Encrypt and Lock Your Phone - Go to Jail

NickJames said:
Basically any government with a population of more than 100 million citizens.
Click to expand...

Isn't it a nightmare to live in a state where you constantly have to assume the state is your enemy? You can't win really.
 
TheBuzzer said:
using ad block is deemed illegal, you could be sued for making website have lost of profits.It is the same thing as stealing in the government point of view.

You are suppose to pay for viewing a site in ads, without them you are screwing up with their income.
Click to expand...

Nope, nothing illegal about using an adblock lol. Get your head straight.

Any website owner is free to block adblock users from accessing their sites. By giving false information about laws and further more, by wrongly accusing me of stealing you may have yourself committed a crime there.
 
SirMaster said:
I guess I don't know about that. Why would the police manufacture or plant fake evidence on a regular joe like me? I've had good relationships with the police all my life and I respect them greatly. I guess I just have had different experiences than others in my life which has shaped my view of the situation. I've never had any reason to feel paranoid about or angry at the police or anything like that.

But no, I cannot say that it never happens because I simply don't know.
Click to expand...
Because of a need to pin blame on someone.
Read up on cases that have been proven false years later. Every single one of them contains someone in the wrong place at the wrong time and circumstantial evidence or witnesses who were paid to say something wrong or detectives withholding evidence that proves they have the wrong guy.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...c-tale-of-innocence-found-and-bitterness-lost
http://www.insideedition.com/headli...-imprisoned-for-rape-murder-he-did-not-commit
http://ktla.com/2017/03/15/man-wron...in-prison-following-l-a-county-judges-ruling/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...-65-million-27-years-prison-article-1.2440849
Just ordinary joes who have never had run ins with the law at the wrong place and the wrong time.

But don't worry, they were all set free and cleared of all charged only 25-35 years later.
If it could happen to them, it could happen to you.
 
B00nie said:
Isn't it a nightmare to live in a state where you constantly have to assume the state is your enemy? You can't win really.
Click to expand...

No because the odds of it happening to you are low enough that it isn't a constant worry. But if it happens, it's good to be informed and prepared.
 
Hypergreatthing said:
Because of a need to pin blame on someone.
Read up on cases that have been proven false years later. Every single one of them contains someone in the wrong place at the wrong time and circumstantial evidence or witnesses who were paid to say something wrong or detectives withholding evidence that proves they have the wrong guy.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...c-tale-of-innocence-found-and-bitterness-lost
http://www.insideedition.com/headli...-imprisoned-for-rape-murder-he-did-not-commit
http://ktla.com/2017/03/15/man-wron...in-prison-following-l-a-county-judges-ruling/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...-65-million-27-years-prison-article-1.2440849
Just ordinary joes who have never had run ins with the law at the wrong place and the wrong time.

But don't worry, they were all set free and cleared of all charged only 25-35 years later.
If it could happen to them, it could happen to you.
Click to expand...

And how many of those guys exactly were saved by not showing the content of their phones or child porn hoovering computers? NONE.
 
TheBuzzer said:
using ad block is deemed illegal, you could be sued for making website have lost of profits.It is the same thing as stealing in the government point of view.

You are suppose to pay for viewing a site in ads, without them you are screwing up with their income.
Click to expand...

According to multiple court cases, the choice to filter your own http requests is legal and ultimately up to you. It’s your computer (or your mobile device). You have the right to decide which content and scripts enter your system.

https://adblockplus.org/blog/five-and-oh-look-another-lawsuit-upholds-users-rights-online
 
NickJames said:
No because the odds of it happening to you are low enough that it isn't a constant worry. But if it happens, it's good to be informed and prepared.
Click to expand...

Like I said, if and when I'm talking to the police I have no fear. I don't see the police as my enemy but as my protector. If I would break the law I would feel extremely cautious and worried about them naturally.
 
SixFootDuo said:
Maybe he couldn't hence his reluctance to provide a working unlock code.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point. If and when you have things to hide, you refuse to give the access. The judge knew that and put him to jail.
 
B00nie said:
Exactly my point. If and when you have things to hide, you refuse to give the access. The judge knew that and put him to jail.
Click to expand...
You have been destroyed in this thread with logic and facts. Stop digging the hole. You were wrong and can't accept this fact. Just. Stop.
 
SirMaster said:
According to multiple court cases, the choice to filter your own http requests is legal and ultimately up to you. It’s your computer (or your mobile device). You have the right to decide which content and scripts enter your system.

https://adblockplus.org/blog/five-and-oh-look-another-lawsuit-upholds-users-rights-online
Click to expand...

Sure they won 5 cases, but just think of how much money they spend per case. If they were all federial cases, the minimum per case will be 60k.

Just image if someone rich sues you for blocking ads on their website. Sure they might lose but you would have lose time and money too.

It is a federal case when the crime is outside of the state where you live. So if the owner is at california and you live in texas, it is already a federal case.


Have fun with those lawsuits, At least it isn't the government going after you which a free lawyer might still work.
 
Darunion said:
Agreed, very different but similar in that you can completely screw yourself up if you play the game incorrectly especially in thinking you know what the right this is to do. The legal system is complicated and best left to those that are familiar with it.
Click to expand...

Oh True that
 
0neTwo said:
You have been destroyed in this thread with logic and facts. Stop digging the hole. You were wrong and can't accept this fact. Just. Stop.
Click to expand...
Just stop doing crime. It's not that hard, try it out.

The judge obviously thinks like me. I would have sent that perp to jail aswell. If you're hiding things that would prove your innocense you're guilty.
 
TheBuzzer said:
Sure they won 5 cases, but just think of how much money they spend per case. If they were all federial cases, the minimum per case will be 60k.

Just image if someone rich sues you for blocking ads on their website. Sure they might lose but you would have lose time and money too.

It is a federal case when the crime is outside of the state where you live. So if the owner is at california and you live in texas, it is already a federal case.


Have fun with those lawsuits, At least it isn't the government going after you which a free lawyer might still work.
Click to expand...

The law suits were against the manufacturer of the adblock, not against the users. The day someone starts to tell me I can't select what content I'm receiving on my internet connection is the day I stop using it.

Perfect example of paranoia and not seeting the woods from the trees.
 
dude messed up when he gave them false information. should have known to keep mouth shut
 
The phone is "effects" under the 4th. Giving up the password is divulging information that would self incriminate under the 5th.

And if you've done nothing wrong that is even more reason to not have strangers snooping in your personal affairs. Get a warrant and bolt cutters, oops, no bolt cutters for data locks. Let's violate amendments.
 
alxnet7227 said:
I understand the emotional aspect behind this. Logically speaking though, letting 100 molesters free will cause infinitely more harm to innocents than falsely imprisoning one person.
Click to expand...
Yeah...tell me that when you're the one in jail for a crime you didn't commit.
 
Azphira said:
The phone is "effects" under the 4th. Giving up the password is divulging information that would self incriminate under the 5th.

And if you've done nothing wrong that is even more reason to not have strangers snooping in your personal affairs. Get a warrant and bolt cutters, oops, no bolt cutters for data locks. Let's violate amendments.
Click to expand...

No. You only self incriminate if there is something incriminating inside. ONLY then. So by being forced to keeping to your rights you already make half admission of guilt.
 
nilepez said:
Yeah...tell me that when you're the one in jail for a crime you didn't commit.
Click to expand...

Yeah tell me that when your child gets molested and the perp walks away because he refused to show his rape murder evidence from his phone.
 
B00nie said:
Yeah tell me that when your child gets molested and the perp walks away because he refused to show his rape murder evidence from his phone.
Click to expand...

They should just take his phone and extract the data from it, not force him under threat to speak his passwords.
 
Darunion said:
They should just take his phone and extract the data from it, not force him under threat to speak his passwords.
Click to expand...

Wrong. He should have not broken the law and be forced to not expose his data.
 
B00nie said:
When innocent you don't need to hide anything. Simple as that. How can they land me in jail when I haven't committed any crime?

Refusing to show your phone when accused of a serious crime is 99,9% proof of guilt.
Click to expand...

You clearly don't know how the law works.
 
Methadras said:
How do you know he broke the law? Innocent until guilt and all that.
Click to expand...

I don't know if he broke the law but the proof leading to his suspicion along his actions imply that he probably did. Which is why the judge also landed him in jail.

'Beyond a reasonable doubt' doesn't mean there can't be some doubt.
 
lcpiper said:
If the case against you is weak or non-existant, no judge should be ordering you to unlock your phone.
Click to expand...

Appeal to Authority fallacy. The government is not omniscient, the employees are human just like everyone else.
 
B00nie said:
When innocent you don't need to hide anything. Simple as that. How can they land me in jail when I haven't committed any crime?

Refusing to show your phone when accused of a serious crime is 99,9% proof of guilt.
Click to expand...

under what system of law? It is not here in America.
 
B00nie said:
When innocent you don't need to hide anything. Simple as that. How can they land me in jail when I haven't committed any crime?

Refusing to show your phone when accused of a serious crime is 99,9% proof of guilt.
Click to expand...

as a person that has not done anything that needs to be hidden in the first place. i would NEVER... EVER... vote for you.
its not a matter of me not having anything to hide, its a matter of my right to be secure in my person and papers .. and yes......before you even go there, electronic devices count as my papers.

but..uhhhhh.... the current administration is currently looking for more people with really stupid ideas which are in direct conflict of the constitution... you may want to check into that.
 
B00nie said:
I guess the difference between me and you is that I trust the government to treat me fairly and I trust the system. You don't. I would hate to live where you live.
Click to expand...

I don't know where either of you live, but here's how I see it.

First, I don't think of the US Federal Government as an evil entity that is plotting nasty things for us. I think of it as this huge elephant thing that just can't move around without doing some harm to someone, somewhere.

To make matters worse, we have people throughout this country who are either asking it to come help, meaning it has to move, or they are aggravating it with sharp pointy sticks and again, making it move.

So when it comes down to individual people in the Federal Government, well, they are what they are. Some are great people and others are jerks, like everywhere else.

Therefore I have no problem being nice to and seeing the individuals as decent people until they show me they aren't. But that doesn't mean I trust the government not to hurt me when "they move".
 
B00nie said:
Wrong. He should have not broken the law and be forced to not expose his data.
Click to expand...
So you're saying they know he broke the law? If so, then why do they need his phone? If not, then neither you, nor the police know he broke the law. But again in BOOnie world you're guilty until proven innocent.
 
Darunion said:
They should just take his phone and extract the data from it, not force him under threat to speak his passwords.
Click to expand...

Why?

Don't forget, I am one of the ones that thinks the Judge needs a compelling reason to order it. But why shouldn't the Judge just order the man to give up his password?

Keep in mind that Judges have already rules that it is not self incrimination no matter how much people want to call it that, this is not at issue. What is at issue is some people just don't like this entire process and how the courts are interpreting the law and the constitution.
 
Spire3660 said:
Appeal to Authority fallacy. The government is not omniscient, the employees are human just like everyone else.
Click to expand...

And ....... ?

You've made a statement but it doesn't make any sense to me, I can't pin down it's relevance.

You're correct that Judges are human and that they can make mistakes. But that isn't going to shorten your sentence by a single day.

In the end, no matter what bullshit you try to pull out of your ass or how you think something shouldn't apply.

The Judge has authority to make decisions pursuant to the law and applicable within the courts.

And even if a Judge makes a mistake, guilt or innocence is up to the people, those peers of ours in the jury box. Who are also people just like everyone else.

Knock it all you want it won't change what is in fact, immutable truth.

It is what it is.
 
lcpiper said:
Why?

Don't forget, I am one of the ones that thinks the Judge needs a compelling reason to order it. But why shouldn't the Judge just order the man to give up his password?

Keep in mind that Judges have already rules that it is not self incrimination no matter how much people want to call it that, this is not at issue. What is at issue is some people just don't like this entire process and how the courts are interpreting the law and the constitution.
Click to expand...
Because the 5th amendment says I don't have to. And the judges are wrong. Your phone has all kinds of incriminating evidence on it. May not be for the crime they're looking for evidence on, but I'm fairly certain you're not a perfect angel and there's an ungodly amount of data about you in a phone. The first thing I'd do is hire a good attorney, but I'd never hand over my phone to someone, much less law enforcement who is accusing me a felony. Law Enforcement is NOT my friend in these situations, even if I'm innocent.
 
B00nie said:
You're fucking paranoid. No, there's NOTHING on my phone that could incriminate me in any imaginable way. What exactly do you think they could find from my phone that 'I would be doing to my own kids'? WTF kind of thinking is that? Are you doing something to your kids that you shouldn't?????

You guys sound like you're committing crimes regularly and are afraid of the police.
Click to expand...

No, we just know that there ARE bad cops out there and if you happen to run into one of them, they can make your life a living hell if they want.

Like planting evidence has never happened before.. right?
 
lcpiper said:
Why?

Don't forget, I am one of the ones that thinks the Judge needs a compelling reason to order it. But why shouldn't the Judge just order the man to give up his password?

Keep in mind that Judges have already rules that it is not self incrimination no matter how much people want to call it that, this is not at issue. What is at issue is some people just don't like this entire process and how the courts are interpreting the law and the constitution.
Click to expand...

Because we are on the outside so we don't see the reasoning. Also my personal feelings on it are they don't stand outside my door and force me to let them in, why is the phone my responsibility? You want it, you open it. Like I said we dont know the exact situation but I just feel that the person under investigation should be allowed to assist but not forced to.
 
nilepez said:
Because the 5th amendment says I don't have to. And the judges are wrong. Your phone has all kinds of incriminating evidence on it. May not be for the crime they're looking for evidence on, but I'm fairly certain you're not a perfect angel and there's an ungodly amount of data about you in a phone. The first thing I'd do is hire a good attorney, but I'd never hand over my phone to someone, much less law enforcement who is accusing me a felony. Law Enforcement is NOT my friend in these situations, even if I'm innocent.
Click to expand...

No, the 5th says no such thing and that is the law as defined by our Judges today. They may change it tomorrow, or it might stand until doomsday.

The 5th protects you against self incrimination in that you can not be forced to testify against yourself.

The courts have ruled that forcing you to unlock your phone is not testimony even if the end result is your incrimination. Not any more then forcing you to open a safe which has incriminating evidence in it is.

Wish in one hand, shit in the others, only one will get filled.

This is how it is nilepez, we are reading about it every couple of weeks.

Now you are right, your phone can have a great amount of information in it about you. A search warrant is supposed to specify what is to be searched for in pretty specific terms. So they should not just be able to rifle through the entire phone without regards to that aspect of the constitution and law regarding lawful search. At the same time, even under a normal physical search, if they happen across evidence of other crimes pursuant to the search, you can be charged for it.

So like I said, a Judge should require a pretty good reason for making someone unlock their phone for a search. The search should be specific in nature. And Judges need to be pretty selective about dealing with "evidence of additional crimes" discovered in the course of a search. As in this case, they claim the phone could have photographic evidence support their charges so a judge should limit the search to image and video files while prohibiting other data classifications in the search.

This i show I see it, the question is, is this what it will become?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top