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

581–590 of 615 posts

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

#581

Post by q1w2 »

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.

This is the way the system works. You can call it corruption - but words don't matter. Most judges and most prosecutors function like this.

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

#582

Post by nullc »

kingcharles wrote: post #542
nullc wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

Yeah, I think I wouldn't have remembered the story except for you mentioning Illinois!

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

#583

Post by perl4ever »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #567
perl4ever wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The status quo is likely to always be some sort of local maxima/minima. No, that's still not true.

If people can make small changes independently to get to a better state, what accounts for them not doing so?

I can't believe it if I can't imagine it, and if you think it's possible, you should share how.

I think this is a dispute over semantics. It's not very productive to argue whether something is true or false when people define terms differently. Better to explain how you define them.

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

#584

Post by perl4ever »

esarbe wrote: post #578
perl4ever wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of elections only have one candidate.

Because the voters have accepted the representatives that chose them.

The people do not choose to have one option. The candidates decide to run or not!

Have you ever belonged to a club or nonprofit or something? Often they are begging people to run for office unopposed. If nobody wants to, you can't force them. People who do want to, eventually get tired or die and then it can be kind of a crisis to find a replacement.

It's similar in small local political races. If you don't vote every year, you might not have noticed?

Sometimes the incumbent goes unchallenged, and sometimes there is a challenger that is obviously not serious, but at the same time, the incumbent has a lot of murky dealings and connections that make it hard to have enthusiasm.

I only vote if there is a choice, but the "choice" is usually the incumbent in a de facto one-party government.

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

#585

Post by perl4ever »

aspenmayer wrote: post #577
perl4ever wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> You're saying that inalienable rights might exist, depending on US policy? Yes, in practice if not in principle or statute. American citizens and their citizen children have been murdered by drones without a jury trial or public hearing, or much of any due process which may be examined by the public openly. We take the US at their word when we say inalienable rights exist, but their behavior suggests that the US do…

>rights are not only what are claimed, but that which can be exercised freely and without undue restraint

You can use a word to mean multiple things, but you have to be clear and consistent in using one meaning at a time and differentiating the context.

>In practice, inalienable rights don’t exist. This should change in my view.

Inalienable rights are an abstract idea that can't exist.

Rights that were never violated could not be conceived of as rights, like "hot" wouldn't have any meaning if there wasn't "cold".

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

#586

Post by 1123581321 »

wolverine876 wrote: post #513
cyphertruck wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Cook County, mate. Kim Foxx marketed herself as a reformer but nothing is changing for people trapped in its judiciary system. And despite a few recent changes the party still controls its candidates well enough that it only needs to present two manageable options in the primary.

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

#587

Post by 1123581321 »

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

I’m trying but I don’t understand your comment. Are you saying inalienable rights are an American idea? The US imported that idea.

Or are you saying that it’s bad that they have to be spelled out in the Constitution? Many of the original founders agreed with this and were concerned that the Bill of Rights would create a negative space consisting of every unlisted right, in which the government could reduce rights with impunity. (It turns out that essentially happened due to the unfortunate wording of the inter-state commerce clause.)

If you mean it’s weird that the Constitution is federal, yes, that’s due to the unusual circumstances surrounding the formation of the United States. Each state also has its own constitution where variations of these rights, and others, is repeated.

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

#588

Post by 1123581321 »

pdimitar wrote: post #287
rootusrootus wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yeah. USA has a really strong propaganda system and it's a shame that even on HN, where people should be more critical thinkers, this is not widely recognized. OTOH, I recommend strongly you consider how strong the anti-US propaganda is online, including on places like Reddit and HN. It's an entire art form now, how to be critical of the US in every possible way. Whether it's cops, health care, or imperial measurem…

> The reality in the US is much different than portrayed on here, and you ought to be aware of that. I agree and I admit I've never even been there. But even when chatting with Americans -- here included -- the culture and thinking differences are immediately apparent. I don't actively seek out any anti-anything propaganda, and started disengaging myself from political discussions lately (this thread is the shameful…

It’s probable that many of those interactions are omitting important information or are exaggerating: the conversational equivalent of an affluent white teenager walking past a friendly cop with his hands over his head, which I’ve seen multiple times.

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

#589

Post by jakelazaroff »

steelframe wrote: post #487
mekal wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Also running iOS 15.0.2. This did not disable biometric unlock. Don’t mess with Siri, just hold down the power button and either volume button simultaneously for a few seconds.

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

#590

Post by pdimitar »

1123581321 wrote: post #588
pdimitar wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reality in the US is much different than portrayed on here, and you ought to be aware of that. I agree and I admit I've never even been there. But even when chatting with Americans -- here included -- the culture and thinking differences are immediately apparent. I don't actively seek out any anti-anything propaganda, and started disengaging myself from political discussions lately (this thread is the shameful…

It’s probable that many of those interactions are omitting important information or are exaggerating: the conversational equivalent of an affluent white teenager walking past a friendly cop with his hands over his head, which I’ve seen multiple times.

Not in my case. The people who told me the stories were well-established adults who very rarely lose their cool (but some cops have a way to piss you off so they can then justify their violence towards you).

So a good general suggestion from your side but doesn't apply to what I've heard and experienced.

Post reply on HN