5 ms·

I'm blown away that someone (obviously so security savvy) would willingly hand over their passwords. There's little sense accepting their assurances at face val

by brbsix 11y ago

I'm blown away that someone (obviously so security savvy) would willingly hand over their passwords. There's little sense accepting their assurances at face value in potentially serious matters. LE can and will lie pursuant to their duties. I suppose I'm even more surprised they didn't end up impounding all the equipment anyways.

_wmd 11y ago
It seems to me the risk is almost entirely on the police in this scenario, meddling with running equipment is far from forensically sound and potentially leaves ample room for doubt in court. Volunteering to comply with the police request would also seem to exemplify the searchee's own presumption of innocence (IANAL!)
- djsumdog 11y ago
  No no no no. You never corporate with the police. It doesn't matter if you're innocent. It doesn't matter if you're guilty. The police are not your friends. They are not there to help you. They don't give a shit about you. Never comply with police. Never consent to a search. They had a warrant in this case so it wouldn't have mattered, but he still shouldn't have consented. He should have never given them his passwords. He should have waited for a lawyer. He made so many mistakes that I'm surprised he isn't in jail for incompetence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
  - _wmd 11y ago
    I think you're misinterpreting that idea, it's about not granting the police privilege they did not already possess. In this case the police are offering to trade the privilege of airtight, forensically sound evidence collection in for the chance to grab secrets hiding in RAM. If the machine had no such secrets, there is nothing to lose and everything to gain
    - brbsix 11y ago
      I'm a little confused. So you want to potentially give the police access to additional evidence (via your passwords/decryption keys) in the hopes that they will fuck something up or make a custodial error in the process of recovering it? You have everything to lose by giving them your passwords, even if you are innocent of the charges. You're under no obligation to give them your passwords or empty the contents of your brain in their presence. Why give them the opportunity to find something else? Who knows whether the machine has something they will find interesting. You shouldn't be providing LE with anything like this absent the advice of your attorney. There's too much to lose. I really want to encourage you to read the following: https://www.eff.org/issues/know-your-rights https://www.eff.org/issues/know-your-rights
      - MagnumOpus 11y ago
        No, he potentially gives the police access to additional evidence (via your passwords/decryption keys) in the hopes that the police don't do what they usually do (and what is in their right to do): confiscate all his electronic equipment and data including all backups of photos, videos, work projects, documents-in-progress, archives etc and not give it back for years.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    This attitude only furthers the problem though.

by brbsix 11y ago

_wmd 11y ago

It seems to me the risk is almost entirely on the police in this scenario, meddling with running equipment is far from forensically sound and potentially leaves ample room for doubt in court. Volunteering to comply with the police request would also seem to exemplify the searchee's own presumption of innocence (IANAL!)

djsumdog 11y ago
No no no no. You never corporate with the police. It doesn't matter if you're innocent. It doesn't matter if you're guilty. The police are not your friends. They are not there to help you. They don't give a shit about you. Never comply with police. Never consent to a search. They had a warrant in this case so it wouldn't have mattered, but he still shouldn't have consented. He should have never given them his passwords. He should have waited for a lawyer. He made so many mistakes that I'm surprised he isn't in jail for incompetence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
- _wmd 11y ago
  I think you're misinterpreting that idea, it's about not granting the police privilege they did not already possess. In this case the police are offering to trade the privilege of airtight, forensically sound evidence collection in for the chance to grab secrets hiding in RAM. If the machine had no such secrets, there is nothing to lose and everything to gain
  - brbsix 11y ago
    I'm a little confused. So you want to potentially give the police access to additional evidence (via your passwords/decryption keys) in the hopes that they will fuck something up or make a custodial error in the process of recovering it? You have everything to lose by giving them your passwords, even if you are innocent of the charges. You're under no obligation to give them your passwords or empty the contents of your brain in their presence. Why give them the opportunity to find something else? Who knows whether the machine has something they will find interesting. You shouldn't be providing LE with anything like this absent the advice of your attorney. There's too much to lose. I really want to encourage you to read the following: https://www.eff.org/issues/know-your-rights https://www.eff.org/issues/know-your-rights
    - MagnumOpus 11y ago
      No, he potentially gives the police access to additional evidence (via your passwords/decryption keys) in the hopes that the police don't do what they usually do (and what is in their right to do): confiscate all his electronic equipment and data including all backups of photos, videos, work projects, documents-in-progress, archives etc and not give it back for years.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  This attitude only furthers the problem though.