Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Allegation: Philly Cops Leaned Suspect Over Balcony To Obtain Password

Posted by timothy on from the forget-it-jake-it's-the-city-of-brotherly-love dept.

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.

23 of 225 comments (clear)

  1. Done in movies... by mi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I remember it being done in a few movies — by the good guys — without anybody in the audience cringing. Nor do I remember any calls to boycott a movie over such things.

    So, if popular culture approves of and encourages it, can't blame the cops too much for doing it despite it being merely illegal...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Done in movies... by jklovanc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Some of of can tell the difference between fiction and reality. They get away with lots of things in movies that are not acceptable in real life.

    2. Re:Done in movies... by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We have been well trained that it is OK for the good guys to bend the rules to stop the bad guys. Of course how can you be you are the good guys? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    3. Re:Done in movies... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You seem to be under the illusion that people in general act on a moral, principled basis in all (or even most) aspects of life.

      You are sadly mistaken and delusional if you think that.

      You haven't spent nearly enough time around people if you are expecting moral condemnation from most movie goers.

      People are, not nearly as deep down as we'd like to think, complete fucking barbarians. And don't ever forget it.

      Most people don't commit crimes for fear of punishment, not because they morally object. On balance, the human race is far more amoral than people like to believe.

      And anything which relies on the inherent goodness of humans is probably useless. Because humans aren't inherently good.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:Done in movies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, if popular culture approves of and encourages it, can't blame the cops too much for doing it despite it being merely illegal...

      Yes, we can. Police shouldn't receive their training from works of entertainment any more than doctors or lawyers should.

      When you watch ER, House, the Practice, Better Call Saul, you'd never take it seriously if you were a member of those professions.

      Might as well take Japanese anime as lessons in history.

    5. Re:Done in movies... by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are loved and help is available.

      LOL, aww, that's sweet.

      Honestly, it's not a cry for help or expression of despair.

      People can be, and frequently are, good people. But in the aggregate, I don't ascribe "goodness" to humans -- especially when nobody is looking.

      As a species we're capable of a lot of good. But we're also capable of a lot of other stuff.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    6. Re:Done in movies... by Rakarra · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry, I fail to see, how mere racism [forward.com] or sexism [femitup.com] can lead to a boycott, while abuse of a suspect gets a pass. And not just once either!

      Because, in the US, many Americans are fine with the idea that doing bad things to bad people in pursuit of a good goal is a-ok.

      Jack Bauer could get away with torturing a guy because Jack Bauer was right, he was not corrupt, he fighting for the good guys, and the guy he was torturing was trying to hide details on some terrorist attack. That's easy to screenwrite for. The problem is that in real life, often the people who think they are right and good actually aren't, they torture the wrong person, and there are unintended consequences.

    7. Re:Done in movies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    8. Re:Done in movies... by mark-t · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hanging a person over a balcony with an implied threat to let them fall is quite definitely qualifies as a threat against a person's life, and that *IS* illegal. Even if no "permanent" harm was done, their actions fail on points 5, 6, 7, and 9 in The Ethics Scoreboard list of ethics fallacies.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    9. Re:Done in movies... by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You think Hollywood invented it? Are you horribly naive?

      Maybe they didn't invent it, but the sure as heck made it socially acceptable in the minds of the masses.

    10. Re:Done in movies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >Most people don't commit crimes for fear of punishment, not because they morally object.

      I agree. But that's because most crimes are completely disconnected from anything that resembles morals. Some examples:

        - Making moonshine for yourself
        - Having a beer while fixing your car, or, for that matter, having a beer in the backseat while someone drives
        - Having consensual sex at 17 with another 17 year old
        - Shopping/opening on Holy Days (spelling intentional) (Outside the USA this is often illegal)
        - Swearing in public
        - Selling booze (in places where only the state may sell it)
        - Smoking a joint at home
        - Giving a cigarette to a 20 year old
        - Giving a beer to a 20 year old
        - Refusing to pay child support to a 24 year old (Outside the USA 25 years is the cutoff if the "child" chooses to attend university)
        - Choosing to receive compensation for sexual activity as an independent occupation
        - Drinking unpasteurized milk

      I could go on... I'm an atheist, and I can assure you, there are things that *aren't* crimes that I would not do because I believe they're immoral but not illegal. And, occasionally, the law actually does align with my moral beliefs (for example, murder, assault, and rape).

      >Because humans aren't inherently good.

      I believe they are, the issue is that we expect humans to be "good" in impossible situations, such as when "good" has no moral reasoning behind it (see the list above), or when "good" causes more danger (eg: Attempting the speed limit on a road that regularly sees nobody going at the limit or less than it--Stretches of the busiest highway in North America are actually like this).

    11. Re:Done in movies... by ultranova · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So what you are saying is that it's up to Hollywood to dictate what is acceptable in society?

      How do you learn what is acceptable in a society? By watching people do stuff and get praised or reviled for it. What does Hollywood do? Show people doing stuff and get labeled heroes or villains. They're an efficient propaganda machine, for good or ill.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    12. Re:Done in movies... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If murder were legalised most people would not start murdering. Most people don't commit serious crimes because of morality. Minor crimes, especially victimless ones, are another matter because there are fewer moral qualms.

      Fear of being caught tends to come far down the list. A long time ago in England almost all crimes carried the death sentence. 10 year old children were hung for stealing. It didn't really reduce the crime rate. If anything it just made people driven to crime by poverty more likely to murder the police trying to catch them, since death was certain anyway.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    13. Re:Done in movies... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Capable isn't the same as well screw everyone else over at the first opportunity.

      I once left two bags if expressive shopping items on a train in Japan. Next day I collected them as a cleaner had handed them in. Could easily have taken some stuff and never been caught, but didn't. Once a friend left 50,000 yen in a restaurant. That's about â300 or $400. Went back the next day, it was all waiting for her, found by the staff and kept safe.

      In some cultures people are basically nice. It's actually quite shocking for British people when they go to Japan and people just trust them by default. In the UK that will get you screwed over fast.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re:Done in movies... by daremonai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Everything in TFS apparently comes from testimony (which may or may not be accurate, and may or may not be accepted as a fact by the court),

      One of the two police officers who dangled him over the balcony confessed to it in court, so as far as mere testimony goes, that's pretty good.

  2. xkcd by cdxta · · Score: 5, Informative

    Obligatory https://xkcd.com/538/

  3. Oh Yeah!!! Oblig XKCD by turp182 · · Score: 5, Funny

    https://xkcd.com/538/

    Bam! My first obligatory post on Slashdot.

    Someone has probably posted it while I typed this though...

    --
    BlameBillCosby.com
  4. This is called "rubber hose cryptoanalysis" by gweihir · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The idea is that if you beat somebody with a rubber hose, that does not leave any mark.

    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.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:This is called "rubber hose cryptoanalysis" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  5. The best encryption: No encryption by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    At least none that can be seen. You cannot demand keys for something you don't know of. If there's a container with a "please enter pass phrase" lock on top of it, it begs for a key.

    Unused space on your hard drive that looks like it contains old data from before you last partitioned, though...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. Re:Has anybody mentioned by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Funny

    Dude, it's the Government. That $5 wrench cost at least $25,000.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  7. Small part of a bigger story by Razed+By+TV · · Score: 3, Informative

    I think the more interesting story is undercover drug unit goes and terrorizes numerous drug dealers for illegal profit. But I guess that story is already months old. http://articles.philly.com/201...

  8. Re:Poker Night with Pinocchio. by dcollins · · Score: 4, Informative

    "After investing $1 billion in behavior detection techniques and training since 2007, the Transportation Security Administration has little to show for its efforts, the New York Times stated in a new report. According to the newspaper, critics of the TSA’s attempt to read body language claim there’s no evidence to suggest the agency has been able to link chosen passengers to anything beyond carrying drugs or holding undeclared currency, much less a terrorist attack. In fact, a review of numerous studies seems to suggest that even those trained to look for various tics are no more capable of identifying liars than normal individuals. 'The common-sense notion that liars betray themselves through body language appears to be little more than a cultural fiction,' Maria Hartwig, a psychologist at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City, told the Times."

    http://rt.com/usa/tsa-spent-billion-body-language-937/

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes