Slashdot Mirror
Feds: We're Pulling Data From 100 Phones Seized During Trump Inauguration (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: In new filings, prosecutors told a court in Washington, DC that within the coming weeks, they expect to extract all data from the seized cellphones of more than 100 allegedly violent protesters arrested during the inauguration of President Donald Trump. Prosecutors also said that this search is validated by recently issued warrants. The court filing, which was first reported Wednesday by BuzzFeed News, states that approximately half of the protestors prosecuted with rioting or inciting a riot had their phones taken by authorities. Prosecutors hope to uncover any evidence relevant to the case. Under normal judicial procedures, the feds have vowed to share such data with defense attorneys and to delete all irrelevant data. "All of the Rioter Cell Phones were locked, which requires more time-sensitive efforts to try to obtain the data," Jennifer Kerkhoff, an assistant United States attorney, wrote. Such phone extraction is common by law enforcement nationwide using hardware and software created by Cellebrite and other similar firms. Pulling data off phones is likely more difficult under fully updated iPhones and Android devices.
...if you're going to a protest, bring a burner phone. Bonus points if you set the wallpaper to goatse.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
became violent protestors during his inauguration? WTF did the man even say?
All of the Rioter Cell Phones were locked, which requires more time-sensitive efforts to try to obtain the data," Jennifer Kerkhoff, an assistant United States attorney, wrote.
Every last one of the seized phones were locked? That seems hardly representative of the general population, although I suppose "violent protesters" may indeed be more security conscious.
Jennifer Kerkhoff. J. Kerkhoff. I mean, no surprise in her career selection of prosecuting attorney after what must've been some pretty tough early years in school.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Anne Frank's diary was written long after the end of WWII, using a ballpoint pen (which wasn't invented until after WWII)
That is holocaust denialist BS that has been debunked:
Anne wrote the body of her diary with a fountain pen. The only things written in ballpoint pen ink are two loose notes written by someone else and put with the papers later and some page numbers written on the sheets during the compilation process.
There is a long history of neo-Nazis trying to discredit Anne's diaries, so in 1963 her defenders tracked down the arresting officer that led the raid on their hideout. He corroborated nearly everything that Anne's father had said.
Setting fires to cars and smashing windows is not a "protest".
You would think criminals would already know to use burner phones...
But then how would these gangsters be able to adequately send a selfie to Instagram in front of a smashed up store or burning vehicle? The cameras on burner phones suck, not to mention it would't have your Starbucks card loaded.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The people arrested didn't seem to be the deluge of selfie taking people. The recommendation should be to simply not be violent at a protest so that you are not arrested, which results in the confiscation of your phone (and generally a good chuck of cash, and perhaps anal virginity).
I'm probably one of the most pro Free Speech people you will ever meet. Free Speech does not include any form of violence. See the Non Aggression Principle
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I really do not see that much of an issue with this.
The government got a warrant to search the electronic devices. These devices were seized at the time of arrest. Rather than require the owners to unlock the phones - potentially violating our protected right against self-incrimination - they are using third-party software to hack the devices. The government intends - admittedly, as legally required - to share all gathered information with the defense lawyers - and are pledging to delete any information not relevant to the case.
You can make the argument that some of the people arrested during the riots are innocent. That may be true, but irrelevant to the issue at hand: that the government is searching these devices. You might argue that the government may use the information gleaned from the devices in ways that are not covered by the warrant, and that is a legitimate worry but there is no evidence that is happening. But given that these people were arrested, we should expect the prosecutors to use all available legal means to build a case against the defendants. That they are searching the phones is as much a story if the police had gotten a warrant to seize the defendants diaries (which is to say, not much of a story) .
The fact is, there were apparently riots during the inauguration. I am no supporter of Trump but that's just shameful; there's nothing wrong with assembly and protest but some people went beyond that. People were arrested and honestly I would expect the government to try them for their actions. There is a lot I find worrisome about Trump's government, but this is not one of them; this is a case where everything seems to be done legitimately and by-the-book.
So the original claim that she was not only at his Innauguration, but also had her diary with her, is at least two kinds of bullshit itself.
Except that nobody claimed that. The famous diary writer at Hitler's inauguration was Joseph Goebbels. His diary is fascinating to read, and provides a huge amount of insight into the inner workings of Nazi Germany, unlike Anne's which is just the musing of a girl locked in a room.
Neo-Nazi B.S. de-bunked by an actual ex-Nazi!
Actually, most Neo-Nazi BS is best debunked by actual Nazis. "The Holocaust never happened" is thoroughly debunked by Nazi testimony at Nuremberg. The defenses fell in one of two categories:
1. Yes, I killed people, but I was just following orders, so I am not responsible.
2. Yes, I gave orders, but I didn't actually kill anyone myself, so I am not responsible.
But NONE of them use the defense, or ever claimed, that the killings didn't happen, or that the death camps didn't exist. No one claimed that until many years later.