4 ms·
“One simple trick” stuff rarely survives contact with the court system. Tech people like to imagine law is code, but it’s not. Nor should it be.
by brookst 2mo ago
“One simple trick” stuff rarely survives contact with the court system. Tech people like to imagine law is code, but it’s not. Nor should it be.
- inigyou 2mo agoThis may be true for hackers but courts have to prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to the letter of the law. The law here is destruction of evidence. The guy destroyed evidence by giving the wrong password to the police. If the police had destroyed it of their own accord, he'd be free. If the duress PIN was 1234 and the police just tried it, he'd be free.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- dns_snek 2mo agoCan you come up with a plausible argument for how that applies in this scenario? What they said doesn't hinge on some sort of "clever" technicality.
- DennisP 2mo agoOne simple trick that's proven to work is to just leave biometrics disabled and refrain from giving your password. There are all sorts of situations where people go free despite the wistful desires of prosecutors, due to the details of what happened and what the law actually says.
- red-iron-pine 2mo agosee also: sovereign citizen approaches
- jjav 2mo ago> Tech people like to imagine law is code, but it’s not. Nor should it be. Of course it should be code. More specifically, it should be completely deterministic. This idea that judges/courts can interpret the law however they feel like it in each individual case is what gives power to dictatorships. Then there is no way to know what is legal vs not, each scenario is different and the courts will inevitably choose what favors them. So yes, ideally, law should absolutely be "code" (deterministic).