Slashdot Mirror
Allegation: Philly Cops Leaned Suspect Over Balcony To Obtain Password
An anonymous reader writes with this news from Ars Technica: If you want access to encrypted data on a drug dealer's digital device, you might try to break the crypto—or you might just try to break the man.
According to testimony from a police corruption trial currently roiling the city of Philadelphia, officers from an undercover drug squad took the latter route back in November 2007. After arresting their suspect, Michael Cascioli, in the hallway outside his 18th floor apartment, the officers took Cascioli back inside. Although they lacked a search warrant, the cops searched Cascioli's rooms anyway. According to a federal indictment (PDF), the officers 'repeatedly assaulted and threatened [Cascioli] during the search to obtain information about the location of money, drugs, and drug suppliers.' That included, according to Cascioli, lifting him over the edge of his balcony to try to frighten out of him the password to his Palm Pilot. That sounds like a good time for a duress password.
According to testimony from a police corruption trial currently roiling the city of Philadelphia, officers from an undercover drug squad took the latter route back in November 2007. After arresting their suspect, Michael Cascioli, in the hallway outside his 18th floor apartment, the officers took Cascioli back inside. Although they lacked a search warrant, the cops searched Cascioli's rooms anyway. According to a federal indictment (PDF), the officers 'repeatedly assaulted and threatened [Cascioli] during the search to obtain information about the location of money, drugs, and drug suppliers.' That included, according to Cascioli, lifting him over the edge of his balcony to try to frighten out of him the password to his Palm Pilot. That sounds like a good time for a duress password.
So what you are saying is that it's up to Hollywood to dictate what is acceptable in society?
They clearly don't have an agenda, right?
Also, stop the nonsense about duress-passwords. They do not work. Really not and no, your smart idea for any movie-like device that makes them work is just that: Movie-like but not real. On the other hand, trying to be smart with a duress password procedure can easily get you killed or worse.
Depends on the threat model.
I always wondered why ATMs didn't have duress passwords. You get mugged, you tell the mugger the password is 1234 instead of 5678, and the ATM happily dispenses money and calls the police for you.
I also don't see any reason why phones can't have duress passwords. You get pulled over by the cops, they try to illegally search your device incident to a traffic stop, you key in 1234 instead of 5678, and the phone starts silently recording and/or streaming live audio/video to the cloud.
The duress password doesn't defend against charges of destruction of evidence. It can be quite useful for defense against power-tripping bullies, whether they're the sort without a badge at the ATM, or the sort with a badge at the side of the road. It only has to last the 5-10 minutes it takes to give the thug what he thinks he wants, and then the thug will let you go.
Duress codes are to mobile devices what exploding dye packs are to banks. The goal is to let the thug get away with the money, but not get away with the crime.
I would say that the primary vice that afflicts humanity is thoughtlessness. A lot of the sort of commonplace, everyday evil that people commit is a result of their failure to reflect on the implications of what they are doing. In many cases, if someone helps them think it through, they will agree that it is evil and reject it. But they will turn around and do the same thing the next day, when nobody is helping them think it through.
People like to see cops be tough on crime. This is because they dislike evil. In hollywood scenarios where this happens, it is known by the audience in advance that the criminal is, for sure, guilty, and in their minds that makes a measure of abuse acceptable. But, if made to think it through, most people will agree that this kind of treatment is not appropriate if the person might be innocent. Some may even go so far as to agree that even criminals should not be treated that way....and in most cases when trying to earn agreement, your barrier is much more their ability to think abstractly and objectively, rather than their sense of fairness.
Of course, these same people will turn around and do something evil if they think that the harm isn't too severe. They will flagrantly violate the golden rule...usually not out of conscious malice but out of an unwillingness (in inability) to reflect on the fact that they are doing this. If they think they can get away with it, they will have an apology prepared before they even act...but this is precisely because they think the harm they are doing is minor (and, if they are wrong, it is usually because they are stupid, not because they are evil).
I still agree with you....there is a lot of raw evil in common human behavior. But I maintain that most (perhaps not all, but I will posit that it is the majority) people do have a sense of fairness and to act on it....but their thoughtlessness makes them fail at it pretty badly.