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

601–610 of 615 posts

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

#601

Post by pdimitar »

1123581321 wrote: post #600
pdimitar wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you clarify on the "I'm skeptical" part, please? It's like, I have nothing to do today, oh I know, I'll just come to HN and lie about experiences with cops. Is that what you're implying?

I’m skeptical that you’ve sampled a good cross-section of experiences. It sounds like you exposed yourself to a high volume of anecdotes from a narrow category of respondents. You may also have been exposed to liars or exaggerations; you yourself aren’t lying. Hopefully that’s stated directly enough for you.

It's your right to be skeptical -- although I can't fathom why. I got nothing better to do, I'm here specifically to mislead you.

Heh, okay.

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

#602

Post by wolverine876 »

1123581321 wrote: post #586
wolverine876 wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't know about Kim Foxx, but others in the new wave of DAs have certainly made vast changes.

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

#603

Post by 1123581321 »

pdimitar wrote: post #601
1123581321 wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m skeptical that you’ve sampled a good cross-section of experiences. It sounds like you exposed yourself to a high volume of anecdotes from a narrow category of respondents. You may also have been exposed to liars or exaggerations; you yourself aren’t lying. Hopefully that’s stated directly enough for you.

It's your right to be skeptical -- although I can't fathom why. I got nothing better to do, I'm here specifically to mislead you. Heh, okay.

Again, to be clear, I think you’re misled; you’re communicating sincerely.

As to why any of us are here, fair question!

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

#604

Post by pdimitar »

1123581321 wrote: post #603
pdimitar wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's your right to be skeptical -- although I can't fathom why. I got nothing better to do, I'm here specifically to mislead you. Heh, okay.

Again, to be clear, I think you’re misled; you’re communicating sincerely. As to why any of us are here, fair question!

We all judge by what we see. Obviously that's never the whole truth -- that much has always been true. So I never claimed to have the whole truth of the situation; of course I don't, it would be hugely naive for me to claim otherwise.

My general stance basically is "don't look at what's written, look at what people can do and get away with it because that's exactly what most people will do".

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

#605

Post by aspenmayer »

perl4ever wrote: post #598
aspenmayer wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Inalienable rights are an abstract idea that can't exist. You left out the first part, where I said “in practice.” As in, it should never occur that our human rights are able to be circumvented, curtailed, or allowed to be violated. That our rights are violated in practice, in reality, is bad and should not happen, and proves that we must act as if inalienable rights are not some platonic ideal, but a lived reality…

>You left out the first part, where I said “in practice.” Yes, that's what I was addressing. I am saying that "in practice" doesn't work as a modifier, because being "inalienable" is an abstract quality which does not pertain to real things or events. Like "happy" applied to sand, or "green" applied to thoughts.

I address this when I say that rights are that which is claimed, by force if necessary. That’s what keeps the entire nation intact, folks and institutions, and legal systems are just an extension of the threat of force, and the system has now bent back on itself like an ouroboros. Rights are never given. They are taken from those who would deny them us. It’s an affirmative claim about your belief system in society to say you believe in inalienable rights. It’s patriotic to believe in this common goal, in my opinion.

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

#606

Post by mschuster91 »

xadhominemx wrote: post #431
mschuster91 wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Worst comes to worst, you just refuse to unlock your device and they deport you back to where you came from. Who says they won't image my device using yet-unknown zero day exploits, or that I get it back at all? And I'd still be out thousands of dollars in travel costs.

Why would they waste a zero day exploit on you?

These days, zero-days come in packaged as a Cellebrite forensic imager on airports. Hell, Germany is doing that on refugees (https://netzpolitik.org/2020/gefluechtete-klagen-gegen-das-a...).

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

#607

Post by xadhominemx »

mschuster91 wrote: post #606
xadhominemx wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would they waste a zero day exploit on you?

These days, zero-days come in packaged as a Cellebrite forensic imager on airports. Hell, Germany is doing that on refugees ( https://netzpolitik.org/2020/gefluechtete-klagen-gegen-das-a... ).

So in other words, not a zero day

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

#608

Post by charlieo88 »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #589
steelframe wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

iPhone 7 plus runing 15.0.2, my biometrics unlock was disabled until I put in the password.

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

#609

Post by oohaargh »

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.

It really isn't exactly how it works though - correct me where I'm going wrong here, because I've just read all these responses and feel I must be going insane.

The ideology is that human beings ought to have some intrinsic rights. The Bill of Rights is an attempt to codify those rights in the context of how _the US government_ can interact with people (regardless of their citizenship).

The idea that a UK citizen has these rights by default because they're in the US Bill of Rights, and can then have these rights deprived of them _by their own government_ is the part of this that is hilariously American. Of course, if it was the US government taking the action then that would be a different story altogether, but the US isn't involved at any point

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

#610

Post by oohaargh »

clarkmoody wrote: post #508
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

Well the idea originates with John Locke and other European Enlightenment thinkers... Locke himself was English, so it's a real shame to see the state of human rights in the UK in 2021.

The English have done alright for philosophers, but I'm not sure human rights have ever been a particularly strong suit in the UK. Sadly it's not looking like improving any time soon
Post reply on HN