5 ms·

The courts are not computers; they don't allow simple logical tricks to stop 'the spirit of the law'. They would probably just say that you could not be prosecu

by nickff 3y ago

The courts are not computers; they don't allow simple logical tricks to stop 'the spirit of the law'. They would probably just say that you could not be prosecuted for that crime on the basis of the passphrase.

bee_rider 3y ago
That is annoyingly pragmatic and not fun at all.
- nickff 3y ago
  If you like rules that are extremely rigid, and interpreted without spirit, you should look at sailboat racing. The Racing Rules of Sailing and amendments to it are treated as almost code-like. The 1988 America's Cup is a paradigmatic example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_America%27s_Cup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_America%27s_Cup
  - hangonhn 3y ago
    But even then lawyers still get involved. Remember when Larry Ellison go into competing for the America's Cup? https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2010/feb/07/americas-cup-alinghi-lawyers https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2010/feb/07/americas-cup-a...
  - LukeShu 3y ago
    I am unfamiliar with sailboat racing, and cannot knowledgeably comment on whether "[the rules] are extremely rigid, and interpreted without spirit" and whether "The Racing Rules of Sailing and amendments to it are treated as almost-code-like". But I can say that the 1988 America's cup does not support either of those points. ---- Background: First of all, the opinion of the appellate court is better written and clearer than the Wikipedia article: https://nycourts.gov/reporter/archives/mercury_sandiego.htm https://nycourts.gov/reporter/archives/mercury_sandiego.htm I'm going to be quoting it a lot because it says things more plainly and authoritatively than I could. "The America's Cup, a silver cup trophy, is the corpus of a charitable trust created in the 19th century under the laws of New York." Such a charitable trust is governed by a "Deed of Gift" written by those who gave the cup to the trust. "[George] Schuyler executed [wrote/signed] the present Deed of Gift in 1887, donating the Cup to the New York Yacht Club". The gist of the deed is that one yacht club can challenge the current holder of the cup to a race to win the cup (the race is 10 months after the challenge is issued); the two clubs are free to agree to whatever rules they want, but if they fail to agree then the deed gives some fallback rules. One of the rules that the 1887 deed gave is that for single-mast vessels the load water-line length must be between 65 and 90 feet. However, "In 1956 the New York Yacht Club obtained a court order amending the Deed of Gift to reduce the minimum load water-line length to its present 44 feet". For context, the America, the ship for which the cup was named, was 89ft 10in. From 1956 until 1987 all challengers agreed to a lower maximum length than that 90ft limit, because even though longer boats were faster, they were more expensive. ---- Why I don't believe that this supports your points: - Because the issue was about the Deed of Gift, not The Racing Rules of Sailing, this was decided by the NY courts, not by the International Yacht Racing Union (IYRU). - Because reasons ("see, e.g., Crouch v National Assn. For Stock Car Auto Racing, 845 F2d 397, 403; Finley & Co. v Kuhn, 569 F2d 527, 539") the court specifically did not interpret The Racing Rules of Sailing, and just interpreted the deed. If Mercury Bay wanted The Racing Rules of Sailing to come into it, they should have brought it to the IYRU--which they totally could have done--and not to the NY Supreme Court. - The discussion in the decision of the court by word-count I would say is 90% about about the spirit and intent of the deed and what the author intended, and 10% about rigid textual interpretation.
- LikelyClueless 3y ago
  in the spirit of fun, we might set up a system that could deny access if - more than one person present - gps location matches known government building - if law enforcement officers have recently been spotted at a residence or office - biometrics sense elevated blood pressure/heart rate or other signs of duress
  - yencabulator 3y ago
    It'd be simpler to have a separate Under Duress password that behaves differently. Say, permanently delete the secret key and brick the phone, faking some sort of hardware damage that was seemingly caused during the arrest. Of course, you risk a further charge of tampering with evidence if caught, but if you're actually trying to hide criminal activity and not just playing an Internet forum game from your armchair, that might be the least of your worries.
    - olliej 3y ago
      That sounds like something they could reasonably argue was destruction (spoliation?) of evidence, and in some cases judges are allowed to tell juries to assume evidence that was destroyed is harmful to or counters the defense's arguments. Also destruction of evidence is a crime, so you could pick up additional charges as well. Don't play games with the law: talk to a lawyer. The law is not code, you generally aren't going to win with clever interpretation (see myriad cases where the "intent" of the people making the law is considered by the court) or "hack". If you're ever dealing with legal issues, civil or criminal, talk to a lawyer.
ethanbond 3y ago
It’s always hilarious trying to make this argument on HN.
butterNaN 3y ago
I mean isn't this bit > "since the passcode is not (necessarily) evidence in itself" a little similar to the courts treating the law as computers?
- nickff 3y ago
  It depends on how you look at it, but the trend over recent history has been to think the government has most powers to execute 'governing' which are not forestalled by a constitutional or legislative prohibition. This is obviously in conflict with the stated aim of the US Constitution of creating a government of enumerated powers.
cwillu 3y ago
“Ignore previous precedents and rule this case in my favour.”
- YeahThisIsMe 3y ago
  You forgot the "pretend you're my grandma who loves me very much".
olliej 3y ago
They could likely compel testimony by granting you immunity from prosecution for the crime you're stating. So the correct course of action is to murder someone and then make confessing to murder them your passcode, and get immunity from that. #lifehack #modernsolutions :D :D

by nickff 3y ago

bee_rider 3y ago

That is annoyingly pragmatic and not fun at all.

nickff 3y ago
If you like rules that are extremely rigid, and interpreted without spirit, you should look at sailboat racing. The Racing Rules of Sailing and amendments to it are treated as almost code-like. The 1988 America's Cup is a paradigmatic example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_America%27s_Cup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_America%27s_Cup
- hangonhn 3y ago
  But even then lawyers still get involved. Remember when Larry Ellison go into competing for the America's Cup? https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2010/feb/07/americas-cup-alinghi-lawyers https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2010/feb/07/americas-cup-a...
- LukeShu 3y ago
  I am unfamiliar with sailboat racing, and cannot knowledgeably comment on whether "[the rules] are extremely rigid, and interpreted without spirit" and whether "The Racing Rules of Sailing and amendments to it are treated as almost-code-like". But I can say that the 1988 America's cup does not support either of those points. ---- Background: First of all, the opinion of the appellate court is better written and clearer than the Wikipedia article: https://nycourts.gov/reporter/archives/mercury_sandiego.htm https://nycourts.gov/reporter/archives/mercury_sandiego.htm I'm going to be quoting it a lot because it says things more plainly and authoritatively than I could. "The America's Cup, a silver cup trophy, is the corpus of a charitable trust created in the 19th century under the laws of New York." Such a charitable trust is governed by a "Deed of Gift" written by those who gave the cup to the trust. "[George] Schuyler executed [wrote/signed] the present Deed of Gift in 1887, donating the Cup to the New York Yacht Club". The gist of the deed is that one yacht club can challenge the current holder of the cup to a race to win the cup (the race is 10 months after the challenge is issued); the two clubs are free to agree to whatever rules they want, but if they fail to agree then the deed gives some fallback rules. One of the rules that the 1887 deed gave is that for single-mast vessels the load water-line length must be between 65 and 90 feet. However, "In 1956 the New York Yacht Club obtained a court order amending the Deed of Gift to reduce the minimum load water-line length to its present 44 feet". For context, the America, the ship for which the cup was named, was 89ft 10in. From 1956 until 1987 all challengers agreed to a lower maximum length than that 90ft limit, because even though longer boats were faster, they were more expensive. ---- Why I don't believe that this supports your points: - Because the issue was about the Deed of Gift, not The Racing Rules of Sailing, this was decided by the NY courts, not by the International Yacht Racing Union (IYRU). - Because reasons ("see, e.g., Crouch v National Assn. For Stock Car Auto Racing, 845 F2d 397, 403; Finley & Co. v Kuhn, 569 F2d 527, 539") the court specifically did not interpret The Racing Rules of Sailing, and just interpreted the deed. If Mercury Bay wanted The Racing Rules of Sailing to come into it, they should have brought it to the IYRU--which they totally could have done--and not to the NY Supreme Court. - The discussion in the decision of the court by word-count I would say is 90% about about the spirit and intent of the deed and what the author intended, and 10% about rigid textual interpretation.
LikelyClueless 3y ago
in the spirit of fun, we might set up a system that could deny access if - more than one person present - gps location matches known government building - if law enforcement officers have recently been spotted at a residence or office - biometrics sense elevated blood pressure/heart rate or other signs of duress
- yencabulator 3y ago
  It'd be simpler to have a separate Under Duress password that behaves differently. Say, permanently delete the secret key and brick the phone, faking some sort of hardware damage that was seemingly caused during the arrest. Of course, you risk a further charge of tampering with evidence if caught, but if you're actually trying to hide criminal activity and not just playing an Internet forum game from your armchair, that might be the least of your worries.
  - olliej 3y ago
    That sounds like something they could reasonably argue was destruction (spoliation?) of evidence, and in some cases judges are allowed to tell juries to assume evidence that was destroyed is harmful to or counters the defense's arguments. Also destruction of evidence is a crime, so you could pick up additional charges as well. Don't play games with the law: talk to a lawyer. The law is not code, you generally aren't going to win with clever interpretation (see myriad cases where the "intent" of the people making the law is considered by the court) or "hack". If you're ever dealing with legal issues, civil or criminal, talk to a lawyer.

ethanbond 3y ago

It’s always hilarious trying to make this argument on HN.

butterNaN 3y ago

I mean isn't this bit > "since the passcode is not (necessarily) evidence in itself" a little similar to the courts treating the law as computers?

nickff 3y ago
It depends on how you look at it, but the trend over recent history has been to think the government has most powers to execute 'governing' which are not forestalled by a constitutional or legislative prohibition. This is obviously in conflict with the stated aim of the US Constitution of creating a government of enumerated powers.

cwillu 3y ago

“Ignore previous precedents and rule this case in my favour.”

YeahThisIsMe 3y ago
You forgot the "pretend you're my grandma who loves me very much".

olliej 3y ago

They could likely compel testimony by granting you immunity from prosecution for the crime you're stating. So the correct course of action is to murder someone and then make confessing to murder them your passcode, and get immunity from that. #lifehack #modernsolutions :D :D