Slashdot Mirror
Feds Walk Into a Building, Demand Everyone's Fingerprints To Open Phones (dailyherald.com)
An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes the Daily Herald:
Investigators in Lancaster, California, were granted a search warrant last May with a scope that allowed them to force anyone inside the premises at the time of search to open up their phones via fingerprint recognition, Forbes reported Sunday. The government argued that this did not violate the citizens' Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination because no actual passcode was handed over to authorities...
"I was frankly a bit shocked," said Andrew Crocker, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, when he learned about the scope of search warrant. "As far as I know, this warrant application was unprecedented"... He also described requiring phones to be unlocked via fingerprint, which does not technically count as handing over a self-incriminating password, as a "clever end-run" around constitutional rights.
"I was frankly a bit shocked," said Andrew Crocker, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, when he learned about the scope of search warrant. "As far as I know, this warrant application was unprecedented"... He also described requiring phones to be unlocked via fingerprint, which does not technically count as handing over a self-incriminating password, as a "clever end-run" around constitutional rights.
and say they need to suck it for the phone to unlock
... keep holding it down.
Seriously, this is such an unconscionable violation of basic privacy that even people who have done nothing wrong should automatically have that reaction. And anybody who has done something wrong should know better than to use a fingerprint for unlocking anyway. What was this supposed to prove other than that they have a judge who will rubber-stamp any order no matter how appalling?
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Pattern required to start device before fingerprint reader will work.
(1): Some form of secure (preferably cloud-stored) backup/restore mechanism with appropriate encryption and access protection mechanisms, and
(2): A convenient, easy to trigger yet unlikely to be accidentally triggered mechanism to locally wipe the hardware. Factory reset plus cache clear should do the trick.
if the iPhone reboots, the key code must be entered as touchID does not work. Passwords are still protected by the 4th amendment in the US, right?
It's been said countless times here. Requiring both a fingerprint and a passcode would have protected phone owners from this fishing expedition.
As for the greater ramifications of the unprecedentedly broad warrant that was issued, well, I'm glad I'm not a US citizen and don't live there. And I'm increasingly reluctant to travel there as well, precisely because of things like this. America has become a scary, scary place.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Before that, you need a government that respects the citizens and the rule of law. Without that, everything else will be at risk.
Android and iOS should let you designate a self-destruct fingerprint - one that when used wipes your device.
This is an obvious violation of the fifth amendment, and the judge who issued the warrant isn't qualified to practice law in the united states.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
It seems to violate the 4A, the one protecting citizens against "unreasonable search and seizure".
Of course, both Bush and Obama pretty much have done away with such niceties. Hillary will continue their "noble" efforts, and kill off the 1A and 2A as well.
You can be compelled to serve the judiciary; after all, jury duty is a lot more onerous than unlocking your phone.
That is literally the solution to almost all tech problems. (No sarcasm). Bad access control and [insert random] encryption problems keep people like me employed.
OMG facts!
Too bad nobody else does...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
That is the very definition of a "general search warrant".
General search warrants are the very reason the Fourth Amendment was written. They are categorically banned in the Constitution.
The judge must be a Redcoat.
Fingerprints are an inherently insecure way to 'secure' a device of any kind because there are techniques to obtain latent fingerprints, which we all leave everywhere anyway, and use them to make a replica fingerprint which will open devices, security doors, phones, whatever, which is supposedly secured by said prints.
If you secure anything with fingerprints as your sole method of security, you have accepted having no security. It's a really bad way to secure anything unless you just don't care.
A normal search warrant already gives the police the right to obtain those latent prints and, hell, make you submit to fingerprinting on the old ink pad or the new electronic scanners. The same warrant also gives them the right to seize the devices that they wish to open.
Apparently the cops think they don't have the right to go through the steps to make a replica print and get the device to open. They are manufacturing something rather than just looking at the evidence. Personally I don't see a hill of difference here between that need and a police raid that seizes a padlocked box for which the police are unable to find a key. They would get a locksmith to open it, or more likely, cut the lock. So you have a locked phone. Make a replica print. Done.
This fingerprint warrant just sounds like they didn't want to spend time on doing it the hard way. Or they were after something else.
Sig for hire.
Unreasonable search and seizure
A search warrant for building contents is fine.
Searching the personal affects of every person just because they happened to be present is not reasonable.
The constitution requires a specific warrant. Searching someone's person constitutionally requires that person be named in the Warrant.
Merely being present at a place of work or being at a restaurant or other public place is not probable cause for a search of someone's person.
When first turned on, my Samsung phone won't unlock by fingerprint, it requires a passcode. Just turn your phone off upon seeing the warrant! Seems strange that they can compel a fingerprint but not a password.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
You have 10 different fingers you can use to fingerprint-lock your phone. Most phones lock up after 5 tries. Can they compel you to use the correct finger? How many times can they force you to try and fail before it is effectively unlawful detention?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
We have very little information to go on. I'd like to read the actual warant and know the cirumstances, but based on the article it seems like a violation of the FOURTH amendment. The cops are supposed to have a warrant, based on probable cause, describing what particular things they are searching for and where, and why they think those things are in that place.
I can't imagine a probable cause to believe that everyone in the building has some specific evidence on their phone. Thus the search itself is unconstitutional under the fourth, with or without a fingerprint.
The fifth says you don't have to testify against yourself. It doesn't say you can't be fingerprinted. Thus I see no *fifth* amendment violation, though it seems like a rather onerous *fourth* amendment violation.
and full of themselves to pull this off...
However, they don't take your fingerprint and use that information to unlock your phone. They instead compel you to interact with a device. The question for the appellate court (and then supremes) will be whether this is compulsion of a testimonial act.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
;) ).
The color of law seems to device power on requested at a boarder crossing or internal boarder checkpoint to affirm citizenship.
The really bad news is in the network information collected on power on if a IMSI-catcher is the most powerful and first network found.
A warrant should be for one person or that parsons residence or their devices moving around the USA.
If this can be done to a building what not a part of a city? A town? A village? A parish or part of a state?
Every later chat down in the USA could now be a request to turn on a device and offers network traffic capture.
This also points to very interesting network, telco, device hardware and software questions. What is it about device power on in the USA that gives the government so much confidence?
Time to just carry around a low cost flip phone with no internal data, records or logs. It turns on and is telco connected when confronted. Keep the actual nice, new fashion phone totally unseen in a vehicle or residence to offer another layer of constitutional protection.
Consider walking as if going passing an external boarder within the USA at all times and expect a total lack of protections when the low cost phone is requested or visible.
Get a work only phone so that any requests then have the legal burden of been connected to a larger legal entity.
Only use the good phone in private away from windows (physical and OS
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
On a jury you can always cause obstruction or at least mess up things a little by having a different opinion compared to the others.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Let's say I agree to be fingerprinted. That means I'll let them put the ink on my fingers and I'll press my fingers against the paper sheet. Good. Now they are free to try using that paper (or a digital scan of that, or whatever) to unlock my phone.
In a premises search, they can compel an unlock of phones by fingerprint, assuming you lock your phone that way.
The specific legal decision was the 1988 John DOE, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES. 487 U.S. 201 (108 S.Ct. 2341, 101 L.Ed.2d 184) decision.
It came down to whether on not an affirmative action was required on the part of someone, or if it was a non-affirmative action. Use of a key on a safe or lockbox is not affirmative. Being forced to enter the combination is not affirmative; it's tantamount to compelled testimony.
Here's the part of the decision of interest:
A defendant can be compelled to produce material evidence that is incriminating. Fingerprints, blood samples, voice exemplars, handwriting specimens, or other items of physical evidence may be extracted from a defendant against his will. But can he be compelled to use his mind to assist the prosecution in convicting him of a crime? I think not. He may in some cases be forced to surrender a key to a strongbox containing incriminating documents, but I do not believe he can be compelled to reveal the combination to his wall safe —- by word or deed.
Moral of this story: use a pin code, rather than using the fingerprint unlock. It may be a cool feature, but it offers you no legal protection.
But what if you do not use the fingerprint locking features?
And on the Eighth Day, Man created God.
Fingerprints are something you own not something you know. It's much easier for the police to take things from you than to extract knowledge from you.
It's a bit weird to get through all that hassle as your fingerprints are probably on the phone itself. (or on a nearby object)
Since government likes to bend rules, maybe its time to seriously consider removing fingerprint locking from phones entirely... Slef incriminating protection is about handing over damaging evidence, it should not matter how that evidence is accessed... If i lock my phone with fingerprint/password/etc... i have expectations of privacy...
It isn't 100% clear, there is no cut and dried supreme court ruling and there have been some conflicting lower court rulings but in general the opinion of the courts seems to be that you can't be forced to hand over a password/code/etc because that is something in your head, which falls under 5th amendment protections against self incrimination.
The 4th amendment is what would be used to challenge a broad search warrant like was issued in this case. Without knowing the specifics I can't say for sure but this sounds like it would be an illegal search since it was a general warrant and that isn't allowed. The police aren't (supposed to be) able to get a warrant to just search anyone or anything in a given place, they have to be specific. This doesn't sound like it was, and so would probably be a 4th amendment violation.
They went in and searched everyone's phones. Unless there's an important detail we aren't being told here, that's unconstitutional. The 4th amendment says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The important part there is "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." That is in there specifically to ban general search warrants. The idea is the police can't go to a judge and say "We think there is something illegal in a house somewhere in this 500 home neighbourhood, we'd like a warrant to search the houses," and the judge issues them a blanket warrant allowing them to search any home there, and look through anything in said home. That isn't allowed. They have to say specifically where it is they want to search, and what it is they are looking for, and also why they have probable cause to believe that what they are looking for is there.
If you read the article they say right at the bottom "I think it's very questionable whether the 4th Amendment" -- which protects citizens against unreasonable search and seizure -- "allows such an open-ended extension of the search warrant."
Surely a fingerprint taken for identification purposes is personal information, solely taken for that purpose. There are (at least in principle) increasing controls for the use of personal information and I can't see why a fingerprint taken for this purpose could be legitimately used elsewhere.
With respect to fingerprint access to a phone, surely this is being used as a substitute for a password and therefore should be treated appropriately? I don't see this as being niave as I thought the US constitution was to protect citizens. I appreciate that the parent said that this is a 4th amenedment violation. Not being a US citizen I'm more familiar with my own countries constitution. Could this have been some slight of hand by the people doing the search suggesting this was not a violation of the 5th to confuse people?
There are clauses written into the recent, secretly-drafted international trade agreements (like TTIP and CETA) which allow a commercial company to sue the government of any signed-up nation, if that government acts in a way that harms the profits of the company. Yes, this is totally retarded, but then that's what you get when you allow companies to write laws.
Just wondering, however, if any legislation like this already exists in the United States? Companies like Apple might be able to use it against any government that makes such a sweeping action as the one described in the linked article. The reason is simple: if Apple promote the use of the fingerprint technology as enhanced security for their device - and if people purchase that device because in part of it's enhanced security - then the actions taken by the FBI in this case [effectively circumventing that technology] devalues the technical solution. So Apple and other companies may have poured thousands or millions of dollars into developing technology for their phones which has just been rendered obsolete by a government over-reach...
Although, having said that, an entire *building*? I can't imagine that any court would sign a warrant unless the building was, say, a House-In-Multiple-Occupation. This could not stand against an office block, or an apartment building.
One more thing. You have to ask: what led the investigators to the location of the building? I'm guessing Stingray, or equivalent? Any admission of use? Or does this just go to prove that Stingray is part of "dragnet surveillance" in which everyone is guilty until proven innocent...
About time.
Using biometrics as a replacement for passwords was always a stupid idea.
At best they can be used to replace a username.
Note that a cloud-stored copy of your data can be gotten at with a Search Warrant issued to the cloud service provider. If the backup is on your own hardware, at least you know when the Feds are looking at it....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
It's actually both 4th and 5th. You can refuse to give up a password under the 5th amendment, since it can be self-incrimination. 4th amendment, because it is illegal search and seizure. The warrant issued here flies in the face of the 4th amendment, and could potentially violate someone's 5th amendment rights.
This isn't a loophole, this is a violation of the constitution. The judge who OK'd this, and the feds that performed the search should all be sent packing, and possibly serve jail time.
1. Something they can just take from you.
2. Something they have to torture you for.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
The one thing the Founders wanted to guard against was general warrants. This warrant gets pretty close to being one. It was limited to a specific building, but next time it could be limited to a specific block, or even a specific city or county. I think they're building precedent for doing such things. If they get away with this one, then what's to stop them from going further?
It'd be nice if we could run a phone VM on our phones.
The security uncaring could run everything in the "native" phone session, just like any smartphone now.
The security conscious could run a phone VM which would would contain all their sensitive data. Access to the phone VM could have more complex authentication methods.
Just get a Samsung 7 phone. When you drop it, it explodes and erases all data on it. So just say that the Police startled you and you accidentally dropped the phone.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
....who issued that warrant. Unless of course, this came from one of these special courts who just rubberstamp any insane request from the feds.
I am fairly certain that you are supposed to comply with a search warrant. When you have a search warrant, they can unlock or get you to unlock a safe, as long as unlocking that safe does not require you to communicate anything, since they cannot force your compliance in anything related to speech/communication.
A fingerprint/finger is a physical object, a key, and not communication.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Passwords are only protected under the fifth amend. because they constitute information KNOWN by the suspect, and are therefore testimonial in nature. Fingerprinting (and use of fingerprints) are not disclosure of information known to the suspect, therefore not testimonial, therefore not protected under the fifth.
Seems like a huge violation of the specificity requirement of the fourth amendment, though.
So if the police see you filming them at the scene, they can simply take your phone and trigger the wipe?
WTF? Not every smartphone has fingerprint authentication... Those of us who don't play the "phone contract" game, using of the many MVNO carriers, and buy our own older phones, sure don't have fingerprint authentication. I currently have a Nexus 4 on Ting, and If some bozo flashing a fed badge told me to open my phone by fingerprint, I'd simply tell him "This phone does not have that, and you better get a warrant....." Of course, then he'd shoot me... America is now officially a police state.....
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
Fingerprints are an inherently insecure way to 'secure' a device of any kind because there are techniques to obtain latent fingerprints, which we all leave everywhere anyway,
If someone wants to get into my device so much that they are willing to find, scan and make replica fingerprints then at this point passwords are even less secure.
Phones need a panic button. Say tap the power button three times quickly and it goes into a locked down mode...
Samsung have a tablet that can go one better than that: it destroys all the data and the device itself if you do that.
Just to muddy the issue more, what about someone who uses sign language? Action or communication?
I doubt that will happen despite wishing that it would. Grabbing a suspect's finger and touching it to their phone violates no rights and requires no speech on behalf of the accused. It's no different from removing a key from a pocket or forcing a breath test. The idea that encrypted data is private is only a vestige of the right against self-incrimination. If someone wants to use a fingerprint encryption key, they have ceeded that right uncompelled.
> Surely a fingerprint taken for identification purposes is personal information, solely taken for that purpose. There are (at least in principle) increasing controls for the use of personal information and I can't see why a fingerprint taken for this purpose could be legitimately used elsewhere.
I think the "could be legitimately used" part depends very much on a proper warrant showing probable cause.
Suppose you leave your set of keys with a locksmith, for the purpose of getting copies made. The police, based on actual probable cause, get a warrant to search your safe deposit box for specific Top Secret documents which are probably in your box, and an accompanying order to the locksmith to hand over the key. I see no Constitutional problem there - they open the box because they have a proper, specific warrant showing probable cause. Using the key is not disallowed, there's no Constitutional protection of the key per se.
Where there would be a problem would be if they open the box without a warrant, or as in this case an overly broad warrant. If they warrant had been proper, they could execute it using a key, a pick, a fingerprint, or whatever other tool was appropriate.
people are STILL fucking stupid enough to rely on fingerprint auth to unlock phones?!!?! fucking. stupid. millenial. sheep.
Well, it is unlikely that I would be in a situation where it would make a difference. Not impossible, as we have seen, but unlikely. And you gain security elsewhere. An 8 digit passcode is not too inconvenient anymore when supported by fingerprints, so overall it still makes you more secure.
Not many people go around making sure their fingerprints are private.
I could see a judge approving the taking of them on the basis that fingerprints could be found without the help of the person with just a little time and are public info. Going this just makes sure the correct one is available.
I am sure this will go to the Supreme Court and now with Scalia not being around it may be allowed.
The normal process of law is that a judge can command you not to do something but usually lacks any power to command you to do something. There have been exceptions. But this type of thing easily can lead to massive injustices. It must not be allowed to stand. Yes the government can seize your phone under certain conditions. But demanding that you provide information on how to use or unlock the phone should not be legal. It can set up a fishing expedition that allows anyone to have their privacy invaded, including business secrets, or other sensitive materials. It can quickly turn into a situation in which a person who is not popular with a cop or official can be targeted without cause. For example your brother in law is thought to be cheating on his wife. He asks a buddy at the PD to force the brother-in-laws phone to be grabbed and forced open under some pretense. If there are girls numbers or conversations on that phone the man can now be blackmailed by his relative. Some people might pay quite a bit of money to see all that was on another person's cell phones. And if the cops have the power, just how long before employers are able to insist upon opening employees phones under threat of job loss?
"Compelling identification" seems like a bit of a red herring; since when are you legally required to identify yourself to your own phone?
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
"Am I under arrest?"
"Uhh .. no."
"Well then, screw you very much." And sit down, right in the middle of wherever.
I see a lot of people here who are repeating the "why would you use fingerprints for authentication when your fingerprints can just be lifted off of any nearby surface?!" line, which is ignorant of how fingerprint scanners in modern cell phones actually work. Read up on it a bit: http://www.androidauthority.com/how-fingerprint-scanners-work-670934/
The short version is that no, the police will not be able to fool your phone's fingerprint scanner by using a print collected off of something else you've touched. Modern scanners do not record visual images of your fingerprint and match against that; they measure either changes in capacitance associated with the ridges of your finger touching the phone or your finger's response to an ultrasonic pulse. Both forms are incredible hard to fool with a prosthetic (and probably won't even work if your finger has been severed, although I don't know if anybody's tested that).
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
...give them the finger!
Samsung simply needs to disclose what is causing their phones to catch fire so we can write an app to trigger it on demand.
Barring that, a thermite filled case will do the trick nicely.
Tie it to a specific fingerprint that you never use and voila, problem solved.
To be even more fun, put it on a delay so it catches fire only after they are in posession of the phone. ~30 minutes should do it.
Whole new meaning for the term " burner phone ".
I want a pony or I'll scream and stamp my feet.
Give me your pony or I'll kick your ass.
Give me your pony or my Dad will kick your Dad's ass.
My lawyer is going to sue your ass for your pony.
Give my your pony or we'll suspect you of pony-related terrorism activities granting us unlimited powers to seize any ponies you may own anywhere in the country (/ world when the NWO arrives.)
Requiem for the American Dream
FFS, they shouldn't be requesting this kind of warrant, and it shouldn't be issued. It's so obviously too broad and against human rights. Both the person who requested this warrant and the person that issued it should face repercussions, as should the feds overall for obstructing justice of the freedom of the people.
I'm with you, comrade. Hail to the Motherland!
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
I keep hearing about these amendements. Can anybody explain what they are? Are they some part of Klingon culture, because it sure isn' something that is valid in the real world.
At this moment I see them as nice discussion points, but nothing more. As long as you can not uphold a law, it isn't worth the paper it was written on.
The situation now is that if people with enough power are cought, they say "So what?" as nothing will be done.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Former Lancaster CA resident here.
I don't know anything more about this story either. But it sounds highly atypical. Lancaster doesn't have its own police force, and contracts with the Los Angeles Sheriff's Dept. for coverage. As a general rule they're lighter-handed than the average metro cop shop, possibly because they're spread thinner and don't have time to pursue bullshit.
But a few years ago, when the Feds told L.A. County that they'd have to reduce their jail population -- they picked out the problem prisoners and dumped 'em wholesale in the Antelope Valley. What had been isolated perps sneaking around in the dark suddenly became swarms of perps boldly going in broad daylight. Theft abruptly grew from the usual petty urban stuff to a cottage industry (particularly for metal), and same for gangs and drugs.
So I'm thinking this might have been a sting against a large drug or metal-fencing operation, using the cellphone thing as cover for what they were really after, not to mention as a quick way to ID both those present and those who needed pursuing.
Not justifying their action (which was, IMO, blatantly unconstitutional), just thinking of rationale based on the local situation.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
And that's why I haven't enabled fingerprint unlocking. If I can only use my passcode, they can go fuck themselves.
Pax Vobiscum
We have very little information to go on. I'd like to read the actual warant and know the cirumstances, but based on the article it seems like a violation of the FOURTH amendment. The cops are supposed to have a warrant, based on probable cause, describing what particular things they are searching for and where, and why they think those things are in that place.
I can't imagine a probable cause to believe that everyone in the building has some specific evidence on their phone. Thus the search itself is unconstitutional under the fourth, with or without a fingerprint.
The fifth says you don't have to testify against yourself. It doesn't say you can't be fingerprinted. Thus I see no *fifth* amendment violation, though it seems like a rather onerous *fourth* amendment violation.
The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is implicated primarily by (1) the question of whether a password or fingerprint is "testimonial" and therefore cannot be coerced without violating the prohibition on self-incrimination and secondarily by (2) the question of whether the Fifth Amendment can be used to prevent the search of your phones because they are an extension of your mind (a very weak argument under well-established law--the second point is worth a footnote in a law review article but probably not in a brief to the court.). The Fourth Amendment is implicated by search and seizure of the phones.
Real lawyers write in C++
> the question of whether a password or fingerprint is "testimonial" and therefore cannot be coerced
In this case it's a fingerprint, not a password, so:
> the question of whether fingerprint is "testimonial" and therefore cannot be coerced
Ftfy
100 years of fingerprints being taken routinely has established some precendent.
Ps, I noticed your sig. For ten years or so I was planning to be an attorney and I studied law, especially Constitutional law. Then I fell into a career programming and doing network security for 20 years. I bet we could have some interesting discussions. Right now I'm looking at where I want my career to be in ten years. It would be cool if I could somehow indulge my interest in law while taking advantage of my 20 years of programming and information security experience.
Actually, I'm pretty sure Donald Trump has "ideas" about "what to do." He's pretty famous for them. They may be wacky or unrealistic or even impossible, but he has ideas. Some of which could have major political ramifications if he even attempts to follow through. Anyhow, I think you may not realize that "tyrants" in world history take many forms. Relatively few of them throughout history started out as clear "twirling the mustache" evil dudes who had a Machiavellian plan to become a "tyrant." Much more common are situations where you take a somewhat average guy, put him in a leadership position, create some tough choices, and watch him choose the bad ones. A lot of "tyrants" throughout history very gradually slipped into tyranny, often with the support of the public along the way, cheered along by their fears and promises of "security" from a well-meaning leader. You know what prevents that sort of thing? Knowledge. Knowledge of history. Knowledge of politics. Realizations that paths others have taken before have led to badness. History has shown again and again that the most ignorant "nice" folks who end up leadership positions can turn out to be the worst... they don't know any better, so they can be swayed into all sorts of bad acts. And Donald Trump doesn't even have that "niceness" to go along with his ignorance. In some ways having a child who doesn't understand politics at the top of what is shown to be an institutionalised assault on the rights of all may actually be a good thing. Maybe. Or it could be even a faster track to a dictatorship. The problem is that it's completely unpredictable, Harém21 and primevips. None of this should be viewed as an argument in favor of Clinton, who is also a terrible candidate. But acting like things are likely to be better because Trump is an "outsider" and less corrupt (at least by the political establishment) is just not a safe bet.
Thanks for those ideas. Discovery and legal proceedings generally may well be an area I should look at. It fits in with some of my other experience as a private investigator and my interest in forensics as well. For example, recently a Democrat party official claimed that her leaked emails may have been altered. I would have noticed the DKIM signature proving they were unaltered.