demand you reveal your phone passcode then tell a jury you refused • Hacker News Board

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

#541

Post by torstenvl » Sat, Oct 23, 2021, 12:49 AM UTC

perl4ever wrote: post #538

torstenvl wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You are interpreting the phrase specifically in a way as to make it a tautology, rather than responding to the "strongest plausible interpretation" as required by the site guidelines.

Currently both anti-social and pro-social individuals possess firearms. If possession of firearms is criminalized, those who tend toward pro-sociality will give them up disproportionately. Such a policy would therefore tilt the balance of power toward those with anti-social inclinations. This is a bad outcome.

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

#542

Post by kingcharles » Sat, Oct 23, 2021, 12:53 AM UTC

nullc wrote: post #512

kingcharles wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That is fantastic. You made my day. Funny it was based in Illinois too!

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

#543

Post by kingcharles » Sat, Oct 23, 2021, 12:55 AM UTC

wolverine876 wrote: post #511

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…

Are you a prosecutor or criminal defense lawyer?

They might be, but they also might be someone who has been through the "justice" system in the past. You pick up so much. Seeing the gallows is a great way to focus a man's mind. I guarantee I know more about the criminal law in Illinois than a majority of defense attorneys or prosecutors.

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

#544

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Oct 23, 2021, 12:57 AM UTC

hanniabu wrote: post #379

colechristensen wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The correct thing to do if you want your phone not to be searched is to shut it off. The tools used to search phones generally work with unpatched vulnerabilities and you don’t want to do anything that looks like tampering with evidence. When off the encryption of the device will be most effective and resilient to attack because nothing will be unencrypted until you enter your passcode at boot.

Couldn't turning your phone off be seen as tampering with evidence?

[deleted]

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

#545

Post by pahomov » Sat, Oct 23, 2021, 1:32 AM UTC

chimeracoder wrote: post #457

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.

> 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 Android unfortunately doesn't have anything like this enabled by default, and what it allows you to enable is much more limited. Lockdown mode[0] has to be enabled manually (it's hidden deep in setting that most people won't no…

My android (meizu) disables fingerprint unlock after entering SOS mode by pressing power button 5 times. It was enabled by default. I dont'know if this applies to all androids. It works for iphone. This method is easier to do without looking at the screen.

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

#546

Post by perl4ever » Sat, Oct 23, 2021, 1:40 AM UTC

torstenvl wrote: post #541

perl4ever wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You are interpreting the phrase specifically in a way as to make it a tautology, rather than responding to the "strongest plausible interpretation" as required by the site guidelines. Currently both anti-social and pro-social individuals possess firearms. If possession of firearms is criminalized, those who tend toward pro-sociality will give them up disproportionately. Such a policy would therefore tilt the balance…

I didn't mean to express that the outcome was good or bad.

And I don't take a position on whether the authorities are grouped with the "anti-social" crowd. Some people would say they are.

Purely for the sake of discussion, I presumed the conceit that there is a "justice system" which is "pro-social".

In that context, it seems clear to me that criminalizing things is a very useful tool.

If you reject the premise, you might be perfectly correct, yet I would still expect people to be addressing those who believe there is a "justice system".

Surely all sensible anarchists can imagine believing in "law and order", and assume that a random person probably does?

Even if one doesn't believe there is a justice system, one might believe there could be. I automatically assume anyone who wants to discuss topics like crime and justice believes in the concepts.

The judgement "obtuse" comes with the sense I have that the context is otherwise violated.

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

#547

Post by avs733 » Sat, Oct 23, 2021, 1:42 AM UTC

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #249

avs733 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the one part of this I will defend is taxpayers footing the bill. Frankly, the government employs cops on our behalf and they act on behalf of the population. This type of behavior is part of the American culture of policing, it is not 'individual bad actors'. We should bear the cost of them acting improperly. I vehemently object to us creating a culture where police are expected to behave in this way but then are pe…

But we didn't employ bad cops... we employed cops, they just turned bad. If I hire a plumber, to fix my sink, and the plumber rapes my neighbor and burns his/her house, why should I pay for the damages? If a cop rapes someone, again, why should I pay?

Because your analogy is faulty. If you call a plumbing company and they send a plumber who nursery’s you, you would damn sure sue the plumbing company. The police would handle the plumber as a criminal matter.

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

#548

Post by bhelkey » Sat, Oct 23, 2021, 2:05 AM UTC

zarzavat wrote: post #430

teh_klev wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, in England and Wales: "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court . Anything you do say may be given in evidence." In Scotland it's different: "You are not obliged to say anything but anything you do say will be noted down and may be used in evidence. Do you understand?"[1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ri…

The English right is much misunderstood. What it is referring to is a situation where you rely on some evidence that you could have fabricated, the prosecution is entitled to point out that you had the opportunity to fabricate it. For example, you claim you were at your friend's house at the time of the crime, but you didn't mention this to the police at the time of the arrest so that they can go and interview your f…

You and the parent comment are referring to the same situation.

> the prosecution is entitled to point out that you had the opportunity to fabricate it.

In the US, the prosecution is NOT entitled to point out that you didn't say this at the scene of the crime.

This is part of what we mean in the US when we say right to remain silent.

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

#549

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Oct 23, 2021, 2:24 AM UTC

perl4ever wrote: post #546

torstenvl wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are interpreting the phrase specifically in a way as to make it a tautology, rather than responding to the "strongest plausible interpretation" as required by the site guidelines. Currently both anti-social and pro-social individuals possess firearms. If possession of firearms is criminalized, those who tend toward pro-sociality will give them up disproportionately. Such a policy would therefore tilt the balance…

I didn't mean to express that the outcome was good or bad. And I don't take a position on whether the authorities are grouped with the "anti-social" crowd. Some people would say they are. Purely for the sake of discussion, I presumed the conceit that there is a "justice system" which is "pro-social". In that context, it seems clear to me that criminalizing things is a very useful tool. If you reject the premise, you…

[deleted]

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

#550

Post by chimeracoder » Sat, Oct 23, 2021, 2:42 AM UTC

pahomov wrote: post #545

chimeracoder wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Android unfortunately doesn't have anything like this enabled by default, and what it allows you to enable is much more limited. Lockdown mode[0] has to be enabled manually (it's hidden deep in setting that most people won't no…

My android (meizu) disables fingerprint unlock after entering SOS mode by pressing power button 5 times. It was enabled by default. I dont'know if this applies to all androids. It works for iphone. This method is easier to do without looking at the screen.

> My android (meizu) disables fingerprint unlock after entering SOS mode by pressing power button 5 times. It was enabled by default. I dont'know if this applies to all androids.

That's your particular phone. It does not apply to most Android phones.