Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect they were alluding to Hillary's email server scandal.
Or the Georgia election server under Brian Kemp’s control https://apnews.com/877ee1015f1c43f1965f63538b035d3f
AND the two backup servers.
Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone
141–150 of 160 posts
Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
The described intent is definitely to get in the way, but it's not to destroy anything. "Intent and a judge are involved" is not a magic answer.
No, but it's a binding answer, and when you get before a judge you don't want to be caught splitting hairs.
Figuring out if it's a crime, and which crime, is usually not splitting hairs.
Getting caught is less than half of the equation.
Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
I bet saying the magic words "my phone is impounded by the police, please wipe my phone" would be. But, assuming the suspect is telling the truth and assuming an apple employee disassociated the suspect's phone from their icloud account, let's also assume the suspect lied to the apple employee. "I lost my phone and need a new one." "Your phone is lost? Let me disassociate your old and and help you set your new one up…
>Is it acceptable to accidentally destroy evidence? Theoretically no. In practice it's murkier. If you're a cop? Definitely not acceptable on paper but you'll get a slap on the wrist at best. If you're OJ Simpson and can afford a good lawyer? You will probably be found not-guilty. Peasants like you or I? They'll throw the book and something will stick. Edit: Am I being down-voted for being blunt or because reality ma…
I didn’t downvote you, but I think you were downvoted because the post you were replying to was asking a legal/ethical question about whether it’s acceptable to accidentally destroy evidence in general, and you gave an unsupported answer and then veered off into a discussion of whether the law is applied to all people fairly.
Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone
#144Earlier 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…
I think it's a bit strong to conclude that if a judge disagrees with you on this topic it is activism. This is relatively untested/uncharted legal territory and, at least in the US, it is complex. For places like Australia that have no guaranteed first amendment rights, I would agree that it is much more cut and dry because there are other laws already in place that can limit your speech through due process. The same…
Thank you for this post. People seem to be treating warrant canaries as a sort of “gotcha!” defense that no judge would take seriously, but you’ve given a good explanation of why it’s not.
Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone
#145Howdy, 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…
Do the police simply not turn the phone off bc then it can’t be hacked?
Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone
#146Howdy, 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…
How about the threat of a 3rd party _adding_ information to a device? That sounds like another threat if someone wants to frame a suspect (i.e. another reason why devices should be placed in Faraday bags)
Interesting, if I were an attorney I would try to argue that chain of custody is broken if the device is still accepting remote commands. I wonder if it would work in court?
Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone
#147Howdy, 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…
How do you get into digital forensics dev? Seems like an interesting field.
I was laid off from a startup at the bitter, wretched end of the dotcom bust in the spring of 2003. Another company two blocks from my apartment in Pasadena, CA was hiring C++ engineers, and I was lucky enough to join Guidance Software to work on EnCase. It's a fun field: bits and bytes, a whole lot of 'em, and the requirement for perfection.
Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone
#148Howdy, 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…
They don't need a Farday cage. They can remove the SIM.
Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone
#149But who wiped the data anyway? Apple - sure she asked them to, but apple did it.
But then if it was Apple who deleted, does it raise the question that they(Apple) didn't check if the data being deleted was evidence or not?
You can’t expect Apple to do an investigation of every phone they wipe at a customer’s request. What about Google Docs? Even if the user clicks the “delete” button, Google performs the physical act of deletion. So should clicking that button trigger a pop-up with the message, “Deletion will occur once we’ve verified that you are not under investigation by the authorities in your jurisdiction”? Or should it silently send the “deleted” document to an archive that Google must maintain indefinitely for the purpose of responding to subpoenas?
Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe the GDPR allows a company to refuse (or delay) processing your request to delete their data about you if they have a legitimate reason, and being legally obligated to hold onto that data is one of the legitimate reasons. However, GDPR is a big law and I am not a European lawyer (I am neither, in fact), so I'm curious if my understanding is wrong. What section of GDPR are you thinking of and what exceptions…
The GDPR regulation has some exceptions for legal requests and generally puts itself below local laws and regulations that specify further, to my knowledge, if you get a letter from the police/state that says some data is needed for a court case, you can safely ignore all deletion requests for that data until such time that the state/police request is no longer valid (ie, they copied it off your server). However, onc…
This again raises the issue of speech vs absence of speech. What if a cloud provider has applications that confirm deletions that are initiated by the user? A secret warrant prohibits disclosure of the warrant’s existence, but now we’re talking about a requirement to actively lie to users. I really don’t think that this hair-splitting.