5 ms·

>Car companies specifically design their cars to be able to exceed legal speed limits. Does that make them liable when drivers break speed limits? They're not

by fmj 9y ago

>Car companies specifically design their cars to be able to exceed legal speed limits. Does that make them liable when drivers break speed limits? They're not being charged with creating an illegal phone, they being charged with conspiracy to import a controlled substance. Making an encrypted phone is perfectly legal, it became a conspiracy when they agreed to tamper with evidence for a client who had already stated they intend to use their service for drug trafficking communications (which was explicitly acknowledged.) All they had to do was make it clear to their customers that they didn't want to know the details of what they were using the phones to discuss, and refuse to do business with anyone who mentions illegal activity to them. >For one, this is the part that looks a lot like entrapment. How so? The undercover agents asked if they could use the service to communicate about drugs (implying that's what they would use it for) and the company agreed. The agents then asked them to wipe a phone that had been captured by the police and the company knowingly tampered with evidence on their behalf. Merely providing someone with an opportunity to participate in a crime isn't entrapment.

mattnewport 9y ago
From reading the complaint conspiracy seems like a stretch. There is in general no legal obligation to report a crime that you suspect has been or will be committed. Part of their service is to wipe phones on request. They had no subpoena to preserve evidence and no legal obligation to report suspected illegal activity. Perhaps tampering with evidence or obstruction of justice applies here, it will be interesting to see the outcome of the case. Again from reading the complaint it looks like entrapment. Most of what they quote looks analogous to a car company saying their car is very fast and then an undercover cop asking if that means it's fast enough to outrun the police if they use it as a getaway vehicle. Confirming that factually yes it would be seems some way short of conspiracy. No "real" crime is committed in answering such questions truthfully. Creating a conspiracy charge out of those answers looks like a stretch to me.
- 1024core 9y ago
  > From reading the complaint conspiracy seems like a stretch. This "conspiracy" charge is what Law Enforcement uses when they have nothing else.
- evgen 9y ago
  You apparently do not understand the legal concept of 'conspiracy' nor do you understand what 'entrapment' actually means in practice. Until you do it would probably be wise for you to stop sharing your unfounded opinions about the law or else preface them with a big, bold statement like 'I have no idea what I am talking about here, but would like the facts of the case to be read in a manner that matches my political whims regardless of existing laws and precedent.' If the facts, as presented in the article and linked complaint, hold up in court then the conspiracy charge is likely to stick and any claims made regarding entrapment will not be made by the defense because counsel for the defendant is unlikely to harbor a desire to be laughed at in court by a judge.
  - alsetmusic 9y ago
    > Until you do it would probably be wise for you to stop sharing your unfounded opinions about the law or else preface them with a big, bold statement like 'I have no idea what I am talking about here, but would like the facts of the case to be read in a manner that matches my political whims regardless of existing laws and precedent.' Given that you have not included links to support your own conclusions, the same could be said about your comment.
    - evgen 9y ago
      A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors. In this case the unlawful act is to knowingly participate in a scheme to violate various drug laws regarding the importation and distribution of controlled substances. In addition to the evidence of mens rea given there are several overt acts (e.g. agreeing to remote wipe a phone that was, at the time of this act, known to be held as evidence in a criminal case) that fulfill the requirements to indict for a conspiracy charge. As for entrapment, such a condition does not apply just by the act of a government agent providing someone with the opportunity to commit a crime but by when they use threats, harassment, or fraud to convince someone to do an act that the defendant can show they would not normally perform. Asking the defendant to wipe the phone was not entrapment, but suggesting that your drug cartel buddies might break his legs if he did not wipe the phone would be entrapment. If you need links of supporting evidence I suggest you and parent poster try using Google. Easy to understand explanations will be available for you on the first page of hits.

by fmj 9y ago

mattnewport 9y ago

From reading the complaint conspiracy seems like a stretch. There is in general no legal obligation to report a crime that you suspect has been or will be committed. Part of their service is to wipe phones on request. They had no subpoena to preserve evidence and no legal obligation to report suspected illegal activity. Perhaps tampering with evidence or obstruction of justice applies here, it will be interesting to see the outcome of the case. Again from reading the complaint it looks like entrapment. Most of what they quote looks analogous to a car company saying their car is very fast and then an undercover cop asking if that means it's fast enough to outrun the police if they use it as a getaway vehicle. Confirming that factually yes it would be seems some way short of conspiracy. No "real" crime is committed in answering such questions truthfully. Creating a conspiracy charge out of those answers looks like a stretch to me.

1024core 9y ago
> From reading the complaint conspiracy seems like a stretch. This "conspiracy" charge is what Law Enforcement uses when they have nothing else.
evgen 9y ago
You apparently do not understand the legal concept of 'conspiracy' nor do you understand what 'entrapment' actually means in practice. Until you do it would probably be wise for you to stop sharing your unfounded opinions about the law or else preface them with a big, bold statement like 'I have no idea what I am talking about here, but would like the facts of the case to be read in a manner that matches my political whims regardless of existing laws and precedent.' If the facts, as presented in the article and linked complaint, hold up in court then the conspiracy charge is likely to stick and any claims made regarding entrapment will not be made by the defense because counsel for the defendant is unlikely to harbor a desire to be laughed at in court by a judge.
- alsetmusic 9y ago
  > Until you do it would probably be wise for you to stop sharing your unfounded opinions about the law or else preface them with a big, bold statement like 'I have no idea what I am talking about here, but would like the facts of the case to be read in a manner that matches my political whims regardless of existing laws and precedent.' Given that you have not included links to support your own conclusions, the same could be said about your comment.
  - evgen 9y ago
    A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors. In this case the unlawful act is to knowingly participate in a scheme to violate various drug laws regarding the importation and distribution of controlled substances. In addition to the evidence of mens rea given there are several overt acts (e.g. agreeing to remote wipe a phone that was, at the time of this act, known to be held as evidence in a criminal case) that fulfill the requirements to indict for a conspiracy charge. As for entrapment, such a condition does not apply just by the act of a government agent providing someone with the opportunity to commit a crime but by when they use threats, harassment, or fraud to convince someone to do an act that the defendant can show they would not normally perform. Asking the defendant to wipe the phone was not entrapment, but suggesting that your drug cartel buddies might break his legs if he did not wipe the phone would be entrapment. If you need links of supporting evidence I suggest you and parent poster try using Google. Easy to understand explanations will be available for you on the first page of hits.