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

91–100 of 160 posts

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#91

Post by SiempreViernes »

onetimemanytime wrote: post #66
SiempreViernes wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm not saying there is no legitimate reason for having that system, but if you reset the switch while knowingly having evidence on your phone then letting it triggering after being arrested is intentionally destroying evidence.

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#92

Post by gambiting »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #78
gambiting wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How is it not?

"detect the lack of any electromagnetic field paired with no vibrations at all and colder temperature"

You go hiking far outside of civilization and go to sleep in a tent, there are no electromagnetic fields around you at all(that the phone can detect anyway), there are no vibrations at all, and the temperature is cold because the phone is not on your body.

Or for a slightly more realistic example - I stayed with a friend recently who lives in a house from the 12th century - walls in there are about a meter thick, in certain rooms there is absolutely zero reception from any network, wifi doesn't penetrate at all. The no vibrations and low temperature points also apply there.

What am I missing that the post apparently said?

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#93

Post by iamnothere »

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.

Wouldn't this mean that measures to protect your data from other adversaries (criminals or competitors) would be illegal as well? Unless, of course, "intent" is determined solely by the fact that I am or am not a criminal. But in an age of overcriminalization, where you can indict a ham sandwich if you need to, anyone could be considered a criminal if the government takes enough of an interest in your activities. This would mean that everyone who takes reasonable security precautions is at risk of stacked charges for "destruction of evidence"! Not a great situation to be in for journalists and dissidents.

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#94

Post by jonstewart »

Howdy, 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 charged the girlfriend with evidence tampering as a felony, and then the prosecutor has legal leverage to get her to testify against her boyfriend and take a gun off the street; 3) no amount of technical argumentation will save you from a prosecutor, judge, or jury if you do something that causes spoiliation of evidence—when your company is sued and your business systems are preserved/collected as a result, don’t even think about getting in the way.

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#95

Post by 14 »

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...

Not really sure what you mean by that? I also knew my opinion would be unpopular here on HN, perhaps it was my tone I'm not sure, but really if I was the family of a murder victim and the detectives lost incriminating evidence on the phone in this way I would be upset. This has been in the news many times. We know better then that and in my opinion the detective screwed up. It appears almost everyone here knows about faraday cages it is common knowledge. So why did this happen again in 2018? Have a good day everyone

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#96

Post by [deleted] »

CathyWest wrote: post #58
cyphar wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fr…

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…

[deleted]

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#97

Post by jki275 »

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.

I'm pretty sure you have to tell it specifically to do that. I've done it a couple of times and don't recall ever just having it "happen" when I removed the phone from my Apple ID -- I think it was an option you could select to have it remote wiped.

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#98

Post by AndrewDucker »

iamnothere wrote: post #93
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.

Wouldn't this mean that measures to protect your data from other adversaries (criminals or competitors) would be illegal as well? Unless, of course, "intent" is determined solely by the fact that I am or am not a criminal. But in an age of overcriminalization, where you can indict a ham sandwich if you need to, anyone could be considered a criminal if the government takes enough of an interest in your activities. Thi…

The question is - have you, realising that you are under police investigation, attempted to destroy information which that investigation is interested in.

Not "Do you have a lock on your phone" or even "Do you have a lock on your phone which causes it to self-wipe after 5 incorrect password attempts" but "Did you, when you realised the police were on to you, deliberately wipe some data to stop you getting into trouble."

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#99

Post by jki275 »

gambiting wrote: post #92
Dylan16807 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not what the post says, thanks.

How is it not? "detect the lack of any electromagnetic field paired with no vibrations at all and colder temperature" You go hiking far outside of civilization and go to sleep in a tent, there are no electromagnetic fields around you at all(that the phone can detect anyway), there are no vibrations at all, and the temperature is cold because the phone is not on your body. Or for a slightly more realistic example - I…

He's suggesting some sensor checks, not giving a total framework to account for every edge case. If you were to implement something like this, you would take many cases, including edge cases, into account.

Re: Destruction of evidence charges filed for remotely wiping iPhone

#100

Post by marvin »

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.

Fascinating how this varies between nations and cultures. In Norwegian case law, refusing to explain yourself can be considered indirect evidence of guilt.

I remember a report from a recent Norwegian criminal trial, where the judge himself warned the accused that refusing to give an explanation could reflect badly on the question of whether she was guilty or not.

Post reply on HN