Slashdot Mirror


Delays In Unlocking Cellphones Seized In Inauguration Day Protests? (buzzfeed.com)

Cellphone data may play a key role in prosecuting people arrested at inauguration day protests, according to an article shared by Slashdot reader Mosquito Bites. A U.S. attorney acknowledged that "the government recovered cell phones from more than 100 indicted defendants and other un-indicted arrested" in a filing last March, adding "The government is in the process of extracting data from the Rioter Cell Phones pursuant to lawfully issued search warrants, and expects to be in a position to produce all of the data from the searchers Rioter Cell Phones in the next several weeks."

But 11 weeks later, it's a different story. Prosecutors "have provided defense lawyers with access to hundreds of hours of video footage from January 20, but have yet to turn over data extracted from more than 100 cell phones seized during the arrests, according to lawyers who spoke with BuzzFeed News." In addition, they report that now more than half the 200-plus defendants "are vowing not to cooperate with prosecutors, even in the face of a new set of felony charges that carry stiff maximum prison sentences."

16 of 163 comments (clear)

  1. Bad Planning by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2

    In a similar way to the "mistakes" this young lady who leaked classified made, so to did most of these demonstrators.

    Seriously, if you're going to participate or be part of the leadership of an organized protest, consider all your "command and control" participants use - get this! - "burner phones", and then at some point, ditch them.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Bad Planning by ArchieBunker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And be seen using a flip phone? Never. How many of these anti capitalist leftist protesters were using $1000 iPhones? Hell use regular HF radios with keywords.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    2. Re:Bad Planning by markdavis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >"Seriously, if you're going to participate or be part of the leadership of an organized protest, consider all your "command and control" participants use - get this! - "burner phones", and then at some point, ditch them."

      Or better yet, protest but don't break the law...

      NOT that I am excusing this ridiculous delay in getting their phones back because it is wrong. But something tells me that is pretty typical nowadays for any phone seized during an arrest in which they want data, too.

  2. wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    more than half the 200-plus defendants "are vowing not to cooperate with prosecutors

    Why would anyone cooperate with their prosecution?

    Do I misunderstand something here? Typically you cooperate with your defence and are adversarial with your prosecution, no?

    1. Re: wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      In the same way that millennials can be both male and female at the same time, they can self-identify as prosecutors while being defendents.

    2. Re:wait, what? by ArchieBunker · · Score: 2

      The prosecutors are pulling the plea deal they give everyone now. Only a fraction of criminal cases make it to trial. The DA doesn't have the resources or budget to decrypt the phones and hopes everyone takes the deal.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    3. Re:wait, what? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why would anyone cooperate with their prosecution?

      Because even if you have done nothing wrong, government prosecutors can threaten you with bogus charges and bankrupt you with legal expenses. So they offer you a plea deal to rat on other protestors, and if you got nothin' on anyone else, you will need to make something up. Meanwhile, those other protestors are being offered deals to rat on you. The loser is the guy that holds out the longest out of a misguided sense of honor.

    4. Re: wait, what? by lucm · · Score: 4, Funny

      they can self-identify as prosecutors while being defendents.

      Let's be clear: defendents that identify as prosecutors cannot understand the burden of prosecutors as well as prosecutor-born prosecutors. They shouldn't be allowed to invade the space created for those who have been prosecutors over the course of a lifetime; access to this space should be granted according to experience, not identity.

      That's why there should be only two kinds of courtrooms; one for the prosecutor-born prosecutors, and one for everyone else. Obviously the defendents, cisdefendents and self-identifying defendents don't need dedicated courtrooms since they have experienced a life of privilege.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    5. Re: wait, what? by KGIII · · Score: 2

      My question is, was it worth it?

      And, because I know people like to willfully ignore what I said... I will repeat it.

      Was it worth it, really?

      And lest the right try to argue, I served for eight years. I really, really want to know if they felt it was worth it, but more specifically I want to know after the sentencing.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  3. Re:The Freedom to Choose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's always interesting to note that it's been Republicans who have sought to impeach Democrats for specious and unfounded reasons that are actually based on their own political partisanship, yet somehow can't even recognize the amoral scum they've embraced is bad for them, it's like they don't know they really should demonstrate their vaunted love of moral integrity every now and again.

    It's like the political party doesn't know they need to keep their own house in order, not just praise every arsonist thug who wears their preferred T-Shirt and shouts the right sounding words. Or tweets. Without you know, actually managing a coherent sentence, but who cares about that?

  4. Lawful by Reverend+Green · · Score: 2

    Whenever you see the word "lawful", you know something bad for the common people is being done in the name of DUH LAW.

    Remember boys & girls: "rule of law" just means "rule of lawyers". All the great human calamities of the 20th century - the trenches of WWI, the Armenian genocide, the Jewish holocaust in Germany, the atomic holocaust at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the allied firebombing of Berlin and Tokyo, Stalin's purges, the American chemical warfare against the Vietnamese people, the Soviet war against the Afghan people, the firebombing of Bagdad, etc etc - were all 100% unambiguously "lawful".

    Virtuous laws and their just administration can be a great benefit to a people. Badlaws are worse than nothing.

  5. Re:The Freedom to Choose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You lost your argument when the Clinton Death List started to be spouted as genuine fact by all the Republican Stalwarts, and it continues to be recited as a testament today. This was further enhanced by ever-popular (on the Right) birtherism and dozens of other farcical scandals and hysterics, which rather demonstrated a lack of serious criticism. Add in the established criminal actions of many of those Republican prosecutors in the House, which mysteriously you find not even the slightest demonstration of opprobrium, and you're losing your place on the pedestal by diving head-first into the muck.

    Even now, you have people proclaiming the evils of Hillary, while suddenly embracing a man known for his corruption and malfeasance for decades, whose proclamations in the White House show only a tendency towards grandiosity and pompousness that are only exceeded by the lack of rational thinking he has demonstrated.

    He's even lied about the circumstances of his slinking into the Oval Office. Lost a National Security adviser who lied about payments from foreign sources. His spokeswoman hawked his daughter's wares when they were upset about a retailer dropping the products.

  6. Re: The Freedom to Choose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    The video is a 5 minute compilation of a large number of different times when his inability to speak without cue cards was made obvious

    So what about the hours of donnie speaking worse?

  7. Re: a matter of kettle by KGIII · · Score: 3

    Huh... Thanks.

    I dislike Trump. I sure as hell didn't vote for him.

    Imma let you in on a secret. I don't wish him any malice and I hope he is an effective president. I am as far left as you can get, while still being rational. I don't even hate Trump. I am more disgusted with the media, and the sycophants, than I am with Trump.

    If you're on the right, I am sorry for what they do in my name. I am the real American left.

    Sorry for their behavior. Please don't blame me. At the root level, you and I want the same things, probably.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  8. Re: a matter of kettle by James_Duncan8181 · · Score: 2
    "there are only two known chromosomal configations ... XX and XY."

    This is factually untrue. See XXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXY, XY/XXY mosaic, XYY. The list goes on.

    --
    "To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
  9. Re: Just arrest Trump and be done with it. by BlueStrat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No matter what you do you'll always know the vast right wing conspiracy fucked you good and hard.

    No, Progressives' own dishonesty, corruption, elitism, and arrogance fucked them good and hard. They were hoisted by their own petard, as it were. If they weren't criminal primary-rigging sleazebags no amount of email leaks or hackers, Russian or otherwise, could have damaged them like we saw happen in 2016. An opened bag of stale, moldy potato chips found alongside the road could have won vs HRC.

    It's as if they finally listened to all the liberty-loving people who've been telling them to go fuck themselves, and they actually went and did it!

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.