Allegation: Philly Cops Leaned Suspect Over Balcony To Obtain Password 225
An anonymous reader writes with this news from Ars Technica: If you want access to encrypted data on a drug dealer's digital device, you might try to break the crypto—or you might just try to break the man.
According to testimony from a police corruption trial currently roiling the city of Philadelphia, officers from an undercover drug squad took the latter route back in November 2007. After arresting their suspect, Michael Cascioli, in the hallway outside his 18th floor apartment, the officers took Cascioli back inside. Although they lacked a search warrant, the cops searched Cascioli's rooms anyway. According to a federal indictment (PDF), the officers 'repeatedly assaulted and threatened [Cascioli] during the search to obtain information about the location of money, drugs, and drug suppliers.' That included, according to Cascioli, lifting him over the edge of his balcony to try to frighten out of him the password to his Palm Pilot. That sounds like a good time for a duress password.
According to testimony from a police corruption trial currently roiling the city of Philadelphia, officers from an undercover drug squad took the latter route back in November 2007. After arresting their suspect, Michael Cascioli, in the hallway outside his 18th floor apartment, the officers took Cascioli back inside. Although they lacked a search warrant, the cops searched Cascioli's rooms anyway. According to a federal indictment (PDF), the officers 'repeatedly assaulted and threatened [Cascioli] during the search to obtain information about the location of money, drugs, and drug suppliers.' That included, according to Cascioli, lifting him over the edge of his balcony to try to frighten out of him the password to his Palm Pilot. That sounds like a good time for a duress password.
Done in movies... (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember it being done in a few movies — by the good guys — without anybody in the audience cringing. Nor do I remember any calls to boycott a movie over such things.
So, if popular culture approves of and encourages it, can't blame the cops too much for doing it despite it being merely illegal...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
So what you are saying is that it's up to Hollywood to dictate what is acceptable in society?
They clearly don't have an agenda, right?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You think Hollywood invented it? Are you horribly naive?
Re:Done in movies... (Score:4, Insightful)
You think Hollywood invented it? Are you horribly naive?
Maybe they didn't invent it, but the sure as heck made it socially acceptable in the minds of the masses.
Never mind "the masses" (Score:2)
I wish Hollywood's influence was limited to the simple-minded "masses." When you get a chance, go ask Justice Scalia about his hero, Jack Bauer. [theatlantic.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So what you are saying is that it's up to Hollywood to dictate what is acceptable in society?
They clearly don't have an agenda, right?
You think they haven't been ?
Re:Done in movies... (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you learn what is acceptable in a society? By watching people do stuff and get praised or reviled for it. What does Hollywood do? Show people doing stuff and get labeled heroes or villains. They're an efficient propaganda machine, for good or ill.
Re:Done in movies... (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of of can tell the difference between fiction and reality. They get away with lots of things in movies that are not acceptable in real life.
Re: (Score:3)
And you can rest assured, the shit they get away with in movies they wouldn't in real life ... have happened in real life. Many many many times. In many many different places.
Police have been muscling up suspects as long as there have been police.
That "fiction" you're talking about is straight out of real life. If anything, the "fiction" is probably tamer than s
Re: (Score:3)
And one would hope that law enforcement officers are near the top of the list of people who can tell the difference between fantasy and reality.
Re:Done in movies... (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to be under the illusion that people in general act on a moral, principled basis in all (or even most) aspects of life.
You are sadly mistaken and delusional if you think that.
You haven't spent nearly enough time around people if you are expecting moral condemnation from most movie goers.
People are, not nearly as deep down as we'd like to think, complete fucking barbarians. And don't ever forget it.
Most people don't commit crimes for fear of punishment, not because they morally object. On balance, the human race is far more amoral than people like to believe.
And anything which relies on the inherent goodness of humans is probably useless. Because humans aren't inherently good.
Re:Done in movies... (Score:5, Interesting)
I would say that the primary vice that afflicts humanity is thoughtlessness. A lot of the sort of commonplace, everyday evil that people commit is a result of their failure to reflect on the implications of what they are doing. In many cases, if someone helps them think it through, they will agree that it is evil and reject it. But they will turn around and do the same thing the next day, when nobody is helping them think it through.
People like to see cops be tough on crime. This is because they dislike evil. In hollywood scenarios where this happens, it is known by the audience in advance that the criminal is, for sure, guilty, and in their minds that makes a measure of abuse acceptable. But, if made to think it through, most people will agree that this kind of treatment is not appropriate if the person might be innocent. Some may even go so far as to agree that even criminals should not be treated that way....and in most cases when trying to earn agreement, your barrier is much more their ability to think abstractly and objectively, rather than their sense of fairness.
Of course, these same people will turn around and do something evil if they think that the harm isn't too severe. They will flagrantly violate the golden rule...usually not out of conscious malice but out of an unwillingness (in inability) to reflect on the fact that they are doing this. If they think they can get away with it, they will have an apology prepared before they even act...but this is precisely because they think the harm they are doing is minor (and, if they are wrong, it is usually because they are stupid, not because they are evil).
I still agree with you....there is a lot of raw evil in common human behavior. But I maintain that most (perhaps not all, but I will posit that it is the majority) people do have a sense of fairness and to act on it....but their thoughtlessness makes them fail at it pretty badly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>Most people don't commit crimes for fear of punishment, not because they morally object.
I agree. But that's because most crimes are completely disconnected from anything that resembles morals. Some examples:
- Making moonshine for yourself
- Having a beer while fixing your car, or, for that matter, having a beer in the backseat while someone drives
- Having consensual sex at 17 with another 17 year old
- Shopping/opening on Holy Days (spelling intentional) (Outside the USA
Re: (Score:2)
Most people don't commit crimes for fear of punishment, not because they morally object.
Most people don't commit crime because it is usually useless.
Re:Done in movies... (Score:4, Insightful)
If murder were legalised most people would not start murdering. Most people don't commit serious crimes because of morality. Minor crimes, especially victimless ones, are another matter because there are fewer moral qualms.
Fear of being caught tends to come far down the list. A long time ago in England almost all crimes carried the death sentence. 10 year old children were hung for stealing. It didn't really reduce the crime rate. If anything it just made people driven to crime by poverty more likely to murder the police trying to catch them, since death was certain anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people don't commit crimes for fear of punishment, not because they morally object.
Every person I've ever heard say that also said that they'd not commit murder if it were legal.
So I assume everyone who says that is a hyporite. How about you? Are you a murderer, restrained solely by fear of punishment?
Re:Done in movies... (Score:4, Insightful)
LOL, aww, that's sweet.
Honestly, it's not a cry for help or expression of despair.
People can be, and frequently are, good people. But in the aggregate, I don't ascribe "goodness" to humans -- especially when nobody is looking.
As a species we're capable of a lot of good. But we're also capable of a lot of other stuff.
Re:Done in movies... (Score:4, Insightful)
Capable isn't the same as well screw everyone else over at the first opportunity.
I once left two bags if expressive shopping items on a train in Japan. Next day I collected them as a cleaner had handed them in. Could easily have taken some stuff and never been caught, but didn't. Once a friend left 50,000 yen in a restaurant. That's about â300 or $400. Went back the next day, it was all waiting for her, found by the staff and kept safe.
In some cultures people are basically nice. It's actually quite shocking for British people when they go to Japan and people just trust them by default. In the UK that will get you screwed over fast.
Re: (Score:2)
You are loved and help is available
Awe, that's cute. What will you do about those who do not seek help? Those who consider themselves just fine?
Re: (Score:3)
People usually only freak out about behavior in movies that they think other people will emulate, especially things that seem realistic. My parents like to watch lots of British murder mysteries, but they'll be put off by 'bad' language, nudity, or people being rude in the same show.
The people who boycott for the reasons you gave believe that our entire culture is heavily racist and sexist, and movies are part of the problem. But most people aren't corrupt cops.
Re:Done in movies... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, I fail to see, how mere racism [forward.com] or sexism [femitup.com] can lead to a boycott, while abuse of a suspect gets a pass. And not just once either!
Because, in the US, many Americans are fine with the idea that doing bad things to bad people in pursuit of a good goal is a-ok.
Jack Bauer could get away with torturing a guy because Jack Bauer was right, he was not corrupt, he fighting for the good guys, and the guy he was torturing was trying to hide details on some terrorist attack. That's easy to screenwrite for. The problem is that in real life, often the people who think they are right and good actually aren't, they torture the wrong person, and there are unintended consequences.
Re: (Score:3)
No, but the consequences of real life police being wrong are pretty fucking serious. And they're wrong a lot more often than people care to admit.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.or... [deathpenaltyinfo.org]
Re: (Score:2)
He did not say "more often". Learn to read. But be quick about it, there's some cops wanting their boots licked.
What would you consider to be an acceptable error rate in this situation?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we're more accepting of it in fiction mostly because we know who the bad guys are. We know who they are because we've seen them do bad things.
In the real world, it isn't so clear cut.
Re: (Score:2)
We must burn all the Three Stooges reels! And Tom and Jerry? My god!
Actually, Genesis would be a good start.
Re: (Score:2)
That's for sure. THAT sumbitch told Abraham to kill his kid and then at the last second went, "PSYCH!"
Re: (Score:2)
That's for sure. THAT sumbitch told Abraham to kill his kid and then at the last second went, "PSYCH!"
And that Lot! Gets it on with his daughters, has some kids with them, and his wife was conveniently nuked beforehand to enable him to bump uglies wit 'em. What a character!
Re: (Score:2)
That's quite in-character for the OT God. He demands absoute loyalty and obedience, and a number of stories in the old testament are about him either requiring this loyalty be proven or showing what happens when it isn't. There are a number of occasions where he gives what seem like trivial, unimportant instructions (Do not eat the fruit, do not look at the burning city, do not touch the ark) then executes someone on the spot for some tiny violation. The entire story of Job is supposed to demonstrate the vi
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, but he did it basically on a dare.
God: "Job will do anything for me, no matter what"
Satan: "no way"
God: "yes way"
Satan:
Re: (Score:2)
We must burn all the Three Stooges reels! And Tom and Jerry? My god!
Not burn. But definitely see a lack of the violent type of cartoons that were much more prevalent in the 60's and 70's now. I think someone figured out exposing our children to such blatant acts of violence teaches children that violence is ok. And now you don't see all those old Looney Tunes and Tom and Jerry cartoons in easy to find places for children. I mean really, what did you expect to come out of showing children senseless acts of violence, even by animated characters on each other? As an adult
Re: (Score:2)
Watched all that stuff as a kid. Don't recall ever thinking "Hey, it would be pretty cool to drop a safe on someone - not like it really hurts them past the commercial break, after all!"
No, kids aren't so stupid that they see talking mice running at near sonic speed (or small dinosaurs doing same) and think "oh, how realistic! Wow, the wor
Re:Done in movies... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
We have been well trained that it is OK for the good guys to bend the rules to stop the bad guys.
In fairness, there ARE times when that is the case...
A good example is during the movie "The Peacemaker" with George Clooney.
A terrorist has a nuclear weapon in his backpack and is 10 blocks away from where he plans to set it off. He also plans to die, so if you confront him, he'll just set it off anyway.
The sniper who is supposed to shoot the bad guy has his shot blocked by a girl on her daddy's shoulders. He doesn't have a clear shot.
Do you shoot through the girl to hit the bad guy in that case?
Is the c
So, rob a casino and blame Ocean's 11? (Score:2)
Let us know how well that "can't blame me, I saw it in a movie" defense works out for you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, if popular culture approves of and encourages it, can't blame the cops too much for doing it despite it being merely illegal...
Yes, we can. Police shouldn't receive their training from works of entertainment any more than doctors or lawyers should.
When you watch ER, House, the Practice, Better Call Saul, you'd never take it seriously if you were a member of those professions.
Might as well take Japanese anime as lessons in history.
Re: (Score:2)
So, if popular culture approves of and encourages it, can't blame the cops too much for doing it despite it being merely illegal...
Yes, we can.
Indeed, we can, but unfortunately "we" don't. And that's the problem.
The "we" here is not the Slashdot readers (or other people well-informed about civil rights), but the population at large. And this population doesn't get any special training about their rights, but picks it up from movies and similarly unreliable sources.
So, even though police's training tells them that they shouldn't behave in such a way, they are confident that there will be very little backlash against such behavior (except from the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Popular culture also approves and encourages Justin Bieber, but don't nobody want to see cops imitating that mess.
Re: (Score:2)
Nor do I remember any calls to boycott a movie over such things. So, if popular culture approves of and encourages it, can't blame the cops too much for doing it despite it being merely illegal...
Finally, a like-minded individual. What movie/book should we boycott next?
I tried boycotting a Harry Potter matinee once, but those little 8 year old kids can be incredibly violent and cruel.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember it being done in a few movies — by the good guys — without anybody in the audience cringing. Nor do I remember any calls to boycott a movie over such things.
So, if popular culture approves of and encourages it, can't blame the cops too much for doing it despite it being merely illegal...
So what a group of people watching a fictional movie "approves of and encourages" should somehow translate to and justify actions in the real world? WTF? Man, that is some seriously busted logic, pal.
Re: (Score:3)
Should we be okay with killing people because it Arnold blows people away?
Should we be okay with incest because Game of Thrones is popular?
Should we be okay with torture because they use it in the movies?
Should we be okay with hitting women because Shawn Connery did in in films?
I mean what the fuck kind of argument are you trying to put forth, and how the hell have you convinced people to mod
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much every cop show/movie will pull this at some point.
Whether it's the Loose Cannon being tough on crime to get results, or the 100% By The Book Boyscout (who doesn't even jay walk when chasing a fleeing suspect) doing it after the badguys do something so evil it's the only alternative (or they made him snap and he goes into Badass Loose Cannon mode for the rest of the film).
Re: (Score:3)
It's good drama. A direct physical conflict between opposing characters, and one that allows the story to advance rapidly. It's a lot more exciting then having to put the case on hold for a day while the investigators file paperwork requesting a search warrant.
I also notice that in any crime series, if the suspect calls for their lawyer at any point they are *always* guilty of something - but innocent people never have their lawyer present. It seems that only the guilty have any reason to exercise their leg
Re:Done in movies... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Let's not forget that this is a typical Slashdot hivemind-feeding story... Everything in TFS apparently comes from testimony (which may or may not be accurate, and may or may not be accepted as a fact by the court), and let's also not forget that even lacking a search warrant, officers are allowed to do a sweep of the area to ensure their safety.
Even if we accept that the accused officers did violate their suspect's rights, and they did search excessively without a warrant, and they did threaten him, they'v
Re:Done in movies... (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything in TFS apparently comes from testimony (which may or may not be accurate, and may or may not be accepted as a fact by the court),
One of the two police officers who dangled him over the balcony confessed to it in court, so as far as mere testimony goes, that's pretty good.
xkcd (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Damn you! (your post wasn't there when I typed a longer version of yours...)
Re: (Score:2)
thermorectal cryptanalysis
God dammit so much now I'm going to have to use that somewhere wildly inappropriate and see who figures it out...
Oh Yeah!!! Oblig XKCD (Score:5, Funny)
https://xkcd.com/538/ [xkcd.com]
Bam! My first obligatory post on Slashdot.
Someone has probably posted it while I typed this though...
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you are number 3 ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Damnit. I tried. I've never tried first post, thought I could pull of an XKCD reference.
Re: (Score:2)
As the XKCD reference cannot be repeated to often, no harm done.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
As the XKCD reference cannot be repeated to often, no harm done.
I feel sorry for the second person who posted the xkcd comic. His score is still at 0, while the first and third posters were modded up to five. Some people have no luck!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is because it was so obvious that it would have been best if nobody linked to it. Before I even clicked on the link to the article I knew some asshat was going to link to that xkcd comic.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't want to take the time to search for it. But now I have this handy link! Thanks, xkcd posters!
Always felt silly for doing that (Score:2)
That sounds like a good time for a duress password.
I always took the time to make two containers with one accessed through a duress password. I felt silly for doing it...less so now. It was something I did because I used to travel a lot internationally. That was before Customs started cloning people's device drives.
Re: (Score:2)
If they are professionally, they will clone, perhaps in a way that you cannot see and do something stupid. Bang! The first 10 years prison for "destruction of evidence" already in the bag. If they have no clue how to do this right, then you duress password may work, but they may also be unprofessional enough to just kill you on the spot "by accident". If they do not, see above under "destruction of evidence".
The only sane thing is to not ever carry sensitive data when crossing borders or in similar situatio
Re: (Score:2)
If they are professionally, they will clone, perhaps in a way that you cannot see and do something stupid.
Actually, there's many ways duress passwords can work. When I had one, it granted access as usual, but notified the security people that something was up.
For a storage system, there's two options:
1. The duress password directs you to a DIFFERENT image stored within the encrypted blob than the 'real' password. Though at this point it 'works best' if it's less a 'duress' password than a second password used for different stuff. For example, you put all your legitimate* stuff in using password 1. Then you
Re: (Score:2)
Alerting security is something that an work, but it requires that you actually have the upper hand, but that not all your forces are there at the time. That is usually called a "panic button" though. As to hidden partitions, that is all fantasy BS. Really. As to your magic chips, ever wondered why a proper HSM does _not_ have a duress password? Right, because the manufacturer does _not_ want to be responsible for getting you shot.
Re: (Score:2)
That is exactly the problem. Sure, if you do not expect to walk away, a duress password has some use, but a cyanide tooth would be far better. (If those actually exist, I somehow doubt it.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent, you just have added terrorism charges against yourself.
And ever wondered why it is called "tamper resistant" and not "tamper proof"? Simple: It _was_ called tamper proof, but nobody managed to pull it off, so anybody with a clue stepped down to "tamper resistance". Against experts with time, it has no real value.
This is called "rubber hose cryptoanalysis" (Score:4, Insightful)
The idea is that if you beat somebody with a rubber hose, that does not leave any mark.
Also, stop the nonsense about duress-passwords. They do not work. Really not and no, your smart idea for any movie-like device that makes them work is just that: Movie-like but not real. On the other hand, trying to be smart with a duress password procedure can easily get you killed or worse.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea is that if you beat somebody with a rubber hose, that does not leave any mark.
Also, stop the nonsense about duress-passwords. They do not work. Really not and no, your smart idea for any movie-like device that makes them work is just that: Movie-like but not real. On the other hand, trying to be smart with a duress password procedure can easily get you killed or worse.
That really depends on the circumstances. For someone with a PDA (remember them) or computer they are unlikely to be useful, especially if the person "persuading" you is convinced the device contains the information they want. OTOH, they can be useful in specific circumstances. We had a duress codeword to indicate forceable entry was being attempted. When the door was opened the bad guys would be treated by a bunch of pissed off guys with automatic weapons.
Re: (Score:3)
What you describe is not a duress password, it is a safety-destruct and the critical difference is that it is used before the bad guys have you in their power. Still a risk to your health, but less so as you did not disobey a direct order.
Re: (Score:2)
What you describe is not a duress password, it is a safety-destruct and the critical difference is that it is used before the bad guys have you in their power. Still a risk to your health, but less so as you did not disobey a direct order.
well, if someone is holding a gun to your head and telling you to gain access to a location I'd say they have you in their power and the password you give is under duress; since you would not use it in any other situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, yes. I misread your description. Sorry. This is the one situation where a duress password actually works, namely when you have superior force, you just need to alert it.
Re:This is called "rubber hose cryptoanalysis" (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, stop the nonsense about duress-passwords. They do not work. Really not and no, your smart idea for any movie-like device that makes them work is just that: Movie-like but not real. On the other hand, trying to be smart with a duress password procedure can easily get you killed or worse.
Depends on the threat model.
I always wondered why ATMs didn't have duress passwords. You get mugged, you tell the mugger the password is 1234 instead of 5678, and the ATM happily dispenses money and calls the police for you.
I also don't see any reason why phones can't have duress passwords. You get pulled over by the cops, they try to illegally search your device incident to a traffic stop, you key in 1234 instead of 5678, and the phone starts silently recording and/or streaming live audio/video to the cloud.
The duress password doesn't defend against charges of destruction of evidence. It can be quite useful for defense against power-tripping bullies, whether they're the sort without a badge at the ATM, or the sort with a badge at the side of the road. It only has to last the 5-10 minutes it takes to give the thug what he thinks he wants, and then the thug will let you go.
Duress codes are to mobile devices what exploding dye packs are to banks. The goal is to let the thug get away with the money, but not get away with the crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should I believe that? If a person is morally bankrupt enough that they are willing to threaten somebody's life, why on earth should I think they are not at least equally capable of lying?
Re: (Score:2)
Also, stop the nonsense about duress-passwords. They do not work.
There is a reason why they call the drug courier a mule and it isn't because he is the brains of the outfit.
The right question to ask --- the first question to ask ---- is not where and how to hide the insanely dangerous files you are carrying about on your person but why you are doing anything so stupid in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
I was trying to figure out what you are talking about, then it occurred to me that you have no idea know what you are talking about.
Duress passworks work fine for unknown-unknowns (Score:3)
On the other hand, if you had a laptop with some Tienanmen square videos on it that you wanted to bring to China, I think it's perfectly viable approach to simply load up the dummy container with videos of yourself doing a little soft S&M or something
The best encryption: No encryption (Score:4, Insightful)
At least none that can be seen. You cannot demand keys for something you don't know of. If there's a container with a "please enter pass phrase" lock on top of it, it begs for a key.
Unused space on your hard drive that looks like it contains old data from before you last partitioned, though...
Re: (Score:2)
It is quite possible to demand keys that someone *thinks* might be there. More is the pity if there never was any encrypted data on the device to begin with.
A lot of misbehavior from law enforcement seems to stem from them being "sure" of what is going on, despite a lack of evidence to support the surety.
Re: (Score:2)
They can demand all they want, I can only hand over what I have. I can't give you what doesn't exist. Which, of course, doesn't guarantee that it will end well for me. Just look at Saddam and him being asked to hand over his nonexistent WMDs.
But it still increases my chances.
Re: (Score:2)
TrueCrypt hidden containers get around that problem by hiding the real secret data inside a dummy encrypted container that you can hand over the password to. Any unused space will be filled with random bytes, as is the norm for a TrueCrypt container, so isn't suspicious.
Re:Poker Night with Pinocchio. (Score:5, Informative)
"After investing $1 billion in behavior detection techniques and training since 2007, the Transportation Security Administration has little to show for its efforts, the New York Times stated in a new report. According to the newspaper, critics of the TSA’s attempt to read body language claim there’s no evidence to suggest the agency has been able to link chosen passengers to anything beyond carrying drugs or holding undeclared currency, much less a terrorist attack. In fact, a review of numerous studies seems to suggest that even those trained to look for various tics are no more capable of identifying liars than normal individuals. 'The common-sense notion that liars betray themselves through body language appears to be little more than a cultural fiction,' Maria Hartwig, a psychologist at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City, told the Times."
http://rt.com/usa/tsa-spent-billion-body-language-937/ [rt.com]
Re: (Score:3)
They are supposed to be discouraged from this though, because in practice 'reading body language' very often turns into 'everyone who isn't white is acting shifty.'
Re: (Score:2)
In this case I should consider myself lucky that my body language is FUBAR...
Hey, it's about damn time that condition has some up sides, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Truecrypt? I don't have truecrypt installed. I tried it a while ago, after all, I'm in security research, I think I still got a version on a stick somewhere, but don't ask me just where in my mess that stick is ... but you have a warrant, and you're the expert. Good luck.
Re: (Score:2)
I tried it a while ago
You just admitted to using TrueCrypt.
I think I still got a version on a stick somewhere
You just gave them enough for a search warrant.
don't ask me just where in my mess that stick is ... but you have a warrant
Now you've admitted to concealing evidence, and you've acknowledged the warrant.
Granted, these are all slight stretches and distortions of what you actually intended to say, but they're all things to be argued in court. I'm usually one to give the police the benefit of the doubt, but if you're involved in anything where they're looking for passwords (or any other situation where you're not free to walk away at any moment), y
Has anybody mentioned (Score:3)
something about a $5 wrench?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Dude, it's the Government. That $5 wrench cost at least $25,000.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Since you asked,
https://xkcd.com/538/ [xkcd.com]
Threats (Score:2)
I'd cave in after a while.
"The drugs are right there, officer. In the cabinet underneath the video camera streaming this whole scene out to YouTube."
Re: (Score:2)
So basically you'd be streaming your criminal activity on YouTube all the time? Because that would be stupid.
Or you'd bust our your super ninja skills and enable the streaming as the police were knocking on your door with a carefully placed deadman switch? Why not just go all Bruce Lee on them and beat them up and take their guns?
Because, honestly, when I hear Slashdot people saying all of the tough shit they'd be doing in that situation I just really have to laugh -- seriously, stop fronting ... nobody b
Re: (Score:3)
Sometimes deliberate jokes are deliberately stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look, if you want to flap your gums and wave around your penis, do it elsewhere.
Maybe on a chat room with your buddies while you're playing Xbox.
Mostly you sound like a total wanker.
Re: (Score:2)
Just have to ask.. do you think folks with military and intelligence experience don't read slashdot like any other nerd does?
Ok, granted, maybe they've moved on to Reddit or tech-site-of-the-day like others. But maybe they just enjoy reading the site because they have for 15 years.
What happened to Sully? (Score:2)
I let him go. - John Matrix
The future? (Score:2)
Once a person and all their data is lost the only hope is a "security check" word, phrase. Something that can be added or left out that shows duress or coercion.
That was the past.
Now with OS, hardware and telco collaboration expect every consumer device to have a backdoor or trap door as sold.
The backdoor o
Eh? (Score:2)
Was the undercover cop Suge Knight?
Re: (Score:2)
Let us not forget that it was Vanilla Ice that got the visit from Mr. Knight.
It makes me feel good, still.
Small part of a bigger story (Score:4, Informative)
Palm Pilot (Score:3)
Funny, the most interesting part of this story was the mention of his Palm Pilot. /me wonders what model it was.
And to answer your question, yes I still use a Palm Pilot [thedarkener.info].
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah ... especially after watching a friend using his stylus on his Galaxy phone and thinking 'plus ca change' ...
Too Many Bad cops (Score:2)