Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

dailygazette.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 160 posts

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#21

Post by jedimastert »

piotrkaminski wrote: post #13

I'm kinda curious how the law would treat a dead man's switch that automatically wipes the phone if you haven't unlocked it for N hours (say, 24 or 48). (Assuming it was set up well before any event that prompted the phone's seizure, of course.) Could they somehow charge you for not warning the police about the auto-wipe when they took your phone? Does the answer change if you were officially under arrest and had a r…

That a good question. I don't know how related it is, but I haven't seen anything about the legality or illegality of warrant canaries[1], so there might be something to it.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#22

Post by r00fus »

reustle wrote: post #7

What if I use the gmail/slack/whatsapp website instead of the app, and remotely log the phone out of google/etc if my device is seized. That way the data was only stored in RAM, and they shouldn't be able to access it once they get into the phone. Does that count as destruction of evidence?

Depend on how easy it is to prove that you did it. For example if you're using 2FA with client specific passwords that all show locked out accounts then it's probable that they could request your access control logs for your 2FA provider.

If only one or two such services were "timed out" then it's going to be harder to prove.

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#23

Post by tedunangst »

piotrkaminski wrote: post #13

I'm kinda curious how the law would treat a dead man's switch that automatically wipes the phone if you haven't unlocked it for N hours (say, 24 or 48). (Assuming it was set up well before any event that prompted the phone's seizure, of course.) Could they somehow charge you for not warning the police about the auto-wipe when they took your phone? Does the answer change if you were officially under arrest and had a r…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoliation_of_evidence

> The jury was instructed that they may find the failure by the store to retain (and subsequently provide to the other party) the additional footage may be considered an attempt to hide evidence that Brookshire Brothers' management knew would be damaging to their case.

Although this may not be settled law.

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#24

Post by klodolph »

vuln wrote: post #12
lisper wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.reynoldskitchens.com/aluminum-foil/

[1] + this kind of pouch. Probably could sell them for at least 100$ a piece. 'battle tested' [1] https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/15479a20-388b-4138-9f8c-1a1...

It would be hard to sell it for $100 if you can buy digital evidence bags for a couple bucks: https://www.arrowheadforensics.com/products/evidence-packagi...

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#25

Post by Nursie »

AndrewDucker wrote: post #10
reustle wrote: post #7

What if I use the gmail/slack/whatsapp website instead of the app, and remotely log the phone out of google/etc if my device is seized. That way the data was only stored in RAM, and they shouldn't be able to access it once they get into the phone. Does that count as destruction of evidence?

If you deliberately do anything which will cause evidence to be placed beyond the reach of law enforcement then you are likely to be hit with charges. You can quibble over technical details, but at some point a judge will be asked if it fits the charge, and make a layman decision, not a programmer's one.

This point seems to get lost so often in these discussions - intent and a judge are involved here.

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#28

Post by null0pointer »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #17

> Monday Update: Suspect in remote phone-wiping case denies wrongdoing, Nov. 12, 2018 > [ https://dailygazette.com/article/2018/11/12/suspect-in-remot... ] > "Our position is that my client didn't access anything to remotely delete anything," Smalls said. "My client wouldn't have any knowledge how to do that." That seems like something pretty easily disproven with a subpoena to Apple for records of whether a remote w…

Yes, there's an option to have your phone auto-wipe after 10 failed unlock attempts. However, I'm not aware of any way to have it auto-wipe by itself after n-days. Getting a new phone and signing into your Apple ID has no effect on the data stored on your old phone.

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#29

Post by gronne »

LogicX wrote: post #19
14 wrote: post #15

Maybe the detective should have to undergo some extra training? Though I guess they probably figured it out by now so no point but I mean seriously? In 2018 you are going to allow this to happen? Outsmarted by someone who sounds like a gangster. This has been an issue for years. I had a friend who was arrested for illegal fishing(5 fish out of season) and they took his phone. He was panicked because he didn't have a…

wait a second, i've seen this before...

elaborate please.

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#30

Post by onetimemanytime »

jedimastert wrote: post #21
piotrkaminski wrote: post #13

I'm kinda curious how the law would treat a dead man's switch that automatically wipes the phone if you haven't unlocked it for N hours (say, 24 or 48). (Assuming it was set up well before any event that prompted the phone's seizure, of course.) Could they somehow charge you for not warning the police about the auto-wipe when they took your phone? Does the answer change if you were officially under arrest and had a r…

That a good question. I don't know how related it is, but I haven't seen anything about the legality or illegality of warrant canaries[1], so there might be something to it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary

So the law says NOT to notify users about secret subpoenas. If you do, no matter how cute you think your method is, IMO, you broke the law. Oh, but just I took a file offline. Nope.

The law can be unjust but that's another thing.

Post reply on HN