Sounds like a good reason to use alternatives like GrapheneOS. It doesn't take a big % of users to let the "using it is suspicious by itself" nonsense wear off.
US Government targets Cop City protester over phone operating system
11–20 of 99 posts
Re: US Government targets Cop City protester over phone operating system
#12Talk about burying the lede
Re: US Government targets Cop City protester over phone operating system
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That seems like a clear example of destruction of evidence If he was under arrest, sure. The cops claiming this was a routine airport inspection would seem to muddy the waters, at least.
I don't think the crime of destroying evidence / tampering with evidence depends on what your status in custody is. If the police knock on your front door and you start shredding documents, that's still a crime. Now, could that get tossed about because they denied him access to a lawyer? Maybe, I don't know about that part.
Isn’t the relevant bit whether you think you’re doing crimes and/or being investigated?
If I’m shredding while the cops knock on my door because they’re looking for a missing cat, that’s obviously not criminal. (I guess the more-pertinent comparison would be they knock on my door and then I put stuff in the shredder while I check around my home.)
Re: US Government targets Cop City protester over phone operating system
#14It looks like there are a lot of issues here on the government side, but it also appears like the protestor intentionally gave them a password that, when used, wipes the phone? That seems like a clear example of destruction of evidence.
Re: US Government targets Cop City protester over phone operating system
#15It looks like there are a lot of issues here on the government side, but it also appears like the protestor intentionally gave them a password that, when used, wipes the phone? That seems like a clear example of destruction of evidence.
Re: US Government targets Cop City protester over phone operating system
#16It looks like there are a lot of issues here on the government side, but it also appears like the protestor intentionally gave them a password that, when used, wipes the phone? That seems like a clear example of destruction of evidence.
Technically that means the cops destroyed the evidence. Their investigatory department should be savvy enough to avoid destroying evidence.
> (a) Every person concerned in the commission of a crime is a party thereto and may be charged with and convicted of commission of the crime
>(b) A person is concerned in the commission of a crime only if he: (1) Directly commits the crime; (2) Intentionally causes some other person to commit the crime under such circumstances that the other person is not guilty of any crime either in fact or because of legal incapacity; (3) Intentionally aids or abets in the commission of the crime; or (4) Intentionally advises, encourages, hires, counsels, or procures another to commit the crime
Seems like this is a clear case to me.
Re: US Government targets Cop City protester over phone operating system
#17It looks like there are a lot of issues here on the government side, but it also appears like the protestor intentionally gave them a password that, when used, wipes the phone? That seems like a clear example of destruction of evidence.
> That seems like a clear example of destruction of evidence If he was under arrest, sure. The cops claiming this was a routine airport inspection would seem to muddy the waters, at least.
> A person commits the offense of tampering with evidence when, with the intent to prevent the apprehension or cause the wrongful apprehension of any person or to obstruct the prosecution or defense of any person, he knowingly destroys, alters, conceals, or disguises physical evidence or makes, devises, prepares, or plants false evidence
Re: US Government targets Cop City protester over phone operating system
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think the crime of destroying evidence / tampering with evidence depends on what your status in custody is. If the police knock on your front door and you start shredding documents, that's still a crime. Now, could that get tossed about because they denied him access to a lawyer? Maybe, I don't know about that part.
> If the police knock on your front door and you start shredding documents, that's still a crime Isn’t the relevant bit whether you think you’re doing crimes and/or being investigated? If I’m shredding while the cops knock on my door because they’re looking for a missing cat, that’s obviously not criminal. (I guess the more-pertinent comparison would be they knock on my door and then I put stuff in the shredder while…
Re: US Government targets Cop City protester over phone operating system
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If the police knock on your front door and you start shredding documents, that's still a crime Isn’t the relevant bit whether you think you’re doing crimes and/or being investigated? If I’m shredding while the cops knock on my door because they’re looking for a missing cat, that’s obviously not criminal. (I guess the more-pertinent comparison would be they knock on my door and then I put stuff in the shredder while…
If you shred any evidence of a crime you are guilty of a crime regardless if the police ever knock at your door or you think you are being investigated if you have the intent "to prevent the apprehension or cause the wrongful apprehension of any person or to obstruct the prosecution or defense of any person, he knowingly destroys, alters, conceals, or disguises physical evidence or makes, devises, prepares, or plants…
Deletion to protect privacy does not prove deletion to prevent apprehension.
I could believe that everything is wholly innocent, but wish to protect privacy regardless.
Re: US Government targets Cop City protester over phone operating system
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you shred any evidence of a crime you are guilty of a crime regardless if the police ever knock at your door or you think you are being investigated if you have the intent "to prevent the apprehension or cause the wrongful apprehension of any person or to obstruct the prosecution or defense of any person, he knowingly destroys, alters, conceals, or disguises physical evidence or makes, devises, prepares, or plants…
You're jumping to conclusions. Deletion to protect privacy does not prove deletion to prevent apprehension. I could believe that everything is wholly innocent, but wish to protect privacy regardless.