111–120 of 160 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not in America
Well, not if you're physically located in in the U.S. at the tome, but the GDPR effects non-EU businesses and governments as long as the person involved is an EU citizen.
In what court would you bring a case against the United States under the GDPR?
Howdy, digital forensics software developer here. A few points: 1) yes, the police probably should have put the phone in a Faraday bag, but those aren’t perfect and municipal law enforcement generally doesn’t have the same equipment that state and federal police do. It doesn’t excuse the suspect allegedly taking action to destroy evidence; 2) this is probably about the boyfriend, who they suspect committed a shooting…
Powerful people seem to get away with this....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And everytime you put the phone in a safe, it gets wiped...
Why would you put your phone in a safe? Are the chances of it being stolen really that high?
Howdy, digital forensics software developer here. A few points: 1) yes, the police probably should have put the phone in a Faraday bag, but those aren’t perfect and municipal law enforcement generally doesn’t have the same equipment that state and federal police do. It doesn’t excuse the suspect allegedly taking action to destroy evidence; 2) this is probably about the boyfriend, who they suspect committed a shooting…
> no amount of technical argumentation will save you from a prosecutor, judge, or jury if you do something that causes spoiliation of evidence Powerful people seem to get away with this....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Schneier is right. Warrant canaries are just another side of the same coin as the sovereign citizen movement. Word games and magical thinking is not going to fool any judges. While I do think secret warrants are unjust most of the time (and nobody can verify that they are justly applied when applied), the intent of the law is obviously to not let anyone know about the warrant, if you do you have broken the law regard…
Maybe, though I would say that it is odd that some companies (who presumably have legal council) have decided to implement warrant canaries. Quite a few have "activated" them, though it's quite possible some lawyer told them to knock it off. It is at least a little less crazy than arguing that you are a free inhabitant and that you don't need a drivers' license. In Australia we have an explicit law which makes it ill…
Warrant canaries are an effective PR move irrespective of the legality of tripping them. They only stop working as a PR move if you don't trip them after getting a secret warrant and that warrant later becomes non-secret.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would argue that you brought yourself in this mess. The only valid reason for having a canary is to evade the requirements of the law, so you can't complain. It's an argument, I'm no fan of secret orders or the government telling you to lie or keep quiet.
Fundamental rights generally override "you got yourself into this mess", don't they?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe, though I would say that it is odd that some companies (who presumably have legal council) have decided to implement warrant canaries. Quite a few have "activated" them, though it's quite possible some lawyer told them to knock it off. It is at least a little less crazy than arguing that you are a free inhabitant and that you don't need a drivers' license. In Australia we have an explicit law which makes it ill…
> Maybe, though I would say that it is odd that some companies (who presumably have legal council) have decided to implement warrant canaries Warrant canaries are an effective PR move irrespective of the legality of tripping them. They only stop working as a PR move if you don't trip them after getting a secret warrant and that warrant later becomes non-secret.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Does the answer change if you were officially under arrest and had a right to remain silent? Being formally under arrest doesn't affect whether you have the right to remain silent. It affects whether the police are required to tell you that you do.
Fascinating how this varies between nations and cultures. In Norwegian case law, refusing to explain yourself can be considered indirect evidence of guilt. I remember a report from a recent Norwegian criminal trial, where the judge himself warned the accused that refusing to give an explanation could reflect badly on the question of whether she was guilty or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> no amount of technical argumentation will save you from a prosecutor, judge, or jury if you do something that causes spoiliation of evidence Powerful people seem to get away with this....
Such as?