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

71–80 of 160 posts

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#71

Post by squarefoot »

chii wrote: post #52
squarefoot wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One possible countermeasure: detect the lack of any electromagnetic field paired with no vibrations at all and colder temperature, ergo the phone isn't in someone's pocket in a no reception area but very likely was put in a shielded box. Phone sensors can reveal a lot of what is happening around them.

And everytime you put the phone in a safe, it gets wiped...

If it's your safe, then the phone very likely could detect its position very near to it before being screened so it can temporarily disable the automatic wipe. That includes your bank or some relatives safe of course. As I wrote, sensors can be used to detect various conditions, including accidents. Vibration, temperature, field, orientation, position and dynamic variations of the above all can be used to extrapolate data about what is happening outside the phone. Don't take me to the letter, of course an automatic wipe of the phone should take into account a huge number of false positives before kicking in. That's a field where AI could play a role in profiling users even without accessing audio, video and other personal data.

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#75

Post by sovietmudkipz »

mirimir wrote: post #70
cesarb wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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. What's your icloud username, email or phone number?"

Assuming the suspect knew disassociation meant data deletion on their old phone, is it up to the suspect to prevent this from happening? It seems pretty close to invoking the magic words I started out with, especially if this was the suspect's intent going into the store.

Now assuming the suspect didn't know, and he did not intent to delete data from his old phone... Now what? Is it acceptable to accidentally destroy evidence? Spoliation of evidence suggests a guilty conscience, but in this case it was an accident.

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#76

Post by whatshisface »

chii wrote: post #52
squarefoot wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One possible countermeasure: detect the lack of any electromagnetic field paired with no vibrations at all and colder temperature, ergo the phone isn't in someone's pocket in a no reception area but very likely was put in a shielded box. Phone sensors can reveal a lot of what is happening around them.

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?

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#77

Post by Dylan16807 »

Nursie wrote: post #25
AndrewDucker wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#78

Post by Dylan16807 »

gambiting wrote: post #59
chii wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And everytime you put the phone in a safe, it gets wiped...

Or if you go hiking in the middle of nowhere with no signal, the phone wipes itself. Very useful thanks.

That is not what the post says, thanks.

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#79

Post by dogma1138 »

rv-de wrote: post #68
thaumasiotes wrote: post #49

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.

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.

In the US you have the 5th amendment which means you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself witnesses that may incriminate themselves would get an immunity deal before taking the stand the only time where you cannot invoke the 5th is during cross when you agreed to testify.

Under certain cases in which your testimony cannot be used against you the court can compel you to testify if you refuse then you can be charged with contempt a common case for this would be a court ordering a reporter to disclose their source.

But the prosecution classifying a defendant as a witness would not fly.

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#80

Post by Dylan16807 »

onetimemanytime wrote: post #54
sudhirj wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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?
Post reply on HN