4 ms·

Yes, you're obliged to consent - you don't necessarily have to help them, but you're also prohibited to obstruct or delay them, especially destroy or hide the e

Yes, you're obliged to consent - you don't necessarily have to help them, but you're also prohibited to obstruct or delay them, especially destroy or hide the evidence. A lawful warrant overrides any expectations of privacy. Furthermore, there's no "self-defence" concept in any computer-related statutes; protecting a life can be an excuse for certain otherwise illegal actions, but protecting your data or devices is not; a "hack-back" is a crime on its own even if it would run on a criminal's computer, but in the Cellebrite case it's presumed that when law enforcement runs the data collection, they have full legal rights to access that device and data. For a physical world analogy, let's suppose that someone gets shot, and you run away with the gun used and throw it into a river. Even if you'd be acquitted for the shooting itself (due to e.g. self-defence, or perhaps someone else did that shooting), you can be convicted for throwing the gun into the river as tampering with physical evidence, as hiding that gun is a crime by itself if the jury assumes that you did it so that it wouldn't get used as evidence. That applies even if there wasn't any warrant yet, as the investigation hadn't yet started; it's sufficient that you would have expected that this might get used as evidence.

alexeldeib 5y ago
I think a better physical analogy is a tamper proof safe which destroys its contents. With such a safe (or the signal hack), if I disclosed the presence of the safeguard and LE either 1) failed to open the device without triggering the safeguard 2) trigger the safeguard unintentionally, is it really any different from not providing a password? Because the password would be the operable piece of information preventing them from getting the desired data without my consent.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  A tamper proof safe which destroys its contents indeed seems like a good analogy. However, I do think that in the case of a suspect having such a tamper proof safe, it would be a valid court order to require you to open that safe without destroying the contents. It's not really good to try and look for analogies with how similar or different something is to "providing a password" since providing a password itself is a boundary case between the right to not testify against yourself and the duty to provide the evidence so the specific case matters and in multiple cases people in USA have gotten jail time for refusing to provide passwords. Locked safes predate passwords, it's well-established that the contents of the safe are fair game with a warrant, so any analogies between safes and passwords are arguments that people should be required to disclose their passwords, not that people get to keep their safes unopened. And if the safe did actually destroy its contents, they would charge you with tampering with evidence, and in addition to that, the prosecution might be allowed to assert as fact that the destroyed evidence did actually contain all the things harmful to your case that they intended to find there - the "spoliation inference" concept. Also, your motivation for having such a safeguard matters. If a reasonable person would believe that you chose to use such a safeguard so that it would prevent police from getting to evidence and destroy it, that may be treated as a crime even if they manage to circumvent it and no evidence is destroyed. It's not about any specific method or process, taking any willful action with such an intent itself is a crime - you're not allowed to try to prevent a warrant from getting successfully executed.
  - alexeldeib 5y ago
    I’m not interested in the password angle and more interested in the “is signal culpable” angle. In which case we could just as easily assume there is no known password or combination. If the evidence ends up destroyed, I don’t think the maker of the safeguard is responsible. That’s more my point. Whether or not Signal is making a valid “safeguard” is an interesting question as you point out. I think you’d be on thin ice, but I’d be curious to see how that plays out in court.

alexeldeib 5y ago

I think a better physical analogy is a tamper proof safe which destroys its contents. With such a safe (or the signal hack), if I disclosed the presence of the safeguard and LE either 1) failed to open the device without triggering the safeguard 2) trigger the safeguard unintentionally, is it really any different from not providing a password? Because the password would be the operable piece of information preventing them from getting the desired data without my consent.

PeterisP 5y ago
A tamper proof safe which destroys its contents indeed seems like a good analogy. However, I do think that in the case of a suspect having such a tamper proof safe, it would be a valid court order to require you to open that safe without destroying the contents. It's not really good to try and look for analogies with how similar or different something is to "providing a password" since providing a password itself is a boundary case between the right to not testify against yourself and the duty to provide the evidence so the specific case matters and in multiple cases people in USA have gotten jail time for refusing to provide passwords. Locked safes predate passwords, it's well-established that the contents of the safe are fair game with a warrant, so any analogies between safes and passwords are arguments that people should be required to disclose their passwords, not that people get to keep their safes unopened. And if the safe did actually destroy its contents, they would charge you with tampering with evidence, and in addition to that, the prosecution might be allowed to assert as fact that the destroyed evidence did actually contain all the things harmful to your case that they intended to find there - the "spoliation inference" concept. Also, your motivation for having such a safeguard matters. If a reasonable person would believe that you chose to use such a safeguard so that it would prevent police from getting to evidence and destroy it, that may be treated as a crime even if they manage to circumvent it and no evidence is destroyed. It's not about any specific method or process, taking any willful action with such an intent itself is a crime - you're not allowed to try to prevent a warrant from getting successfully executed.
- alexeldeib 5y ago
  I’m not interested in the password angle and more interested in the “is signal culpable” angle. In which case we could just as easily assume there is no known password or combination. If the evidence ends up destroyed, I don’t think the maker of the safeguard is responsible. That’s more my point. Whether or not Signal is making a valid “safeguard” is an interesting question as you point out. I think you’d be on thin ice, but I’d be curious to see how that plays out in court.