3 ms·

This is extremely silly. I did not say it ends your rights. I did not say it gives them superpowers. What it does do is give them government and legally sanct

This is extremely silly. I did not say it ends your rights. I did not say it gives them superpowers. What it does do is give them government and legally sanctioned power backed up by force to do whatever the warrant says. They can tear your house apart. Seize your property. They can withdraw your blood by force if necessary. Micheal Jackson (rich, famous, and powerful) had his genitalia examined. They can certainly (and do) go in your office and take every single thing computer or data related if those devices may contain information relevant to the warrant. "This information isn't responsive to the warrant?" - I feel like I'm living in an alternate universe at this point... That's borderline "One weird trick just say these magic words and the police disappear". Watch video of search warrants being executed. They walk out with TONS of material - anything electronic related, hand trucks with boxes of documents, etc. When the FBI searched a billionaire former US President they walked out with 28 boxes of documents[0]. Is anyone here under the impression that a search warrant for relevant electronic records involves the police sitting down with you and looking at your computer? No. They'll take EVERYTHING, image it for evidentiary purposes, and then take as much time as they need to review it in search for whatever was specified in the warrant. A person or lawyer can say anything they want but the outcome in 99.9% of cases is the guys with the guns are going to do whatever they feel empowered to do. If there's anything questionable it can be argued in court later. High powered lawyers in suits? The FBI executed a search warrant on a billionaire former United States President... Yes they'll likely behave differently but they're certainly not scared of you or whatever you or a lawyer says in the moment. In street crime this is often called "You can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride". In the moment the power asymmetry is very real. I point you to thousands of hours of YouTube police body camera footage, etc that demonstrates it. [0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcnJNfJqJTI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcnJNfJqJTI

411111111111111 4y ago
> They can tear your house apart. Seize your property. They can withdraw your blood by force if necessary. Micheal Jackson (rich, famous, and powerful) had his genitalia examined. They can certainly (and do) go in your office and take every single thing computer or data related if those devices may contain information relevant to the warrant. Thats only true for the US, which isn't where Mullvad is located.
- kkielhofner 4y ago
  This has been talked to death on this thread. Swedish law enforcement did an initial investigation. Applied for a warrant. Was granted a warrant. Then six officers from the national police arrived to serve the warrant. In any country in the world with a functioning government they are not just going to walk away because someone said they don’t have the materials covered in the warrant.
  - 411111111111111 4y ago
    > In any country in the world with a functioning government they are not just going to walk away because someone said they don’t have the materials covered in the warrant. That's probably true, but entirely unrelated to what you claimed before. You said this specifically, and none of that is permissive anywhere in Europe. > They can tear your house apart. Seize your property. They can withdraw your blood by force if necessary. Micheal Jackson (rich, famous, and powerful) had his genitalia examined. They can certainly (and do) go in your office and take every single thing computer or data related if those devices may contain information relevant to the warrant. They'll only be able to take what's specifically allowed according to the warrant, and if the warrant was worded to only include servers with storage mediums, and they don't have any, then nothing could be collected until the warrant was reissued. Which would likely be done pretty quickly.
    - kkielhofner 4y ago
      > That's probably true, but entirely unrelated to what you claimed before. I'm not seeing how but I don't think it matters. > You said this specifically, and none of that is permissive anywhere in Europe. Europe doesn't have crime? Europe doesn't have law enforcement that needs to assemble and collect evidence? Law enforcement in Europe doesn't have situations where the entirety of the situation and circumstances can't possibly be known and warrants need to be extremely (almost impossibly) specific? Again, US centric but I point to the search warrant affidavit for a billionaire former US President[0]. Page 37 and 38 include language that (from what I've seen) is fairly typical. Statements like "any and all areas that may contain XYZ". "Any and all physical documents", etc. The US and Europe generally are very different places and US governmental overreach, infringing on civil liberties, abuse of power, etc is a popular topic on HN (I don't disagree). However, the US isn't quite the dystopian Orwellian nightmare described on HN (yet). It may be my US blinders but I don't understand an environment like the one you describe where a search warrant from government (law enforcement and an independent judicial branch) would be specific enough to include ambiguous terms like "servers". What is a "server", really? Even the technical crowd on HN would debate that ferociously. I think HN is giving LE and government too much credit here. I have a friend in LE in the US at the federal level who deals with a lot of electronic, crypto, etc investigations and search warrants. He frequently tells me things like "then I have to sit down with the 60 year old lawyers/bureaucrats and get them to understand what a crypto tumbler is". Again, possibly too US centric but Sweden or otherwise the process is clearly more similar that not: 1) There's an investigation. 2) LE puts together some justification for a warrant. 3) They apply for and get one (again - there's a low common denominator here because everyone through the chain up to and including a judge needs to understand what's described). 4) The get warrant. 5) They send out six police officers from the national police organization. 6) They arrive and someone (per Mullvad's statement) says "we don't have that". If there is a single computer on site (or potentially even storage media, etc) there's no way to establish the veracity of that statement (coming from a party that is clearly under criminal investigation) without performing a search of some kind or (more likely) seizing materials for review later. 7) Per Mullvad's statement LE didn't do anything and (incredulously) walked away without taking any action whatsoever. I'm not saying what did or didn't happen, I'm saying what they're describing is pretty fantastical. [0] - https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22267182-trump-search-warrant-affidavit https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22267182-trump-searc...
troad 4y ago
With respect, you're speaking with an unwarranted degree of confidence about a topic you do not seem very well versed in. The key problem is that you're confusing two very different kinds of police operations. If the police get a tip off about a dangerous meth lab in your basement, then yes, they will execute a dawn raid, in which they storm your house, guns drawn. In that moment you simply comply, and any police overreach is sorted out later in litigation. But this is absolutely not how warrants work in high corporate contexts. The police will arrive at reception, politely identify themselves and ask to be shown in, ask everyone to step away from their keyboards, and then begin speaking calmly with whoever is in charge. Being involved in investigations is simply a part of life for any sufficiently large corporate entity. No one is running around, no guns are being pointed at anyone, no one is particularly phased. Most staff are sent out to go for a walk, a few are kept back to walk the police forensics techs through what data is (or isn't, in this case) kept on premises. I applaud your zeal against police overreach, but most cases of police overreach happen on the streets and in people's homes, not in some glass tower under the watchful gaze of a team of hostile lawyers. That's why - to return to your post above - legal representation absolutely does matter, and anyone interacting with the police in any capacity without it is being inexcusably reckless. Here's a law lecture to make that point better than I can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE.
- kkielhofner 4y ago
  Appreciate the respect (and sense it as well). Warning a lot of anecdotal and "I have a friend" inbound that (I believe) provides plenty of factual and real world data to justify my confidence on these matters: - I have many friends in law enforcement. I've been on many ride alongs and seen probable cause, phoning in warrants, etc on the street in person. - One of my friends is on a county level SWAT team and executes high-risk criminal search warrants all of the time. - Another one of my friends is an agent with a criminal federal law enforcement agency (IRS CI) that deals with a lot of "soft"/white collar/financial/computer/crypto/corporate crime. Including lawyers that have perpetuated financial schemes and crimes against their clients (it's amazing how many sleazy lawyers embezzle money from their clients in personal injury, settlements, etc). They execute A LOT of search warrants. With this there are several types of situations I've noticed: 1) SWAT team friend gets an early AM no-knock warrant and an army effectively shock and awes you in your sleep at 3 AM. This is the "they can and will destroy your house" as they can do things like rip your walls apart because they heard you have drugs in them or whatever. This is usually a lot of warrants, drug cases, etc where the justification for the search/arrest is an undercover narcotics buy or something like that and cause can be presented that the subjects are violent, armed, and/or likely to destroy evidence with a daytime "knock and announce" warrant. From what I've gathered the colloquial term for these groups is "door kickers". 2) IRS CID friend goes out to have a "friendly" chat/interview with someone. There's no warrant but it's a federal felony to lie to most federal law enforcement so they'll do a lot of "ask questions they already know the answer to" because the lie itself is a crime and they'll leverage or convict you on that alone. No one ever talk to them. Seriously. Not ever. They'll walk away but it's likely not the last you'll see of them (they'll come back with a warrant). 3a) IRS CI (or similar) comes back with a warrant. From my understanding there are special steps and justifications that must be presented for a search warrant to be executed before 6 AM and after something like 9 PM. From what my friend tells me they show up after 6 AM-ish and "bang on the door and shout police and search warrant multiple times loud enough for the entire neighborhood to hear". Compared to SWAT team friend these are very gentle and reasonable (approaching what you're describing). From what I can remember they very rarely even physically force entry. The subject politely and calmly answers the door, they put their guns away, and everyone does their thing. 3b) What you're describing. If the warrant is for a business or individual known to be at a business during business hours they'll calmly walk in during business hours with their cool blue yellow-lettering "raid jackets" that communicate "we mean business" compared to their usual dress suit (with gun on hip) "uniform". This is the "Ok everyone stop what you're doing, step away from your computer, and go over there". From what I understand it's amazing how intimidating a cheap blue nylon jacket that says "IRS" or "FBI" on it can be. While these scenarios FEEL very different they are more similar than dissimilar. In all cases simply having a lawyer present isn't going to modulate their behavior significantly - they're going to do what they came to do. Meth lab and a poor nobody? They'll definitely go harder. Billionaire former president? By the book but they're still going to get what they came for. What people don't seem to understand about warrants is the fundamental shift in power they represent: 1) We have laws. Laws that govern what anyone can do - including law enforcement and government. 2) The police operate under these laws as police. 3) When law enforcement needs to comply with the law while being able to extend governmental power they apply to the independent judicial branch of government to review and act as a check against their governmental (LE) power. 4) At the point a judge signs a warrant law enforcement is empowered by the entire judicial branch of government to largely do whatever is necessary (within other laws, policies, and procedures) to enforce what is now (effectively) a court order. So at this point law enforcement is actually doing two things: 1) They are furthering their investigation. 2) They are satisfying a court order. So... The support here of this bizarre Mullvad statement is bewildering to me. While this is anecdotal and very US-focused there isn't a functioning government/justice system in the world where this scenario makes any sense whatsoever: 1) Law enforcement has an investigation. 2) They assembled enough evidence to pursue a search warrant. 3) They were granted said warrant. 4) They sent out SIX (presumably) armed police officers from the national police to execute a search and enforce the warrant. 5) Even after all of this... They arrive and are essentially talked out of doing anything because the subject of the warrant said "we don't have that". I'm really trying to understand the support for the (essentially) impossible scenario described in this statement from Mullvad. Thank you for your recognition on my zeal against police overreach - what I've learned over hours and years of my curiosity and peppering these friends with questions is "don't talk to the police, ESPECIALLY the Feds in the US". When I received training on interacting with federal law enforcement in a corporate context the script was: "Hi I'm agent X from Y and I have a few questions". All you say is: "Do you have a business card? Thank you - someone will be in touch." With that "someone" being an attorney. Do not say another single word. If it's a search (3 AM SWAT or nice conversation in your office) things can be calm, polite, and cordial but at the end of the day LE has an incredible amount of power at this point and when it comes down to it they're going to use it and get what they're looking for.

411111111111111 4y ago

> They can tear your house apart. Seize your property. They can withdraw your blood by force if necessary. Micheal Jackson (rich, famous, and powerful) had his genitalia examined. They can certainly (and do) go in your office and take every single thing computer or data related if those devices may contain information relevant to the warrant. Thats only true for the US, which isn't where Mullvad is located.

kkielhofner 4y ago
This has been talked to death on this thread. Swedish law enforcement did an initial investigation. Applied for a warrant. Was granted a warrant. Then six officers from the national police arrived to serve the warrant. In any country in the world with a functioning government they are not just going to walk away because someone said they don’t have the materials covered in the warrant.
- 411111111111111 4y ago
  > In any country in the world with a functioning government they are not just going to walk away because someone said they don’t have the materials covered in the warrant. That's probably true, but entirely unrelated to what you claimed before. You said this specifically, and none of that is permissive anywhere in Europe. > They can tear your house apart. Seize your property. They can withdraw your blood by force if necessary. Micheal Jackson (rich, famous, and powerful) had his genitalia examined. They can certainly (and do) go in your office and take every single thing computer or data related if those devices may contain information relevant to the warrant. They'll only be able to take what's specifically allowed according to the warrant, and if the warrant was worded to only include servers with storage mediums, and they don't have any, then nothing could be collected until the warrant was reissued. Which would likely be done pretty quickly.
  - kkielhofner 4y ago
    > That's probably true, but entirely unrelated to what you claimed before. I'm not seeing how but I don't think it matters. > You said this specifically, and none of that is permissive anywhere in Europe. Europe doesn't have crime? Europe doesn't have law enforcement that needs to assemble and collect evidence? Law enforcement in Europe doesn't have situations where the entirety of the situation and circumstances can't possibly be known and warrants need to be extremely (almost impossibly) specific? Again, US centric but I point to the search warrant affidavit for a billionaire former US President[0]. Page 37 and 38 include language that (from what I've seen) is fairly typical. Statements like "any and all areas that may contain XYZ". "Any and all physical documents", etc. The US and Europe generally are very different places and US governmental overreach, infringing on civil liberties, abuse of power, etc is a popular topic on HN (I don't disagree). However, the US isn't quite the dystopian Orwellian nightmare described on HN (yet). It may be my US blinders but I don't understand an environment like the one you describe where a search warrant from government (law enforcement and an independent judicial branch) would be specific enough to include ambiguous terms like "servers". What is a "server", really? Even the technical crowd on HN would debate that ferociously. I think HN is giving LE and government too much credit here. I have a friend in LE in the US at the federal level who deals with a lot of electronic, crypto, etc investigations and search warrants. He frequently tells me things like "then I have to sit down with the 60 year old lawyers/bureaucrats and get them to understand what a crypto tumbler is". Again, possibly too US centric but Sweden or otherwise the process is clearly more similar that not: 1) There's an investigation. 2) LE puts together some justification for a warrant. 3) They apply for and get one (again - there's a low common denominator here because everyone through the chain up to and including a judge needs to understand what's described). 4) The get warrant. 5) They send out six police officers from the national police organization. 6) They arrive and someone (per Mullvad's statement) says "we don't have that". If there is a single computer on site (or potentially even storage media, etc) there's no way to establish the veracity of that statement (coming from a party that is clearly under criminal investigation) without performing a search of some kind or (more likely) seizing materials for review later. 7) Per Mullvad's statement LE didn't do anything and (incredulously) walked away without taking any action whatsoever. I'm not saying what did or didn't happen, I'm saying what they're describing is pretty fantastical. [0] - https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22267182-trump-search-warrant-affidavit https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22267182-trump-searc...

troad 4y ago

With respect, you're speaking with an unwarranted degree of confidence about a topic you do not seem very well versed in. The key problem is that you're confusing two very different kinds of police operations. If the police get a tip off about a dangerous meth lab in your basement, then yes, they will execute a dawn raid, in which they storm your house, guns drawn. In that moment you simply comply, and any police overreach is sorted out later in litigation. But this is absolutely not how warrants work in high corporate contexts. The police will arrive at reception, politely identify themselves and ask to be shown in, ask everyone to step away from their keyboards, and then begin speaking calmly with whoever is in charge. Being involved in investigations is simply a part of life for any sufficiently large corporate entity. No one is running around, no guns are being pointed at anyone, no one is particularly phased. Most staff are sent out to go for a walk, a few are kept back to walk the police forensics techs through what data is (or isn't, in this case) kept on premises. I applaud your zeal against police overreach, but most cases of police overreach happen on the streets and in people's homes, not in some glass tower under the watchful gaze of a team of hostile lawyers. That's why - to return to your post above - legal representation absolutely does matter, and anyone interacting with the police in any capacity without it is being inexcusably reckless. Here's a law lecture to make that point better than I can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE.

kkielhofner 4y ago
Appreciate the respect (and sense it as well). Warning a lot of anecdotal and "I have a friend" inbound that (I believe) provides plenty of factual and real world data to justify my confidence on these matters: - I have many friends in law enforcement. I've been on many ride alongs and seen probable cause, phoning in warrants, etc on the street in person. - One of my friends is on a county level SWAT team and executes high-risk criminal search warrants all of the time. - Another one of my friends is an agent with a criminal federal law enforcement agency (IRS CI) that deals with a lot of "soft"/white collar/financial/computer/crypto/corporate crime. Including lawyers that have perpetuated financial schemes and crimes against their clients (it's amazing how many sleazy lawyers embezzle money from their clients in personal injury, settlements, etc). They execute A LOT of search warrants. With this there are several types of situations I've noticed: 1) SWAT team friend gets an early AM no-knock warrant and an army effectively shock and awes you in your sleep at 3 AM. This is the "they can and will destroy your house" as they can do things like rip your walls apart because they heard you have drugs in them or whatever. This is usually a lot of warrants, drug cases, etc where the justification for the search/arrest is an undercover narcotics buy or something like that and cause can be presented that the subjects are violent, armed, and/or likely to destroy evidence with a daytime "knock and announce" warrant. From what I've gathered the colloquial term for these groups is "door kickers". 2) IRS CID friend goes out to have a "friendly" chat/interview with someone. There's no warrant but it's a federal felony to lie to most federal law enforcement so they'll do a lot of "ask questions they already know the answer to" because the lie itself is a crime and they'll leverage or convict you on that alone. No one ever talk to them. Seriously. Not ever. They'll walk away but it's likely not the last you'll see of them (they'll come back with a warrant). 3a) IRS CI (or similar) comes back with a warrant. From my understanding there are special steps and justifications that must be presented for a search warrant to be executed before 6 AM and after something like 9 PM. From what my friend tells me they show up after 6 AM-ish and "bang on the door and shout police and search warrant multiple times loud enough for the entire neighborhood to hear". Compared to SWAT team friend these are very gentle and reasonable (approaching what you're describing). From what I can remember they very rarely even physically force entry. The subject politely and calmly answers the door, they put their guns away, and everyone does their thing. 3b) What you're describing. If the warrant is for a business or individual known to be at a business during business hours they'll calmly walk in during business hours with their cool blue yellow-lettering "raid jackets" that communicate "we mean business" compared to their usual dress suit (with gun on hip) "uniform". This is the "Ok everyone stop what you're doing, step away from your computer, and go over there". From what I understand it's amazing how intimidating a cheap blue nylon jacket that says "IRS" or "FBI" on it can be. While these scenarios FEEL very different they are more similar than dissimilar. In all cases simply having a lawyer present isn't going to modulate their behavior significantly - they're going to do what they came to do. Meth lab and a poor nobody? They'll definitely go harder. Billionaire former president? By the book but they're still going to get what they came for. What people don't seem to understand about warrants is the fundamental shift in power they represent: 1) We have laws. Laws that govern what anyone can do - including law enforcement and government. 2) The police operate under these laws as police. 3) When law enforcement needs to comply with the law while being able to extend governmental power they apply to the independent judicial branch of government to review and act as a check against their governmental (LE) power. 4) At the point a judge signs a warrant law enforcement is empowered by the entire judicial branch of government to largely do whatever is necessary (within other laws, policies, and procedures) to enforce what is now (effectively) a court order. So at this point law enforcement is actually doing two things: 1) They are furthering their investigation. 2) They are satisfying a court order. So... The support here of this bizarre Mullvad statement is bewildering to me. While this is anecdotal and very US-focused there isn't a functioning government/justice system in the world where this scenario makes any sense whatsoever: 1) Law enforcement has an investigation. 2) They assembled enough evidence to pursue a search warrant. 3) They were granted said warrant. 4) They sent out SIX (presumably) armed police officers from the national police to execute a search and enforce the warrant. 5) Even after all of this... They arrive and are essentially talked out of doing anything because the subject of the warrant said "we don't have that". I'm really trying to understand the support for the (essentially) impossible scenario described in this statement from Mullvad. Thank you for your recognition on my zeal against police overreach - what I've learned over hours and years of my curiosity and peppering these friends with questions is "don't talk to the police, ESPECIALLY the Feds in the US". When I received training on interacting with federal law enforcement in a corporate context the script was: "Hi I'm agent X from Y and I have a few questions". All you say is: "Do you have a business card? Thank you - someone will be in touch." With that "someone" being an attorney. Do not say another single word. If it's a search (3 AM SWAT or nice conversation in your office) things can be calm, polite, and cordial but at the end of the day LE has an incredible amount of power at this point and when it comes down to it they're going to use it and get what they're looking for.