> If so, it raises even further questions about the > constitutionality of this particular warrant, which may > have forced this suspect to provide evidence against > someone else.
That's actually less of a constitutional issue. While you do have a 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, absent something like spousal privilege-- which isn't a constitutional issue-- you have *no* right whatsoever to be free from incriminating others. If you have evidence that can be used to help the government's case against someone else, you can be compelled to provide it. Period. And nothing in the Constitution protects you from that.
> Not that due process was at the forefront of law > enforcement's mind in this case. Or the magistrate > judge's either. Jonathan Zdziarski points out the warrant > was obtained within 45 minutes of the suspect being > arrested -- not even enough time to bring in a lawyer.
WTF? Due process has *never* required the police wait to apply for a warrant (or the judge to wait to grant one) until the subject/defendant's lawyer shows up at the warrant application hearing.
> Do your job right or criminals get off free and it is no > one's fault but your own.
Did you not read the article? The cops *did* do their job right. They acted properly under the laws as they existed at the time. This court is applying law as it exists today to a search that occurred in the past before the law existed.
I know this "community" is generally anti-cop as a general rule, but it's absurd to suggest cops should somehow psychically know how the law will change in the future and conform their actions accordingly.
> This is not the best advice. The proper procedure is, DO > NOT SPEAK ANY WORDS WHATSOEVER. Stand there like a lamp > post, and SAY NOTHING. Pressure will be applied, threats > will be made, SAY NOTHING. Don't even nod or shake your > head.
That's actually extremely poor advice, Mr. Internet Lawyer Genius Person, considering the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that a person has to affirmatively and verbally assert their right to remain silent in order for it to have legal effect. Sitting there "like a lamp post" will allow the government to argue that your silence in the face of accusations that would provoke a response in a normal person is evidence of guilt.
Your license to practice Internet Comment Thread Law should be revoked.
> Read up on the Jeep hack: the hackers were able to take > control of the vehicle remotely, with the driver inside.
Which is just one more reason I'm perfectly happy with my old 4Runner. Still runs like a dream, never had any mechanical issues with it, and it has none of this "connected to the internet, GPS monitoring, black box" crap that turns my own vehicle against me as an Orwellian wet dream.
> But when you go out and drive the speed limit on the > highway, pretty much everybody on the road is just > zipping past you. And I would be one of those people."
That's because speed limits on most roads are set artificially low, for various reasons. I spent some time years ago as a city attorney and was privy to many closed-door discussions by city council members about speed limits. They take the recommended speed provided by the highway engineers which is based on science, and drop it by about 10 mph or so. Why? Everything from nanny-state safety mavens who constantly fret about the possibility someone somewhere might get hurt by something, to officials who figure that setting the limit artificially low will result in more speeders, and hence more revenue.
This bill is worse than useless for many reasons, not the least of which is that it only applies to entities in the US. A software developer in Belize or Madagascar will still be able to write a messaging app without legal restriction or repercussion that offers end-to-end encryption, put it up on the web, and anyone in the US can download it and use it, and boom-- the FBI and the cops are right back to where they started, not being able to decrypt the evidence.
And just on a more philosophical level, it find it offensive that the government in a supposedly free society is essentially announcing as a matter of fundamental policy that one citizen has no right to communicate with another citizen in any manner that is un-eavesdropable (yes, I made up a word there) by government surveillors.
> But it's the obviously planned lack of options > Microsoft's request presents that should piss people off > here.
Apple has started doing this with its iOS also. Every day I'm interrupted with a pop-up on my iPhone which tells me there's a new version of the OS waiting for me and I'm given the option of either "Install Now" or "Later". If you choose "Later", it brings up another pop-up that says "Install Tonight" or "Remind Me Later". The latter option just resets the clock for 24 hours and the process starts all over again.
Nowhere is there a "I'll Upgrade When I Decide I Want to And Not Until Then, Now Shut the Fuck Up And Leave Me Alone" option.
> The court issued a valid warrant for the phone and the > search was being resisted, thus the arrest.
So if the court issued a warrant ordering you to produce knowledge in your head for the location of a murder weapon, and you refused to lead the cops to the murder weapon (whether you actually know its location or not), they can hold you in contempt and jail you indefinitely?
> they can get another warrant for the safe, which would compel you to open the safe.
(1) They wouldn't need a second warrant. Assuming what they're looking for with the first warrant could fit inside the safe, then the safe is covered by the first warrant. And if what they're looking for can't fit inside the safe, the judge won't issue a second warrant for the safe just 'cause the cops are curious what's inside it.
(2) The owner of the safe wouldn't be compelled to open the safe. The cops would just drill it open.
This is the unique problem with encryption for law enforcement. This is the first time in jurisprudential history that the government is running into "containers" that they can't break into against the will of the people who own them, so they're having to enlist the help of people to act against their own best interests.
Re: Re: Not the culture to which YOUR family is subjected...
> If it happens that often, you have bigger problems than > whether or not someone wants to take away your shooting > stick
Perhaps, but until those bigger problems are solved, taking away the stick doesn't do me or mine any good, and in fact, only leaves them more vulnerable.
(And I'll note again, your use of pejorative terms-- "toys", "shooting stick", etc. in reference to guns in what appears to be a sad attempt to trivialize and denigrate those who have them. Why is it so hard for you to just use the word "gun"? You must have *some* reason for not doing so. Please, enlighten us.)
> I've managed 41 years on this planet without needing to > carry a deadly weapon for protection. I'm not the one > scared.
Do you lock the doors to your house? Unless you live somewhere very rural with very little people around, I would bet you do. Does that mean you're living in fear, or just taking reasonable precautions to protect yourself and your family?