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

61–70 of 160 posts

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#61

Post by cesarb »

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…

There's already a weak version of this, in that most phones which have biometric authentication stop accepting it if the phone hasn't been unlocked for a few days.

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#62

Post by cesarb »

manicdee wrote: post #39
null0pointer wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Removing a phone that was previously associated with your Apple ID will remotely erase the device. You will get an email confirming the erasure the next time the device is turned on.

Assuming the suspect is telling the truth, that's probably what happened. And it might not even have been the suspect herself; a store employee helping her set up her new phone might have helpfully removed her "lost" phone from her account.

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#63

Post by zaarn »

sudhirj wrote: post #34
onetimemanytime wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you've updated it 45 times and the time you "forgot" to update coincided with the time you got the secret order?

Isn’t there a free speech aspect to canaries? Can the court force someone to publicly tell an explicit lie?

A NSL or similar already prevents you from saying something and limits your free speech.

The court will, either way, not be impressed by someone communicating that they got a warrant by not communicating in a previously arranged manner (this is basically communicating in a code language).

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#64

Post by zaarn »

geofft wrote: post #50
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…

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, once they have the data (and after asking the forensics team if it's okay) you can certainly follow up on the request and it's probably good manners to inform people that there is a legal obligation holding up the deletion of some data (unless the warrant prohibits that).

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#65

Post by Joeri »

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

Further down the wikipedia page there’s a link to moxie marlinspike saying warrant canaries don’t work because not updating them is legally the same as disclosing you’ve received a secret warrant. In other words, you have to lie in your canary or violate the warrant.

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#66

Post by onetimemanytime »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #60
onetimemanytime wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Could they somehow charge you for not warning the police about the auto-wipe when they took your phone? They might charge but "I was arrested, my mind was going nuts...was setup a long time ago, never hit my mind" etc etc. You need to be doing it on purpose and knowingly.

Well, unless you never needed to reset the switch while you kept evidence on the phone, you have demonstrated that you are aware of the system and actively worked to keep it running. That a system you knowingly and on purpose set up to destroy evidence then worked exactly as intended once arrested isn't a defence. You are probably better off just pretending it got bricked by some random software update.

>>That a system you knowingly and on purpose set up to destroy evidence then worked exactly as intended once arrested isn't a defence.

Thieves also steal phones, not everyone is El Chappo's #2 guy

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#68

Post by rv-de »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #49
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.

In Germany - and I assume in the States as well - being a witness will place much more legal duties on you than being a suspect. A witness for example can be obligated to give testimony. Which is why police sometimes intentionally declares a suspect a witness.

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#69

Post by rv-de »

umvi wrote: post #2

I guess the police will learn to put the phone in a Faraday cage as soon as it's seized

With regards to the scene from "Snowden" where he places the phones in a micro wave oven. I was surprised to find that this doesn't work - at least not with my grandma's oven.

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#70

Post by mirimir »

cesarb wrote: post #62
manicdee wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Removing a phone that was previously associated with your Apple ID will remotely erase the device. You will get an email confirming the erasure the next time the device is turned on.

Assuming the suspect is telling the truth, that's probably what happened. And it might not even have been the suspect herself; a store employee helping her set up her new phone might have helpfully removed her "lost" phone from her account.

OK, then, does telling the Apple Store that you lost your phone, when it was in fact impounded by police, constitute evidence destruction? I can see how it might.
Post reply on HN