An efficiency standard was set. Any bulb, using any technology, that meets this standard is fine. There are several incandescents that also meet the standard.
He's also the guy who apologized to BP for all the heat they were taking in the Gulf last year. Showing that he's no friend of rights; rather just a big business shill.
Or, you could not be an idiot, and realize that incandescents were not banned. There was an efficiency standard put into place. There are many incandescents that do meet that standard.
If they have a search warrant for a safe in the study. They do not all of a sudden get the right to open a gun safe in the basement or tear your matress up looking for the evidence.
While true, that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. We're not talking about them looking somewhere they don't have a warrant for.
Ah yes, Fuck the Rule of Law, your privacy is more important. Ass.
Considering you're the one that is trying to say that it has to be your way, and anyone else is an enemy who deserves to be in a 3rd world country, I'm guessing you should go to North Korea.
So if I have a 10,000 acre ranch, and someone has a search warrant, I am obligated to take them to the bunker where I keep my supplies for the end of the world/bodies?
What do they have a search warrant for? Do they have a warrant to look in the bunker for the dead bodies? If so, then yes.
Maybe. But that's not what the "Oath Keepers" are about. They don't like the President, so they're going to make completely asinine and baseless accusations as to his citizenship as an excuse for not doing their duty. Anybody who doesn't see through this is an idiot.
Answer the question. If they have Probable Cause to believe the information is in the safe, should they not be able to get a warrant for the contents of the safe?
And the rest of your post has nothing to do with what's being discussed. Your "Right to Privacy" does NOT protect you from a search warrant. And the innocent vs guilty thing doesn't even apply here.
But if you have not admitted that it is your laptop
If it's not your laptop, then you shouldn't have any stake, and should be able to show, in your defense, that it is not yours.
or have not admitted that the encrypted file is yours or that you know the password
If it's been shown that the laptop is yours, you would be very hard pressed to assert this. The fact that the data is on your laptop would be enough to obtain a search warrant.
then they are asking you to divulge information - perhaps not the password itself, but the information that you know the password, that the data is yours.
If it's on your laptop, it would be a hard assertion that the data is not yours. Again, there would be enough probable cause to get a search warrant.
This is why you should not say anything at all when asked questions by government officers, even if the questions seem harmless.
Self incrimination is when you testify against yourself details of a crime. Providing access to the subject of a search warrant is NOT self incrimination.
Anyone who claims otherwise should have their citizen stripped on account of stupidity, and be dumped in the middle of the ocean, to remove them from the gene pool.
No, it's not. It is not self-incrimination. Giving them the documents, or the contents of the safe, without them having a warrant or without probable cause, would be self incrimination. Providing access to the subject of a warrant is not self-incrimination.
I fail to see how your link proves anything on your side. There seemed to be plenty of probable cause to search the cell phone, and if they decided to wait, plenty of cause for a warrant to be grant. Either action would require the phone to be surrendered and any screen lock code granted, which would NOT be considered self incrimination.
No, they are incompetent because they don't have enough evidence gathered to convince a judge ask the person to reveal their password as a court order.
Ummm, no? If they have a warrant for the contents of the drive, they have a warrant for the password to the drive as well, if it exists.
Too much hassle for the DOJ, they want to 'force' people to give up their secret info. Fuck 'em. They have no legal basis, there is no motivation to comply. If you find yourself in this situation, have YOUR LAWYER tell them, that you retain your 5th Amendment rights and you will not give up the password, unless they agree to give you permanent blanket immunity to anything that might be found or stem from the machine search, let you out of whatever they arrested you for, and give you a few million for your trouble.
Have fun sitting in a jail cell for violating a court order, then.
How does that compare to how other things are today? Suppose I suspected you had a murder weapon in your room. I get a search warrant for that room to look for the murder weapon. While looking for the weapon, I find a bunch of illegal narcotics, say, a pot growing operation. Do I have to ignore that while looking for the murder weapon?
It's a pretty apt analogy, actually, from the legal aspect of things. They're not asking for the means of entry, they're asking for the contents. If those cannot be produced, then you are in contempt, and will be treated as such.
Except the "Oath Keepers" are largely just racist assholes who think Obama is not born in the US.
NOTE: I do not think that anyone who opposes Obama is a racist. I do think that those who think he is not a legally born citizen of the US are, as there is no other explanation.
Here's the thing: They're not asking you to produce evidence incriminating yourself. They know this drive contains information which may be pertinent to the case. Like a safe that might contain the same information, they get a warrant for the contents of the drive. You are then obligated to turn over an unencrypted version of the drive, just like you would be obligated to turn over the contents of a safe. Remember, this is a drive they already know exists. Now, with a safe, the DOJ would have people on staff who could open 99% of safes a person could afford, so denying them the combo/key isn't going to be the end of the world, because they can still get in. However, this is not true for encrypted drives, at least not those using decent encryption methods.
Slashdot Mirror
They're not banned, dumbass. They're just setting an efficiency standard. There are many incandescents which meet that standard.
Calling it a ban on incandescent bulbs *is* spin.
All this does is set an efficiency standard. Any bulb, using any technology, that meets that standard, is allowed.
THEY WEREN'T BANNED.
An efficiency standard was set. Any bulb, using any technology, that meets this standard is fine. There are several incandescents that also meet the standard.
Why not set an efficiency standard, and then let the market respond with offerings that meet that standard?
Leaving everything up to the "whims of the market" is stupid.
No there isn't. The incandescents at the time couldn't reach the standard. There are many out there now that can.
That's what they fucking did! They set an efficiency standard! That's it!
I have no doubt you are pulling numbers out of your ass.
Bullshit. An efficiency standard was put out. That's it. There was no "ban" on bulbs.
He's also the guy who apologized to BP for all the heat they were taking in the Gulf last year. Showing that he's no friend of rights; rather just a big business shill.
Because this isn't going to do anything to "save" jobs?
Or, you could not be an idiot, and realize that incandescents were not banned. There was an efficiency standard put into place. There are many incandescents that do meet that standard.
If they have a search warrant for a safe in the study. They do not all of a sudden get the right to open a gun safe in the basement or tear your matress up looking for the evidence.
While true, that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. We're not talking about them looking somewhere they don't have a warrant for.
Ah yes, Fuck the Rule of Law, your privacy is more important. Ass.
Considering you're the one that is trying to say that it has to be your way, and anyone else is an enemy who deserves to be in a 3rd world country, I'm guessing you should go to North Korea.
So if I have a 10,000 acre ranch, and someone has a search warrant, I am obligated to take them to the bunker where I keep my supplies for the end of the world/bodies?
What do they have a search warrant for? Do they have a warrant to look in the bunker for the dead bodies? If so, then yes.
Maybe. But that's not what the "Oath Keepers" are about. They don't like the President, so they're going to make completely asinine and baseless accusations as to his citizenship as an excuse for not doing their duty. Anybody who doesn't see through this is an idiot.
Answer the question. If they have Probable Cause to believe the information is in the safe, should they not be able to get a warrant for the contents of the safe?
And the rest of your post has nothing to do with what's being discussed. Your "Right to Privacy" does NOT protect you from a search warrant. And the innocent vs guilty thing doesn't even apply here.
But if you have not admitted that it is your laptop
If it's not your laptop, then you shouldn't have any stake, and should be able to show, in your defense, that it is not yours.
or have not admitted that the encrypted file is yours or that you know the password
If it's been shown that the laptop is yours, you would be very hard pressed to assert this. The fact that the data is on your laptop would be enough to obtain a search warrant.
then they are asking you to divulge information - perhaps not the password itself, but the information that you know the password, that the data is yours.
If it's on your laptop, it would be a hard assertion that the data is not yours. Again, there would be enough probable cause to get a search warrant.
This is why you should not say anything at all when asked questions by government officers, even if the questions seem harmless.
Complete agree. That's what legal council is for.
No, and you're an idiot.
Self incrimination is when you testify against yourself details of a crime. Providing access to the subject of a search warrant is NOT self incrimination.
Anyone who claims otherwise should have their citizen stripped on account of stupidity, and be dumped in the middle of the ocean, to remove them from the gene pool.
No, it's not. It is not self-incrimination. Giving them the documents, or the contents of the safe, without them having a warrant or without probable cause, would be self incrimination. Providing access to the subject of a warrant is not self-incrimination.
I fail to see how your link proves anything on your side. There seemed to be plenty of probable cause to search the cell phone, and if they decided to wait, plenty of cause for a warrant to be grant. Either action would require the phone to be surrendered and any screen lock code granted, which would NOT be considered self incrimination.
No, they are incompetent because they don't have enough evidence gathered to convince a judge ask the person to reveal their password as a court order.
Ummm, no? If they have a warrant for the contents of the drive, they have a warrant for the password to the drive as well, if it exists.
Too much hassle for the DOJ, they want to 'force' people to give up their secret info. Fuck 'em. They have no legal basis, there is no motivation to comply. If you find yourself in this situation, have YOUR LAWYER tell them, that you retain your 5th Amendment rights and you will not give up the password, unless they agree to give you permanent blanket immunity to anything that might be found or stem from the machine search, let you out of whatever they arrested you for, and give you a few million for your trouble.
Have fun sitting in a jail cell for violating a court order, then.
How does that compare to how other things are today? Suppose I suspected you had a murder weapon in your room. I get a search warrant for that room to look for the murder weapon. While looking for the weapon, I find a bunch of illegal narcotics, say, a pot growing operation. Do I have to ignore that while looking for the murder weapon?
You can. But usually passengers in the car don't need to be told, as they can see what's happening.
And if you're going to tell someone on a phone to shut up, you might as well not be talking to them.
It's a pretty apt analogy, actually, from the legal aspect of things. They're not asking for the means of entry, they're asking for the contents. If those cannot be produced, then you are in contempt, and will be treated as such.
Except the "Oath Keepers" are largely just racist assholes who think Obama is not born in the US.
NOTE: I do not think that anyone who opposes Obama is a racist. I do think that those who think he is not a legally born citizen of the US are, as there is no other explanation.
Suppose the case hinges on the contents of a safe. Should they have to drop the case in that instance?
Here's the thing: They're not asking you to produce evidence incriminating yourself. They know this drive contains information which may be pertinent to the case. Like a safe that might contain the same information, they get a warrant for the contents of the drive. You are then obligated to turn over an unencrypted version of the drive, just like you would be obligated to turn over the contents of a safe. Remember, this is a drive they already know exists. Now, with a safe, the DOJ would have people on staff who could open 99% of safes a person could afford, so denying them the combo/key isn't going to be the end of the world, because they can still get in. However, this is not true for encrypted drives, at least not those using decent encryption methods.