5 ms·

Can you be charged with obstruction of justice if you haven't been charged or served a warrant? i.e. just being suspect doesn't put you in line of perjury charg

Can you be charged with obstruction of justice if you haven't been charged or served a warrant? i.e. just being suspect doesn't put you in line of perjury charges in this case. I'm not a lawyer, but that was my interpretation in case that's wrong.

openasocket 9y ago
Yes, you absolutely can be charged with obstruction without a warrant. If you are being interviewed by an LEO and you lie to them to disrupt their investigation, that's potentially a crime. It doesn't matter if you haven't been subpoenaed or aren't under oath.
- Posibyte 9y ago
  Right, but in this case, when there isn't a crime. When they're looking for evidence to charge you with or use as a reason to deport or something in that area. In that case, can that be construed as Obstruction of Justice?
  - openasocket 9y ago
    > Right, but in this case, when there isn't a crime There wasn't a crime, until you deceived officers. It doesn't matter if you deceived them to cover up a crime, or to protect your privacy, or just for fun, it's still illegal.
    - jriot 9y ago
      How is that illegal? They asked for a password to their device. He gave a password which then cleaned the device. For all the authorities know, it was a clean device i.e., brand new. Maybe they enjoy regularly installing new OSs using a clean install. This being illegal is equally as bad them searching devices in the first place without just cause.
      - openasocket 9y ago
        They'd have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt you were tampering with potential evidence to convict you. So they'd have to try and prove in court you gave them a password which cleaned the device. > For all the authorities know, it was a clean device i.e., brand new Just because you can get away with something doesn't mean it isn't a crime. Lying to or misleading investigators is a crime, I don't know how to be more clear than that.
        jriot 9y ago
        If the password you give them also cleans your device you have given them the password to access your device. How is that lying or misleading? I would argue their invasion of privacy is a crime but no one is watching the watchers, thus these types of measures are going to be used.
        openasocket 9y ago
        They ask to access your files, and you delete your files. I guess that isn't lying per se, but it definitely is destruction of evidence, which falls under the general heading of obstruction of justice. And before you ask, yes, it is still considered evidence even if there's nothing incriminating there. It is considered evidence because an LEO asked for it as part of an investigation.
- mirimir 9y ago
  OK, how about this. I offer FDE as a service, anonymously via Tor. Your Linux machine uses LUKS, with remote unlocking via dropbear. But you don't have the decryption passphrase. Before booting, you must alert me via Signal with video, stating that you are not under coercion, with identity and time verification. Then I SSH via Tor, and unlock your machine. The argument is that authorities can't force you to lie to me, in order to get your machine unlocked. And you don't need to lie to them, either. But of course, you'd need to trust me implicitly ;)
  - Canada 9y ago
    You could add shamir secret sharing and restrict your remote access to running a program that accepts your secret.
    - mirimir 9y ago
      Sure. I don't know how to integrate that with LUKS, however. But even so, once I had remote SSH access to initramfs, and had unlocked LUKS, I could mount /root and mess with the system, adding my own trusted key for remote access, etc. So basically, users would need to trust me fully.
      - Canada 9y ago
        Your special login shell would not allow you to do anything except provide your secret, after which you are simply disconnected without having the opportunity to do anything else. A different process not under your control would mount the volume. At no point would you get to execute arbitrary commands or open any files. You would only have to be trusted not to hold your secret for ransom.
  - komali2 9y ago
    Then exactly what happened here occurs - he gets arrested for not unlocking his laptop, I'd imagine.
    - mirimir 9y ago
LordKano 9y ago
Yes and that's why you should never lie to investigators. They can lie to you and it's legal, if you lie to them it's a crime. You're always better off to pass all communications through a lawyer. They're not allowed to lie to a lawyer.

openasocket 9y ago

Yes, you absolutely can be charged with obstruction without a warrant. If you are being interviewed by an LEO and you lie to them to disrupt their investigation, that's potentially a crime. It doesn't matter if you haven't been subpoenaed or aren't under oath.

Posibyte 9y ago
Right, but in this case, when there isn't a crime. When they're looking for evidence to charge you with or use as a reason to deport or something in that area. In that case, can that be construed as Obstruction of Justice?
- openasocket 9y ago
  > Right, but in this case, when there isn't a crime There wasn't a crime, until you deceived officers. It doesn't matter if you deceived them to cover up a crime, or to protect your privacy, or just for fun, it's still illegal.
  - jriot 9y ago
    How is that illegal? They asked for a password to their device. He gave a password which then cleaned the device. For all the authorities know, it was a clean device i.e., brand new. Maybe they enjoy regularly installing new OSs using a clean install. This being illegal is equally as bad them searching devices in the first place without just cause.
    - openasocket 9y ago
      They'd have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt you were tampering with potential evidence to convict you. So they'd have to try and prove in court you gave them a password which cleaned the device. > For all the authorities know, it was a clean device i.e., brand new Just because you can get away with something doesn't mean it isn't a crime. Lying to or misleading investigators is a crime, I don't know how to be more clear than that.
      - jriot 9y ago
        If the password you give them also cleans your device you have given them the password to access your device. How is that lying or misleading? I would argue their invasion of privacy is a crime but no one is watching the watchers, thus these types of measures are going to be used.
        openasocket 9y ago
        They ask to access your files, and you delete your files. I guess that isn't lying per se, but it definitely is destruction of evidence, which falls under the general heading of obstruction of justice. And before you ask, yes, it is still considered evidence even if there's nothing incriminating there. It is considered evidence because an LEO asked for it as part of an investigation.
mirimir 9y ago
OK, how about this. I offer FDE as a service, anonymously via Tor. Your Linux machine uses LUKS, with remote unlocking via dropbear. But you don't have the decryption passphrase. Before booting, you must alert me via Signal with video, stating that you are not under coercion, with identity and time verification. Then I SSH via Tor, and unlock your machine. The argument is that authorities can't force you to lie to me, in order to get your machine unlocked. And you don't need to lie to them, either. But of course, you'd need to trust me implicitly ;)
- Canada 9y ago
  You could add shamir secret sharing and restrict your remote access to running a program that accepts your secret.
  - mirimir 9y ago
    Sure. I don't know how to integrate that with LUKS, however. But even so, once I had remote SSH access to initramfs, and had unlocked LUKS, I could mount /root and mess with the system, adding my own trusted key for remote access, etc. So basically, users would need to trust me fully.
    - Canada 9y ago
      Your special login shell would not allow you to do anything except provide your secret, after which you are simply disconnected without having the opportunity to do anything else. A different process not under your control would mount the volume. At no point would you get to execute arbitrary commands or open any files. You would only have to be trusted not to hold your secret for ransom.
- komali2 9y ago
  Then exactly what happened here occurs - he gets arrested for not unlocking his laptop, I'd imagine.
  - mirimir 9y ago

LordKano 9y ago

Yes and that's why you should never lie to investigators. They can lie to you and it's legal, if you lie to them it's a crime. You're always better off to pass all communications through a lawyer. They're not allowed to lie to a lawyer.