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

41–50 of 160 posts

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#41

Post by Johnny555 »

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…

That seems like something pretty easily disproven with a subpoena to Apple for records of whether a remote wipe command was issued, no?

But who wiped it? Was it her or her boyfriend or some other friend that though that she lost her phone? Or did she tell the Apple store that she lost her phone, and they wiped it as a "courtesy"?

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#42

Post by uiri »

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?

It is probably similar to the police seizing your keys or combinations for locks to a storage unit and you changing the lock on the storage unit.

The police can just go to google or slack with a warrant to get the evidence. The physical equivalent would be going to the storage unit proprietor and cutting the lock.

IANAL but I would expect it to count as "hindering a police investigation", obstruction of justice, or something similar.

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#43

Post by TeMPOraL »

klodolph wrote: post #24
vuln wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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...

Put a "5G-ready!" sticker on it, and you're back in business.

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#44

Post by cyphar »

onetimemanytime wrote: post #30
jedimastert wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not how warrant canaries work, though there is no case law I'm aware of that determines whether or not they are actually legal.

The idea is that you have a message you update regularly to specify whether you have received an NSL -- you never delete the latest version. If you get an NSL you comply by doing nothing (and by your inactivity you've signalled that the warrant canary was tripped). There is a valid freedom-of-speech question (at least in the US) about whether you can be compelled to continue updating the message -- you can be forced to be silent but can you be forced to proactively lie when the NSL forced you to be silent?

Though, of course, they could subpoena the signing key for the canary and destroying the key would be destruction of evidence. A quorum system for signing might be more robust against this, but I have my doubts.

And of course quite a few folks think that warrant canaries wouldn't work in any case[1].

[1]: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/03/australia_out...

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#45

Post by yardstick »

6nf wrote: post #31
onetimemanytime wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But I didnt even take a file offline. I just forgot to update it.

I’d expect a court to find against this in the same way it would find against someone communicating the information in a foreign language. It’s the intent and how you use the file that matters to them.

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#47

Post by cyphar »

yardstick wrote: post #45
6nf wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I didnt even take a file offline. I just forgot to update it.

I’d expect a court to find against this in the same way it would find against someone communicating the information in a foreign language. It’s the intent and how you use the file that matters to them.

The sticking point is whether you can be compelled to proactively lie by an NSL (when an NSL is actually a gag order, preventing you from talking about NSLs), given freedom-of-speech in the US. But quite a few people agree with you that courts probably wouldn't care about this level of pedantry[1].

[1]: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/03/australia_out...

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#49

Post by thaumasiotes »

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…

> 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.

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#50

Post by geofft »

sbhn wrote: post #46

But GDPR says I can delete my data, I’m confused

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 does it have?
Post reply on HN