Highest Court In Indiana Set To Decide If You Can Be Forced To Unlock Your Phone (eff.org)

The Electronic Frontier Foundation argues that police should not be allowed to force you to turn over your passcode or unlock your device. "The Fifth Amendment states that no one can be forced to be 'a witness against himself,' and we argue that the constitutional protection applies to forced decryption," writes the EFF. Last week, the non-profit digital rights group filed a brief making that case to the Indiana Supreme Court, which is set to decide if you can be forced to unlock your phone. From the report: The case began when Katelin Eunjoo Seo reported to law enforcement outside of Indianapolis that she had been the victim of a rape and allowed a detective to examine her iPhone for evidence. But the state never filed charges against Seo's alleged rapist, identified by the court as "D.S." (Courts often refer to minors using their initials.) Instead, the detective suspected that Seo was harassing D.S. with spoofed calls and texts, and she was ultimately arrested and charged with felony stalking. Along with a search warrant, the state sought a court order to force Seo to unlock her phone. Seo refused, invoking her Fifth Amendment rights. The trial court held her in contempt, but an intermediate appeals court reversed. When the Indiana Supreme Court agreed to get involved, it took the somewhat rare step of inviting amicus briefs. EFF got involved because, as we say in our brief filed along with the ACLU and the ACLU of Indiana, the issue in Seo is "no technicality; it is a fundamental protection of human dignity, agency, and integrity that the Framers enshrined in the Fifth Amendment."

Our argument to the Indiana Supreme Court is that compelling Seo to enter her memorized passcode would be inherently testimonial because it reveals the contents of her mind. Obviously, if she were forced to verbally tell a prosecutor her password, it would be a testimonial communication. By extension, the act of forced unlocking is also testimonial. First, it would require a modern form of written testimony, the entry of the passcode itself. Second, it would rely on Seo's mental knowledge of the passcode and require her to implicitly acknowledge other information such as the fact that it was under her possession and control. The lower appellate court in Seo added an intriguing third reason: "In a very real sense, the files do not exist on the phone in any meaningful way until the passcode is entered and the files sought are decrypted. . . . Because compelling Seo to unlock her phone compels her to literally recreate the information the State is seeking, we consider this recreation of digital information to be more testimonial in nature than the mere production of paper documents." Because entering a passcode is testimonial, that should be the end of it, and no one should be ordered to decrypt their device, at least absent a grant of immunity that satisfies the Fifth Amendment. The case gets complicated when you factor in a case from 1976 called Fisher v. United States, where the Supreme Court recognized an exception to the Fifth Amendment privilege for testimonial acts of production. "State and federal prosecutors have invoked it in nearly every forced decryption case to date," writes the EFF. "In Seo, the State argued that all that compelling the defendant to unlock her phone would reveal is that she knows her own passcode, which would be a foregone conclusion once it 'has proven that the phone belongs to her.'"

"As we argue in our amicus brief, this would be a dangerous rule for the Indiana Supreme Court to adopt. If all the government has to do to get you to unlock your phone is to show you know the password, it would have immense leverage to do so in any case where it encounters encryption."

Comments

Spirit of the 5th amendment

[schwit1]

Nobody should be compelled to aid in their own prosecution.

Re:Spirit of the 5th amendment

[Etcetera]

Can you be forced to open up a physical safe? (Generally not, but the police can call a safe-cracker to get in as long as they have a warrant.)

But how about a booby-trapped safe? Or one that incinerates the paper contents if a lock is forced?

I think those are the types of comparisons that should be made when doing legal analysis on smartphone / computer storage devices (again, assuming the police have a judicially-approved warrant).

The "it's encrypted so the bits don't philosophically exist" argument doesn't pass muster, sorry. You could say that about any stream of data, mathematically speaking. Or even programmatically speaking. ("This spreadsheet containing my drug cartel's finances is only such if you interpret the magnetic data in a certain way!") Unless the Feds are calculating hash collisions on you to plant evidence, it should be assumed that encrypted data is not data nullis until decrypted.

Re:Spirit of the 5th amendment

[guruevi]

You can actually buy self-destructing safes, they're not illegal. You wouldn't be charged with obstruction as long as the documents were in there before the warrant was served. You could be charged with various other 'crimes' such as if you run a business and can't produce certain records, you may not be able to defend a tax or contract lawsuit that includes your requirement to produce said documents.

Re: Spirit of the 5th amendment

[nnull]

All I see is the rise of devices that shift passwords after a certain amount of time and permanently locks the device or wipes it after a certain amount of no activity. It's already becoming easy enough to do.

Re:Spirit of the 5th amendment

[rtb61]

Do you know what they are really trying to do, what the legal reality is. They are trying to make you legally liable, with prison sentence, for the proper functioning of your phone, if you phone fails, you go to jail. Think about that, they are talking say, ten years behind bars based upon the claimed crime if your phones password function fails. Hey, lets, hold the corporation and the executives equally liable, let them sign up to a decade in prison if the phone they make ever fail the password function. Rattle of any nonsense and how can they prove you are lying unless they already have the correct password, whether your fault or the phones fault, incorrect password, ten years behind bars, really, is that anyway fair or reasonable.

There was the other one as well, where you give the individual the correct password, they type it in and then change the password and say your password does not work and you are lying and ten years behind bars thank you very much.

Why the fuck should any citizen be held legally liable for the functioning of their phone, hell the phone could have been hacked between the last time the person used it, even when they were using and months latter in court, what is the password, 'Go Fuck Yourself', right ten years, no that is the password 'Go Fuck Yourself', doesn't work and well pissed off judge and you a now legally liable for the phone, and it's security for months since you used it. Obviously the only place that request should be made is in a court and it would need to be done publicly in front of the judge to ensure no tampering with the process and wow, the legal responsibility you now take for the functioning of that phone.

Re:Spirit of the 5th amendment

[bradley13]

IANAL, but I believe that the police can require you to produce a physical key, if one exists. So a key to your house, or your safe, or whatever. Obviously, they have the alternative of breaking in if you refuse, but they can also charge you with a crime for your refusal. However, as I understand it, they cannot force you to open a combination safe. And this seems like the obvious equivalent to a passcode on your phone. Again, IANAL.

It seems like the real answer should be: there should not be any legal requirement for you to cooperate with police. If they think they have a case against you, you should generally not have to participate in building that case. This includes the now infamous prohibition on lying to a federal officer - something the FBI regularly abuses in order to pile up more charges against people.

Re:Spirit of the 5th amendment

[91degrees]

The law does not work that way!

If your phone is genuinely faulty, it will be up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the phone is not faulty.

Re:Spirit of the 5th amendment

[Sique]

You could learn some quite exotic language and write everything down in that language. This would be a semantic encryption, as there is no purely syntactic way to get to the English equivalent of the text. Actually, the U.S. forces used a similar "encryption" in World War II for their radio-traffic: The radio operators were of the Navajo tribe and talked to each other in the Navajo language. Thus you had a real time encryption/decryption scheme absolutely unintelligible for someone not being able to talk Navajo, e.g. nearly everyone outside the U.S.. Even to recognize that it is Navajo would need a specialist not likely to find outside the U.S..

Re:Spirit of the 5th amendment

[Sique]

The people I was talking about are called Code talkers.

Re:Spirit of the 5th amendment

[Xylantiel]

I think of the 5th amendment as a limitation on the use of force. Someone can be compelled in a humane way to provide their fingerprint and similar. However, compelling someone to say something is an entirely different thing and can easily become a punishment itself. This creates a situation where the state doesn't need to prove that someone committed a crime, just accuse them of something and put them in prison because they won't confess to it or provide the information needed to prove it. That is not how our legal system is supposed to work. (And in reality it is worse than this because torture, not just imprisonment, is often the thing used to coerce testimony.)

Re:Spirit of the 5th amendment

[Sigma 7]

Nothing is stopping the police from brute forcing the password.

Some phones, such as some older Blackberry models, do a factory reset if the password is misentered too many times. This prevents brute force in most circumstances, because extracting the data otherwise requires an expensive technology forensics lab.

They still have unlimited attempts once they copy the phone.

Re:Spirit of the 5th amendment

[Lab Rat Jason]

Agreed. I think the EFF is making a dangerous argument here... if they succeed, then anything the police decrypt by force(cracking code, not cracking skulls) will have been "created" when it was decrypted, therefore making it forensically invalid.

Re:Spirit of the 5th amendment

[Lab Rat Jason]

Obligatory: XKCD

Re:Spirit of the 5th amendment

[JesseMcDonald]

And what's wrong with that? There are codes which can be decrypted multiple ways, after all—the most famous being the one-time pad, which can be decrypted to any message of the same length simply by choosing the right pad. The burden should be on the police to prove that the plaintext they produced is the same plaintext originally encrypted by the suspect, and not just something invented by the police which happens to share the same ciphertext.

"I can't recall my password."

[Black Diamond]

If I was ever in a situation like this where I was asked to decrypt my phone, I would let the police know that I no longer remember my password. Then when/if I ever receive my phone back, I'd do a complete factory reset on it without entering the password.

Re: "I can't recall my password."

[Type44Q]

I'd do a complete factory reset on it without entering the password.

Methinks you might have to enter the password at some point to unlock the bootloader...

Re:"I can't recall my password."

[Anonymous Coward]

I no longer remember my password

I'm sorry sir, but perhaps you will remember after 6 months in jail for contempt of court.

No? Well perhaps a year will jog your memory. Or 5.

We can wait.

Re: "I can't recall my password."

[Z00L00K]

After a while I can't remember passwords I have used a few months back.

Re: "I can't recall my password."

[Black Diamond]

You don't have to unlock the phone. Depending on the phone you probably have to enter your icloud or google account credentials in order to reset it, but that doesn't unlock the phone, just allows you to wipe it.

Re:"I can't recall my password."

[GodfatherofSoul]

And subject yourself to a perjury or obstruction charge?

Re: "I can't recall my password."

[nnull]

As I posted on a comment before, this is just going to give rise to more devices that will lock out completely or wipe their devices after a period of inactivity.

Re:"I can't recall my password."

[gnasher719]

If I was ever in a situation like this where I was asked to decrypt my phone, I would let the police know that I no longer remember my password. Then when/if I ever receive my phone back, I'd do a complete factory reset on it without entering the password.

I think on an iPhone you can do make the phone unusable (just enter the wrong passcode 12 times), but you can't make the phone usable again without knowing your Appleid and passcode. Obviously to make it much less useful for thieves. Unfortunately when you buy an iPhone on eBay and the idiot seller didn't reset the phone properly there's a problem.

Re:"I can't recall my password."

[Anonymous Coward]

This. Don't say anything at all.

Re: The thing is that there's nothing they can do

[Type44Q]

What are they going to do about it?

Wow, you're astute: they'll either:

A) Throw you in a cell and wait patiently until you crack, or

B) Move the schedule up with Ye Olde Pipewrenche.

Sure

[PPH]

Here's the password.

Uhh. Do you mind if I crouch down behind a heavy piece of furniture before you enter that?

This means nothing

[jwhyche]

It doesn't matter which way this goes it means nothing outside of Indiana. The FBI can still work you over till you crack. They will just hand it over to the federal government if they can't get you to unlock it. Then it doesn't matter what a Indiana court says.

This needs to go to the Supreme Court so this can be dealt with once and for all. But the way the current court is stacked I'm not betting it would go the way it should go.

Re:This means nothing

[aitikin]

(Standard Slashdot style disclaimer, IANAL, I have taken a few law classes and am intrigued by how our system works/is manipulated) You're clearly not familiar with the US "Common Law" court system. Precedent exists and other courts will consider the precedent of another state even if it doesn't have jurisdiction over the case as a general rule of thumb. Hell, there have been cases in the US where the precedent of the UK court system has been considered. Stare decisis is a thing and something that one must be aware of.

Re:This means nothing

[jwhyche]

What you have is a view on how the law is supposed to work. Not how it actually works today. The worse administration in history, the one before the current, made it common practice to try to bring federal charges up when things didn't go the PC way in state court.

Re:This means nothing

[DNS-and-BIND]

The court is not "stacked". The justices have all been legitimately appointed. Stacking is how the current majority will be removed after a Democrat gets back into power in 2021. Appointing two new justices to bring the court to 11 total will restore the balance and ensure the alt-right never sees its dream come true.

Re:This means nothing

[dryeo]

Does it matter when it comes to State courts considering other State courts precedent what the Federal government has done in unrelated cases?

Re:This means nothing

[jwhyche]

Don't you love it how when one certain political party that lost a certain election int 2016 thinks that they can change the rules. Let us be clear, here are some things that are not going to happen.

The Electoral College is not going any where, period.

There are NEVER going to be more than 9 justices on the supreme court, period.

Trump is not going to be impeached and removed from office, period.

You lost the election in 2016, you are not going to change the rules because you don't like them. Just to make sure we understand one more thing. You are not going to win in 2020 ether. So get over it and try to do better next time.

Re:This means nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem isn't that he won, it's that he's a shitty President.

Re:This means nothing

[drinkypoo]

"Obviously. You still need the Senate for that, and the republicans there have given up."

You misspelled complicit there

Re:This means nothing

[currently_awake]

If the progressives (left wing Democrats) keep pushing they could force an independent goverment department to handle districting and voter lists and handling elections. This would prevent Republicans and centralist Democrats from rigging the elections to favour the Rich White Men that currently run America.

Re:This means nothing

[thegarbz]

The Electoral College is not going any where, period.

There are NEVER going to be more than 9 justices on the supreme court, period.

Trump is not going to be impeached and removed from office, period.

One of these is not like the other. And the fact you state it with "period" means that you have abandoned the concept of rule of law. Or maybe you believe that congress has abandoned that concept. Heck no one in the history of impeachments has thought it likely for a president to be impeached before some charges were actually brought against them.

Re:This means nothing

[AmiMoJo]

The Republicans refused to even hold hearings for Obama's SC candidate. He could have just appointed them anyway, after all if the Republicans aren't going to pay any attention to constitutional norms why should he? But he didn't, he took the moral high road and tweeted about it now and then.

It really is time that you reformed the SC. Limited terms for justices at the very least, and a much more robust vetting process.

Re:This means nothing

[rwyoder]

There are NEVER going to be more than 9 justices on the supreme court, period.

The size of SCOTUS is determined by Congress, not the Constitution.
It has been as small as 7, and as large as 10 (from 1883-1886).

Re:This means nothing

[Penguinisto]

Correct, which is why FDR's plan to pack the court in 1937 failed (because Congress tossed his proposal into committee and left it to it die there.)

Re:This means nothing

[Penguinisto]

Obama could have simply appointed Garland to sit on the USSC, but it would have been temporary, and Mr. Garland would have been removed the say that the Senate reconvened in 2017. Constitution says the Senate has to advise and consent, and without that, any appointment by the executive is temporary at best.

Also, note that Garland was nominated in the beginning of election season (which started in Jan. 2016 with the Iowa Caucus), so the Senate was well within its rights to postpone confirmation until whoever won in November 2016 took office. What the Senate did was perfectly constitutional, actually made sense, and even in retrospect, was completely non-partisan - remember, nobody knew at the time who would win in 2016.

PS: The vetting process is intentionally vague outside of what was written, because due to time and social/political/technological evolution, 230+ years later, anything specific then would be way obsolete by now. Same story in the future if we set one now.

I do agree on limited terms, though I suspect that many on the leftward side of the ideological spectrum would be screaming against it now, considering Justice Bader-Ginsberg's advanced age, health issues, occasional narcolepsy at events (and rumor says on the bench), etc.

Re:This means nothing

[cayenne8]

"The Electoral College is not going any where, period."

Probably. It's horribly complex and ingrained. "

Well, it is there for a very GOOD reason. Remember this is the United STATES of America. States rights, eh?

This is there to give ALL states a more proportional ability to choose the president. If it weren't there, you'd have basically 2-3 massive states deciding for the rest of the states, and that is not fair. This is a vast country and a state like MO has vastly different concerns than CA, and the electoral college is there to help balance things a bit on the state level.

The Dems latest plans to tax the hell out of the rich and medicare for all (I mean, who would argue against that except the rich?) plus the MASSIVE tax cuts just handed away to the rich by trump is going to be a disaster for him and the right next election.

There are some troubles for you on this one. First, what is the definition of 'rich'? $250K/yr? $150K/yr?

And, even if you drop the definitions of rich to those levels, you can't get enough money to fund medicare for all, and people realize this just isn't something the US can afford.

And the ultra-rich, well, if you start trying to tax them at 90%, which would still not pay for 'free education and medical for everyone)....those folks can afford to move out of the US to escape it. That just leads the upper middle class to pay it all, and that isn't fair, it will just decimate the middle class even more.

Re:This means nothing

[desdinova 216]

you say that like it would be a bad thing, If this was a South American, African, or Asian country where the people with a vested interest in the results of an election making the districts or rules for elections there would be an investigation within days.

Re:This means nothing

[cayenne8]

Bonus question:

How come poor countries can afford it but the US can't?

Even in NON-poor countries, they are having trouble keeping up healthcare for all and the costs are starting to weigh in heavily.

Healthcare problems in the UK

Canada isn't that much better than US

Re:This means nothing

[jwhyche]

You keep saying that. It's like if you keep saying it, it will be true. Silly democrats. Reality is a good place, you should try it some times.

Re:This means nothing

[jwhyche]

The Dems latest plans to tax the hell out of the rich and medicare for all (I mean, who would argue against that except the rich?) plus the MASSIVE tax cuts just handed away to the rich by trump is going to be a disaster for him and the right next election.

I would argue against it and I'm not rich. See I know what happens in a free society when you "tax the hell out of the rich." They take their money and put it in banks outside the country. You know, where they can't be taxed the hell out of. That is exactly what happened under the worse president in history. The one before Trump. He tried to tax the hell out of the rich and what happened? All the money and jobs went over seas where it was taxed less. You see, the rich don't have piles of money laying in big building where the jump off diving boards into. They have it rolled into companies and invested. When you tax the hell out of it they just take it overseas. An that is exactly what happened under obama.

When Trump came in, even before then, he was promising to reduce the tax rate and look what happened. All the rich, and companies, brought their money home and started investing again. An what do we have now? The lowest unemployment rate in decades. A booming economy. I'm not rich and for the last two years I actually got a tax refund. This years was almost double what last years was.

You people need to stop believing bullshit Ocasio-Cortez is peddling. She is a god damn dingbat and she doesn't have a clue what she is talking about.

Re:This means nothing

[jwhyche]

Bonus question: How come poor countries can afford it but the US can't?

Question back. How come in these poor countries where they have free healthcare, when they need something done to save their ass, they come to the US? When the rich and power need a heart or cancer treatment, they come to the US. What is wrong with the free health care in their country? Why is it when a child need a life saving operation a charity bring them to the US? If the healthcare is so good back home, why come to the US?

Re:This means nothing

[jwhyche]

It really is time that you reformed the SC. Limited terms for justices at the very least, and a much more robust vetting process.

No it isn't. It works just fine the way it is. The vetting process works just fine. It worked great with the last nomination and it will work with Trumps next pick just as well. We don't need limits on the justices because job security is one of the reasons they can be impartial as they are.

Fifth Amendment privilege? That sucks!

[fustakrakich]

Guess all our rights are privileges now.

Wasn't this a Dilbert cartoon?

[stevent1965]

I'm pretty sure there exists a Dilbert cartoon where Wally is being accused of using his computer to look at porn and one of his "defenses" is that, technically, it's all just ones and zeros until the computer is turned on?

Shroedinger’s Files?

[R3d M3rcury]

In a very real sense, the files do not exist on the phone in any meaningful way until the passcode is entered [...]

One could argue that, at the quantum level, the files both exist and do not exist and it is the action of unlocking the phone that causes the files to exist.

Or not. I know nothing of quantum mechanics...

Re:Shroedinger’s Files?

[Darinbob]

Your honor, we find the defendant both guilty and not guilty.

Re: The thing is that there's nothing they can do

[jwhyche]

B) Move the schedule up with Ye Olde Pipewrenche.

This is the 21st century, nobody is going to take pipe wrench to your ass. For one it leaves to many marks. Modern techniques use low voltage and work it up from there. Just as good as a pipe wrench but leaves lots of room for possible deniability. No marks when done by a professional

Hopefully the court won't buy these arguments

[MikeRT]

"In a very real sense, the files do not exist on the phone in any meaningful way until the passcode is entered and the files sought are decrypted. . . . Because compelling Seo to unlock her phone compels her to literally recreate the information the State is seeking

File compression does the same thing if you hold to this reasoning. In fact, you could argue that this is almost a philosophical gap between machine vs human-readable content.

it would rely on Seo's mental knowledge of the passcode and require her to implicitly acknowledge other information such as the fact that it was under her possession and control.

If they have a witness showing her unlocking the phone, they've established that it's her phone. If they have even purchase records showing that she paid for a plan tied to the IMEI code and made frequent use of it, they've established that she is the owner and a reasonable person would assume she knows how to aid a valid warrant service on her phone.

Re:Hopefully the court won't buy these arguments

[thegarbz]

File compression does the same thing

Not true. File compression is self sustaining and very much not encrypted in any way. The contents of the file can be restored with information from the archive itself. That is quite different to something requiring an independent decryption key.

What if you are forgetful?

[DuncanE]

Ok your honor the pass code is 1234. Or maybe 4321? No wait its 1111! Sorry you had my phone away from me for too long and I usually type it using muscle memory and its gone now. Lets just reset it back to factory settings and I can set up a new code for you ;-)

Re: The thing is that there's nothing they can do

[ShanghaiBill]

No marks when done by a professional

Waterboarding also works very well, and leaves no marks. Just a bit of duct tape to cover the nose, and a trickle of water into the back of the throat is all it takes.

The only risk of marks is the suspect struggling against the restraints, so always use plenty of padding.

How do they "force" you to unlock your phone?

[mark-t]

They can put you behind bars, but that doesn't guarantee unlocking the phone... While not everyone might be resistant to the point of even going to jail, if they cannot get what they want by threatening punishment, what good does the punishment even do?

Further, I can imagine a futuristic type of lock existing someday that would not unlock under any circumstances when its designated owner is compromised, perhaps to keep trade secrets secure... Being arrested and compelled to unlock your phone could be interpteted by such a system as such a comprise, and there would be absolutely no way to force the person to unlock it, even if they wanted to at that point.

Re:How do they "force" you to unlock your phone?

[f3rret]

The legal term is "compel" not "force".
It basically amounts to: "Do this thing or face legal trouble".

Re:How do they "force" you to unlock your phone?

[currently_awake]

If the goal of the police is to lock you up, then they win.

Re:How do they "force" you to unlock your phone?

[mark-t]

It's the same general idea, yeah... in theory, if the would-be coercer is aware that the lock exists, they will have to reconsider trying at all, because they know it will not achieve the desired result.

Re:How do they "force" you to unlock your phone?

[mark-t]

That's assuming that is the goal... why would they have that goal without evidence?

And if they don't care about evidence, then they can lock you up anyways by simply manufacturing a crime that you never committed at all.

Re:How do they "force" you to unlock your phone?

[mark-t]

But they don't unlock the phone. Which apparently is their *stated* goal.

And in fact, if or when the tech exists to implement and advanced intelligent lock system that behaves as I described above, locking people up for not unlocking their devices wouldn't accomplish anything, so they might as well not do it when they don't have any other evidence that a crime which merits imprisonment was actually committed.

And if they have other evidence, then why can't they can convict on that? Compelling you to unlock a phone under threat of arrest is a fishing expedition, nothing more and nothing less.

And if their goal is to just lock up anyone who doesn't just do everything that they say, even if they haven't actually done anything wrong, well then.... we know what kind of state that is.

Re:How do they "force" you to unlock your phone?

[mark-t]

Well, I'm imagining that the guy only hid his assets *after* he realized he was getting a divorce, whereas what I'm talking about is when people might utilize such technology even if they haven't done anything wrong, but simply wish to ensure that the information remain secret.

Can you be arrested for wanting to comply with law enforcement but not being able to because of a decision that you made long before to use a securing technology that would lock you out in the event you are compromised just because you didn't necessarily anticipate that you would get arrested?

Re:How do they "force" you to unlock your phone?

[MooseTick]

Android and iPhones could easily employ a mechanism that wipes a phone that isn't logged into in 7/30/365/whatever days. That would also mean the state could only hold you in contempt for a limited period. Now, they could try to get you for destruction of evidence after the fact, but that is a whole different can of worms.

Alternate code to erase

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like my phone to have a secondary code that causes it to erase all data on the phone.

Re:Alternate code to erase

[Anonymous Coward]

No no no, that's automatic destruction of evidence, and contempt of court. What you want is a dummy profile - one that doesn't retain call/text/web history and has a few 'safe' phone numbers in it.

Now that you mention it, why doesn't the the prosecution probably already have the call/text/web history? Why do they need her to unlock the phone? If she was harassing the guy like they say, can't the phone company pull her call/text history?
Hmm. I wonder if she was using one of those Internet based VOIP number to do this? Even so, it should be traceable back to her IP address and ultimately, her phone.

Re:Alternate code to erase

[sjames]

It must have malfunctioned!

Re:Alternate code to erase

[thegarbz]

Oh good. Not one but 2 counts of contempt of court. Such a stupid lie won't get you very far.

Re:Alternate code to erase

[sjames]

Prove it didn't, forget the whole thing, or admit the Constitution has been shredded.

Re:Alternate code to erase

[desdinova 216]

because the way they have the information is inadmissible in court so they're trying parallel construction?

Re:Alternate code to erase

[thegarbz]

Prove it didn't

No need. It's up there with the "I forgot" cases. The amazing coincident that something magically happens to evidence by pure unlucky malfunction is beyond any reasonable doubt of malfunction.

or admit the Constitution has been shredded.

The constitution says nothing about defending your acts of god during a legal case. When it all comes down to it in criminal activity your high and mighty constitution combined with your incalculable lucky break just fails to meet any requirements of reasonable doubt.

Sorry mate, but when you look guilty AF you will ultimately be treated as such.

Re:Alternate code to erase

[sjames]

Innocent until proven guilty. Fortunate and unfortunate coincidence does happen all the time. Long chains of fortune may strain credulity, but single coincidences are not only common, but a lack of them would strain credulity.

Take any disaster in history and you will probably find a number of people who survived because their alarm didn't go off or the car wouldn;'t start or they couldn't find their keycard, etc. On the other side, there are people who mis-dial and accidentally set up a drug buy with a cop or who butt dial 911 while committing a crime.

The thing about "I forgot" is that people do forget. Spend 1 day at an IT help desk and you will know for a fact that people forget important passwords all the time. The more pressure there is to remember, the less likely remembering is.

Given that and your response, I'll check the shredder for the Constitution. It's in there somewhere.

Re:Alternate code to erase

[thegarbz]

Innocent until proven guilty.

No. Innocent until thought guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Catch phrases won't get you far in the legal system.

Re:Alternate code to erase

[sjames]

And that's because the Constitution is in the shredder.

Re:Alternate code to erase

[thegarbz]

You should read the constitution. You'll find that it has nothing to do with anything being discussed here. Not free speech, not self incrimination, and not being innocent until proven guilty.

But you're on a role for not knowing the legal system of your country.

Re:Alternate code to erase

[sjames]

Apparently you don't. I am well aware that a great deal of sophistry has grown up around violations of the Constitution. I simply don't buy in to it.

You've painted yourself into a corner and so you are now left with only bald assertions and misquotes of the law. For some odd reason you are supporting imprisoning someone based on no evidence whatsoever and with no jury in sight.

You claim that forgetting and malfunctions are so unlikely as to be beyond reasonable doubt. I pointed out that people do forget all the time, and malfunctions at particularly good and particularly bad times happen all the time. So you switched to bald claims that I don't know the law.

The problem you're having is the root sophistry that somehow disclosing a password doesn't constitute testimony and so compelled disclosure isn't a violation of the Bill of rights. It's a non-starter.

The rest is just Rube Goldberg like workarounds in the same spirit as the crazy elaborate purported perpetual motion machines ("let's see if you can find the fundamental violation of the laws of physics NOW").

Re: The thing is that there's nothing they can do

[grep -v '.*' *]

This is the 21st century, nobody is going to take pipe wrench to your ass.

If it was good enough for the Godfather, it's good enough for me.

No marks when done by a professional

Amateur. You ALWAYS sign your work. If I'd wanted deniability, then you wouldn't ever find the subject to start with.

Re: The thing is that there's nothing they can do

[Khyber]

Start posting your personal details so we can tell if you have something to hide or not, asshole.

See how quickly that gets turned on your sorry and ignorant old ass?

Oh, you're a Z00phile. Pretty obvious by your name, animal fucker. Got that pawprint tattoo, too?

Re: The thing is that there's nothing they can do

[Khyber]

Oh, speaking of cowardly shit, looks like your bedug.com domain is all "Redacted for Privacy" on whois.

You fucking hypocrite cowardly fuck. What kind of child porno server are you running behind that domain, eh?

Re: The thing is that there's nothing they can do

[drinkypoo]

This makes me pine for the Bush and Obama days before the world had such dictators. Don't bee too surprised when Mueller indcits Trump for things like torture and bombing men, women, and children.

Obama didn't get indicted for drone striking men, women, and children. Why would Trump? That would set a precedent that neither party wants to see.

Re: The thing is that there's nothing they can do

[BeanHD (555)]

What "president" would they want to see if the party's are both in it, pardon the pun? How do we get away from raping the world?

Re: The thing is that there's nothing they can do

[jpaine619]

Are you trying to spell "parties"?

Re: The thing is that there's nothing they can do

[jpaine619]

Amateur. You ALWAYS sign your work. If I'd wanted deniability, then you wouldn't ever find the subject to start with.

Only an amateur would think that a body disappearing wouldn't create a whole bunch of questions. A raving person with no marks can be written off as a nut job. Sometimes a cowed person is more valuable to "the cause" than another corpse.

Re: The thing is that there's nothing they can do

[Sique]

The schedule with ye olde pipewrench (or any other method of torture) has been known to be a very stump weapon in real investigations since about 350 year (Friedrich Spee's Cautio criminalis has the details. It's just an intimidation tool. But if you really want to get information, torture is generally worthless. All it can do is enforce what you already know or believe to know.

Torture is used to get a confession, not information, and 24 Hours is a TV series, not a descriptive teaching of proven investigative methods.

As I understand it...

[f3rret]

There are already several cases where you can be compelled to to divulge your passwords or crypto keys:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re: The thing is that there's nothing they can do

[Anonymous Coward]

Torture works - on people having no training. Likely true for this girl.

Torture makes people talk. So the most basic advice is - resist as long as you can, then LIE when you can't take any more.

More advanced versions extends this scheme a bit - tell a bad lie first. When they don't buy that and keep interrogating with torture, pretend to crack and tell a good lie. And stick to it. And behave the way people usually do when torture drives them crazy - whoever instructs you on such matters, probably knows such things.

Torture is considered non-functional for this reason - people will say anything to make the torture stop. Typically, they will say whatever they think you want to hear. Torture won't work with a prepared secret agent, or a true fanatic. It might work on a dumbass criminal - which is why cops have some success beating them up. Beatings leave marks, but "He tried to escape."

Torture might work better if you have many subjects to wreck. Which you generally have in wars. Some of them will eventually tell the truth, the rest will eventually stick to different lies. So you can go with the one story you hear the most - unless that happens to be a lie prepared for all of them - or the common "They guy who died in the initial fight did/planned it all!"

Re: The thing is that there's nothing they can do

[currently_awake]

Right to privacy! Just get a EU court to order all the records de-indexed.

Re: The thing is that there's nothing they can do

[currently_awake]

Torture can be used to get information where you can prove if it's true or not, like water boarding someone until they give the safe combination. Any other use of torture is stupid.

Sure. Pick on apostrophe usage.

[Petersko]

âAre you trying to spell "parties"?â(TM)

The last bastion of people with no argument and no footing - go to minor grammar issues. Thatâ(TM)s not contributing or challenging. Itâ(TM)s just assholery.

Re:Sure. Pick on apostrophe usage.

[jpaine619]

It was a simple question. But, I've noticed that the angrier someone becomes when you point out a spelling error, the greater the chance that they are a self-important asshole.

Listen, we get it. You didn't pay attention in school. You failed to acquire the skills to effectively communicate, in written form, in English.

The rules of grammar, punctuation, spelling, and all the rest are there to help YOU put your thoughts into a form that can be correctly interpreted by your audience.

Parties and Party's are two ABSOLUTELY DIFFERENT THINGS. To a certain extent, both words could have been used, plausibly, in that sentence.

Consider the following:

Can you help your uncle, Jack, off his horse.
Can you help your uncle jack off his horse.

A comma (or two) and a capital letter can be very important. They change the whole scope of what's being asked.

Re: Not important

[aitikin]

To be fair, Gary does smell something awful...

Re: The thing is that there's nothing they can do

[GLMDesigns]

Still waiting to hear about this treason and collusion y'all are blathering about.

I didn't vote for him but have been pleasantly surprised with the economy, with the progress in the Koreas, the fact that he isn't war-mongering in the mid-east.

The lies and stupidity over Kavanaugh and others - like those high school kids - makes me have an antipathy for the Democrats the same as I've had for the Republicans.

Re: The thing is that there's nothing they can do

[drinkypoo]

I didn't vote for him but have been pleasantly surprised with the economy,

Trump has only harmed the economy, he hasn't helped it. Even conservative-loved Harley-Davidson has had to move thousands of jobs overseas as a result.

with the progress in the Koreas

You know NK hasn't stopped nuclear testing right?

the fact that he isn't war-mongering in the mid-east.

He is, he's just claiming he isn't.

The lies and stupidity over Kavanaugh

What lies?

Re: The thing is that there's nothing they can do

[bev_tech_rob]

Her name is already public, so she's now officially toast anyway since calling the 5th means that she has something to hide.

Good luck for her the next decade to find a decent job.

Helpful bit of info concerning that assumption... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re: The thing is that there's nothing they can do

[dcw3]

Yeah, lowest unemployment rate since the 60s...certainly he's "harmed the economy".

The last missile test NK did was 28 Nov 2017.

Please point to the warmongering your claiming...would it be Syria or Afghanistan, where he's been trying to pull troops out? Or, would it be getting NATO to pay it's fair share for their defense?

And, FWIW, the man is an ass, and I didn't vote for him.

Re: The thing is that there's nothing they can do

[dcw3]

Her name is already public, so she's now officially toast anyway since calling the 5th means that she has something to hide.

Good luck for her the next decade to find a decent job.

There are plenty of managers (like myself) who would gladly hire someone who stuck up for what's right. Assuming she's found innocent of any wrongdoing, she'll likely end up with offers of employment from people who've followed the case.

Re:The court may use her actions against her

[dcw3]

When you open the door to your home and show the police something, it doesn't give them the right to snoop around for other stuff w/o a warrant. Sure, they can go after stuff with probable cause, or if there's something wrong within eyesight of that door...not the case here, and insinuating that it is would set a bad precedent.

Re: The thing is that there's nothing they can do

[Z00L00K]

It's GDPR. And I had to close the Drupal server I was running due to security bugs. But that's what you get for trusting that PHP is in any way safe and stable.

Re: The thing is that there's nothing they can do

[drinkypoo]

Yeah, lowest unemployment rate since the 60s...certainly he's "harmed the economy".

A lot of things are lowest right now, like how much money people have in savings. Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, even ones with good jobs like federal workers. And many of those who do have jobs are underemployed, meaning they're going further and further into debt to support their families. Eventually, they'll have to go bankrupt, like a Trump casino, and it will cost all of us money.

The last missile test NK did was 28 Nov 2017.

They haven't dismantled the facilities they use to build the weapons. There will be more tests.

Please point to the warmongering your claiming...would it be Syria or Afghanistan, where he's been trying to pull troops out?

You believe this theater shit? What a tool.

Or, would it be getting NATO to pay it's fair share for their defense?

That's happening already.

And, FWIW, the man is an ass, and I didn't vote for him.

Then why are you repeating his propaganda like a parrot?

Average life expectancy

[MooseTick]

Even if the UK and Canada are "having trouble keeping up healthcare for all", they seem to be doing better than the US in average life expectancy and infant mortality rate.

Average life expectancy:

US: 78.69 years
UK: 80.96 years
Canada: 82.30 years

infant mortality rate:
US:6.9 deaths per 1,000 live births
UK: 5 deaths per 1,000 live births
Canada: 5.4 deaths per 1,000 live births

Suggested new phone feature...

[zeugma-amp]

There is already a feature on many phones to wipe them if a certain number of attempts are made to unlock them with the wrong password.

Why not simply have another feature that wipes the phone immediately if someone enters a specific password?

This is a feature I'd be willing to upgrade for.

Re: The thing is that there's nothing they can do

[GLMDesigns]

with the progress in the Koreas

You know NK hasn't stopped nuclear testing right?

- The missile launches have stopped.
- The industrial grade loudspeakers spewing propaganda have stopped AND have been torn down. Stopping the propaganda would have been something. Tearing down the loudspeakers and the 30' platforms they were on is next level sh!t.
- Bodies were exhumed in the 100s (if not 1000s now) and returned to SK and the US. DNA tests shows that these are not simply "bodies"
- Mine shafts leading to underground testing sites have been blocked up and the railroad tracks leading there have been ripped up.
- Mine fields are being dug up on both sides of the border.
- NK artillery piece were moved away from the border. The first time in close to 70 years.
- The Koreas are talking - and beginning development of shared commuter railroad lines. (This is amazing.)

But yeah. Nothing is happening.

First soldiers identified from remains returned by North Korea - BBC ...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world...
Sep 21, 2018 - The US Army has identified the first of the remains believed to be US troops killed during the Korean War and returned by Pyongyang, officials ...

North and South Korea begin removing landmines along fortified DMZ
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/ News
Oct 1, 2018 - Troops from North and South Korea began removing some landmines along their heavily fortified border on Monday, the South's defence ...

North and South Korea Hope to Link the Peninsula Through Railways ...
fortune.com Briefing Korean peninsula
Dec 26, 2018 - North and South Korean officials try to connect a railroad during a groundbreaking ceremony for a project to modernize access the heavily ...

Re: The thing is that there's nothing they can do

[drinkypoo]

The missile launches have stopped.

Get back to me when they eliminate their nuclear development facilities. Regardless, none that shit has anything to do with Trump. Lil' Kim wanted to do that stuff for economic reasons.

I can save them some time

[Joey Vegetables]

They can't. 5th and 14th Amendments, preserving the pre-existing right, also protected by Common Law, against self-incrimination. I don't doubt that they will try, but, if and when they do, they mark themselves as traitors, and even if they do not face justice in this life, they will in the next.

Re: The thing is that there's nothing they can do

[GLMDesigns]

Which is why he was launching missiles? And why he didn't negotiate with Obama?

But it has nothing to do with Trump offering the correct carrot and stick.

Right. Got it.

Trump BAD.


Just so you start grasping things. I didn't vote for him. I didn't think he would do as well as he's done. But of course. Orange Man Bad.