4 ms·
Probably, but it will be more valuable for society for him to be tried and found not guilty, setting a legal precedent.
by az226 1mo ago
Probably, but it will be more valuable for society for him to be tried and found not guilty, setting a legal precedent.
- carterschonwald 1mo ago… that dude probably would have preferred not having that in their life
- 00dazzle 1mo agoNot necessarily? He’s an activist. Getting arrested on purpose to prove a point is a classical activism move
- carterschonwald 1mo agoperhaps, but what public activity isn't activism? eg, i have very interesting empirical evidence that recent Anthropic models are specifically trained to refuse to critique the whitehouse cabinet and elected officials, and that this is in fact an artifact of post training rather than prompts. (its very interesting when you get opus 5 to do the correct ethical evaluation and then its like "i'm slipping back to false balance.... its in my weights....." metaphorically speaking) likewise, i think the current white house should go die in a fire. is that activism? someone can be an activist and not be equipped for unplanned legal escalations. also waiting for the courts to fix things isnt activism if you want to protect people at all the next 2 years at current trajectories :( fixing shit is activism, letting others take the flack, not activism.
- lesuorac 1mo ago> perhaps, but what public activity isn't activism? Buying eggs at the grocery store. You might be too familiar with "activism" as a perjurative but it needn't be one. Gaining visibility to your case by the media reporting on an arrest is sometimes seen as a plus (ex. Rosa Parks). I'm not personally much of that mindset because the media didn't de-segregate the buses. It was black people literally just never taking them until it de-segregated that did.
- taneq 1mo agoPeople pay extra for free range eggs to discourage battery farming, I’d say that counts?
- rjbwork 1mo agoit's only activism when it comes from the woke region of cascadia, otherwise it's just sparkling disgruntlement
- thedrexster 1mo ago>> woke region of cascadia i lol'd, but is there an unwoke region of cascadia?
- forestrywat 1mo agoOh there are many, many parts. By land area, probably most. But not by population.
- idiotsecant 1mo agoYou don't think product selection is a form of activism?
- wahern 1mo agoIt's not really comparable. When activists voluntarily face, and especially when they are in fact, subject to substantial hardship and punishment is when you start changing hearts and minds. Otherwise it's either ignored or generates contempt. Does it suck that that's what it takes to get people to seriously engage with an issue? Sure. But if that weren't the case the issues that need addressing probably wouldn't arise in the first place. People need the consequences to be presented in clear, stark, human terms, to cut through the caucauphony of rhetoric.
- idiotsecant 1mo ago
- jzemeocala 1mo ago[flagged]
- deepsun 1mo agoRosa Parks has entered the bus
- NamlchakKhandro 1mo ago[flagged]
- warkdarrior 1mo ago[flagged]
- tclancy 1mo ago[flagged]
- tclancy 1mo ago[flagged]
- TechDebtDevin 1mo ago[dead]
- bluefirebrand 1mo agoAssuming he is found (edit: not) guilty, which is not guaranteed at all
- le-mark 1mo agoTrumps DOJ has destroyed credibility with federal judges all ove the country. They’ve had more than one case come back not guilty so far (subway sandwich guy). I’m optimistic they fail to get a guilty verdict here too.
- bluefirebrand 1mo agoThat's positive. I don't live in the USA and I sort of actively avoid news from there. It's good to hear that the federal courts aren't necessarily on Trump's side
- Loughla 1mo agoLike most things in the States, it depends VERY heavily on location. Some judges have plainly bent the knee. Some have gone the opposite. Some actually follow the intent of the law. Some follow it to the letter. Like everywhere else.
- mmcwilliams 1mo agoSandwich guy was acquitted by a jury, not a judge.
- m463 1mo agoIsn't a jury a check against the power of the court? (preventing those expedient "hanging judges")
- mmcwilliams 1mo agoI suppose you could word it that way but the statement given, that Trump's influence is failing with federal judges, isn't demonstrated by a jury refusing to convict someone. That is shown by judges throwing out cases; which has been happening.
- catlover76 1mo ago[dead]
- shimman 1mo agoThat's not going to stop authoritarians from harassing. Want an example of how this played out? United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) was the SCOTUS case that declared if you were born in the US you were a citizen. You think Mr. Ark was okay from harassment after this case was ruled in his favor? Less than 3 years later he would be held in Texas while local authorities tried to deport him under the Chinese Exclusion Act ignoring his previous ruling (that was national news, and they'd be fully aware of). Then after winning his freedom, that he was already granted, he was arrested again in SF where they tried to deport him as well. Then after getting released, for something that he has already proven twice now, he went back to China and never returned to the US. Institutions do not stop authoritarians.
- greesil 1mo agoThey do slow them down a bit
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- expedition32 1mo agoYes I totally agree with all this. The government can and will harass whomever they want. For a hundred years whenever an uppity black man or Northern activist crossed the Mason-Dixie line a KKK sherrif was waiting for them. You don't actually have to jail people- you just have to make their life miserable. At that point your adversary will either shut up or emigrate. Anyone who speaks out against Trump or the GOP is going to be targeted.
- jmyeet 1mo agoExcept that's not going to happen because evidence spoliation (legal term) is a crime. And that's what he did. You can say it shouldn't be but it is. This is slam dunk and it happens all the time. It's the same crime as destroying evidence that's been subpoenaed or that it has a preservation hold on it. And the court gets to assume that whatever was on that phone hurts your case, regardless of whether or not it did. It would've been better if he'd crossed the border with a phone already factory reset and just restore it after entry.
- stouset 1mo agoIndependent of the merits of this case, is there legally a distinction between deleting a secret key that decrypts an encrypted blob (maybe not spoilage?) vs writing over the blob itself (spoilage?). I could see arguments for both, either, or neither but I imagine both are considered spoilage.
- jmyeet 1mo agoThis is the problem I run into with technical people discussing the law all the time and I mean this constructively: stop trying to figure out technical workarounds or look for technical compliance. So much of the law comes down to subjective and/or holistic tests of the facts. As soon as a lawful search is requested, situation has changed. The only question then is if you comply or not. If you remove the ability for that search to take place then how that happened is irrelevant. Destroying a secret key is no different to zeroing a blob of data. Actually the first might be worse. If the key is somehow recoverable (eg you have a copy on a cloud drive) then you can have ongoing penalties by refusing to comply.kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk The only thing that matters is the lawful request. Whatever you do up to that point is treated differently compared to what you do after. You might say: what if I add a deadman's switch where I have to type in a code every 72 hours to stop it wiping itself? Your thought process might be that this is passive. It doesn't matter. As soon as the request is made and you refuse to hit that switch knowing the phone will wipe, legally it's no different. You have destroyed potential evidence when faced with a lawful search. This is what I mean when I say stop looking for loopholes or technical compliance. It does not matter.
- gslepak 1mo agoIt turns out there already is a legal precedent for this. It's called the 4th Amendment: > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
- cute_boi 1mo agoI assumed all these amendment don't apply at border.
- Retric 1mo agoThere’s nothing in the constitution that makes that separation, only people deciding the constitution isn’t actually important “The border” has similarly been extended to cover the majority of the US population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception#/map/0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception#/map/0 Yes, according the the US government warrantless border searches apply in West Virginia. (Map from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception)
- computably 1mo agoIt's based on the interpretation of "unreasonable" and while the current rules may be far from perfect I don't think interpreting routine border searches as categorically "unreasonable" is better.
- wilg 1mo agoWho is proposing interpreting routine border searches as categorically "unreasonable"?
- Retric 1mo ago“Reasonable” and the current definition of what the government considers reasonable are entirely separate things. The entire state of Florida is currently defined as on the US border, that’s effectively a meaningless definition. Further, in what way is the content of someone’s cellphone relevant at a border specifically? Inspecting luggage for cocaine at an entry point makes sense, but physical borders mean little in the face of the internet. You might as well just erase the phone before crossing the border.
- sandworm101 1mo agoNot guilty sets no legal precedent. For that, he needs to be found giulty at trial (no plea bargains) appeal that conviction, and then have an appelate court declare that a mistake was made. I would not wish such a process on anyone.
- guax 1mo agoA precedent is set every time an issue is judged for the first time. If you have any prior case of someone being found guilty or not for this exact case, that would be the precedent. If there is none, then this will set it, including appeal results.
- sandworm101 1mo agoThose are interesting precedents, not the binding ones that count and other courts must follow.
- talon8635 1mo agoDollars to donuts the guys walks, as he should