Judge Forces US Capitol Rioter To Unlock Laptop Seized By FBI (cnn.com) 391
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN: A federal judge forced a US Capitol rioter to unlock his laptop Wednesday after prosecutors argued that it likely contained footage of the January 6 insurrection from his helmet-worn camera. The judge granted the Justice Department's request to place Capitol riot defendant Guy Reffitt in front of his laptop so they could use facial recognition to unlock the device. The maneuver happened after the hearing ended and Reffitt's lawyer confirmed to CNN that the laptop was unlocked. Investigators seized the laptop and other devices earlier this year pursuant to a search warrant.
Reffitt has been in jail since his arrest in January. His case received national attention after his son spoke publicly about how Reffitt had threatened to kill family members if they turned him into the FBI. The case became an example of how former President Donald Trump's lies tore some families apart -- Reffitt's son and daughter testified against him in court or before the grand jury. He pleaded not guilty to five federal crimes, including bringing a handgun to the Capitol grounds during the insurrection and obstructing justice by allegedly threatening his family. The felony gun charge was added last month, and undercuts false claims from Trump and prominent Republican lawmakers that the rioters weren't armed and that they had "no guns whatsoever." The case raised intriguing constitutional questions about the right against self-incrimination, but Judge Dabney Friedrich agreed with prosecutors that the unlocking was within the law. "As the court here noted, requiring a defendant to expose his face to unlock a computer can be lawful, and is not far removed from other procedures that are now routinely approved by courts, with proper justification: standing in a lineup, submitting a handwriting or voice exemplar, or submitting a blood or DNA sample," CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig said in an email.
Honig said judges try to strike a balance "between respecting a defendant's privacy and other rights on the one hand, and enabling prosecutors to obtain potentially crucial evidence with minimal intrusion on the defendant's rights, on the other." The "potentially crucial evidence" here may include footage of the handgun that Reffitt brought to the Capitol or comments he made about his intentions that day.
Reffitt has been in jail since his arrest in January. His case received national attention after his son spoke publicly about how Reffitt had threatened to kill family members if they turned him into the FBI. The case became an example of how former President Donald Trump's lies tore some families apart -- Reffitt's son and daughter testified against him in court or before the grand jury. He pleaded not guilty to five federal crimes, including bringing a handgun to the Capitol grounds during the insurrection and obstructing justice by allegedly threatening his family. The felony gun charge was added last month, and undercuts false claims from Trump and prominent Republican lawmakers that the rioters weren't armed and that they had "no guns whatsoever." The case raised intriguing constitutional questions about the right against self-incrimination, but Judge Dabney Friedrich agreed with prosecutors that the unlocking was within the law. "As the court here noted, requiring a defendant to expose his face to unlock a computer can be lawful, and is not far removed from other procedures that are now routinely approved by courts, with proper justification: standing in a lineup, submitting a handwriting or voice exemplar, or submitting a blood or DNA sample," CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig said in an email.
Honig said judges try to strike a balance "between respecting a defendant's privacy and other rights on the one hand, and enabling prosecutors to obtain potentially crucial evidence with minimal intrusion on the defendant's rights, on the other." The "potentially crucial evidence" here may include footage of the handgun that Reffitt brought to the Capitol or comments he made about his intentions that day.
No guns whatsoever? (Score:2)
If you're going to lie, at least try to make it sound vaguely plausible.
Re:No guns whatsoever? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're going to lie, at least try to make it sound vaguely plausible.
Trump proved that lies with no plausibility whatsoever work pretty well on a lot of people. That cretinization of political lying is probably his biggest achievement.
Re:No guns whatsoever? (Score:5, Informative)
These people will also lose their right to vote [ncsl.org] until completion of their sentence or parole and/or probation. And in cases of people coming from states like Florida, there may even be a post-sentencing waiting period and requirement to repay any outstanding fines or fees [nytimes.com].
Let's see how quickly a GOP person tries to change this.
Re:No guns whatsoever? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just have to add here, that taking away the voting rights of criminals has never made any sense to me. What's the justification exactly? Sure, prisoners obviously have to have certain rights suspended to be imprisoned, but clearly voting is not one of the rights that gets in the way of imprisonment. So what reason is there to take it away?
Re: No guns whatsoever? (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree, with the caveat that you don't want the concentrated prison population to throw off local elections, especially since the prisoners likely have little involvement in the community where the prison happens to be. Participation at a state or federal level is fine -- probably the easiest solution is to treat them as still being domiciled at their last home address, rather than the location of the prison (though then there is a conflict with the census count).
Anyway, I don't have a problem with voting rights never being restricted. If there are so many prisoners in general (as opposed to in what might be a rural community) that they can really have an influence, this is a sign that something is wrong, and the check on policy from their votes is a good thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Probably because it’s an easy way of making sure black people and other undesirable minorities can’t vote for Democrats. Start digging and I guarantee these bills were republicans efforts.
Re:No guns whatsoever? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems like nonsense to me. Taking away fundamental rights should be something extraordinary, not routine. Also, removing people from the voting pool for criminal convictions has the obvious problem that it presents an exploit for democracy. The party in charge just has to pass a law criminalizing those who are likely to vote against them and have them all convicted and take away their voting rights and then democracy is over, with no legal way back. It's just a bad idea.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No guns whatsoever? (Score:4, Interesting)
Because a Democracy is about rule by consent. It doesn't matter if you have bad judgement, are an asshole, or are mentally ill: if the government is going to subject you to its power, then you have a moral right to have a say in who runs that government.
This.
It's incredibly frustrating at times. There are people out there that we can't trust to operate a car or own a firearm. But we entrust them with something far more dangerous, a right to vote and a right to free speech. If we start picking and choosing who gets what rights, then they really aren't (universal) rights anymore they're privileges.
Re:No guns whatsoever? (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder about that. I've always voted for the candidate I think will best represent the interests of disadvantaged people, usually at the expense of my own interests. Am I breaking democracy by doing this, or are you breaking democracy by not doing it, or does democracy work fine with a mix of the two?
I think there may be a false dichotomy there. If you want to put the interests of others over your own interests, I think that simply means that you are making the interests of others your own interests. For example, if you put the well being of your own children over your own, l think most people would not really consider that you putting the interests of others over your own because it's natural for the interests of your children to be your own interests. I think the same applies when you are voluntarily placing the interests of strangers above your own.
This is a bit like the problem with the golden rule. The one that states "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". It seems to work well enough as a basis for ethical behavior in the general case, but the reality is that not everyone wants the same things. For example, an extreme masochist blindly following the golden rule would clearly not act towards others in a manner that most people would consider moral or ethical.
I should also point out that the GP did have " and working for advancement in issues I care about." I'm pretty sure that covers the situation where issues you care about might be in conflict with your own direct interests.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Why should people that have displayed demonstrably bad judgement - be allowed to participate in democracy?
I don't know, why should Republicans be allowed to vote?
Re:No guns whatsoever? (Score:5, Informative)
But, the conversation centers around nonviolent felonies. It's extraordinarily unlikely a firearms felony would wind up eligible even if reform happened. Which it should... selling a little pot, possessing minuscule amounts of other drugs, cheating on your taxes... these shouldn't result in losing a core right for the remainder of your life. But right now it does except for some limited circumstances where you can get an expungement.
Re: (Score:2)
People actually do get their rights back in many cases, and if you don't think a nation full of conservative courts will be more likely to give them back to these guys than they would to others then I don't know what you are smoking, but I want to make sure I avoid it because I prefer drugs that don't compromise my judgement.
Re:No guns whatsoever? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Breaking and entering into a federal building with a firearm is pretty fucking serious.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe you missed the part where I was saying the punishment should fit the crime...
You never said "the punishment should fit the crime" (at least not in this part of the thread).
He didn't have a gun at the riot and was merely disorderly and where he shouldn't have been.
If he didn't have a gun I doubt that he would have been charged with felony gun possession.
From the summary:
The felony gun charge was added last month, and undercuts false claims from Trump and prominent Republican lawmakers that the rioters weren't armed and that they had "no guns whatsoever."
I would have to conclude that if he is charged with a felony gun charge he actually had a gun at the time.
In pretty much every sense this guy is an average Joe that let politics and probably feeling helpless to improve the situation in our country get the better of him.
I don't think an "average Joe" is someone that threatens to kill family members if they try to turn him into the FBI.
LOL (Score:3, Insightful)
The case became an example of how former President Donald Trump's lies tore some families apart
How is this acceptable in journalism? What the fuck does that have to do with anything at all? That is editorial hyperbolic nonsense. The only people that bother to read CNN now are Slashdot editors.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Informative)
while not central to the piece it has a clear connection to the protagonists and provides relevant context, which is the recent radicalization of the extreme right in the us that was conductive to the events in this particular case, with which mr trump has had a great fuck to do.
btw a simple google search shows that this story has received ample media coverage, not just cnn. what exactly makes this "unacceptable journalism" in your opinion?
Re:LOL (Score:4, Insightful)
what exactly makes this "unacceptable journalism" in your opinion?
Journalism is telling you what happened. Editorializing is telling you what to think about it. There used to be a bright line dividing the two. Now there isn't.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
Journalism is telling you what happened. Editorializing is telling you what to think about it. There used to be a bright line dividing the two.
No there was not, there never has been, and you are off your nut.
Journalism has always included bias. If you want to see the story from multiple points of view, you have always had to get it from multiple sources.
Word choices, subject choices, even which parts of a story get covered have always varied from source to source, and if you don't understand this then you've been a total sucker all this time. You were trivially fooled by people simply not using words which obviously denote opinion. Now the opinions are labeled as such, and you're complaining. You don't get how any of this works, at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Journalism is telling you what happened. Editorializing is telling you what to think about it. There used to be a bright line dividing the two.
No there was not, there never has been, and you are off your nut.
Journalism has always included bias.
There is a large and fundamental difference between traditional journalist bias and partisan clickbait bullshit peddled for hype and ratings' sake. You know this, so enough of your innocent delusions about it.
Natural bias of yesteryear is nothing like the lies of today. Plenty of evidence of this within the failing MSM, as they watch their ratings tank assuming viewers still appreciate clickbait bullshit for "news".
Re: (Score:3)
But it actually did tear the family apart...
Re: (Score:2)
oh, i see ... so is it time to "make journalism great again"? like it was in the good old times?
oh wait ... :-D
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
Journalism is telling you what happened. Editorializing is telling you what to think about it. There used to be a bright line dividing the two. Now there isn't.
The question is, at what point does trying to do that mean that you're basically covering your eyes and ears and singing "La, la, la!!!" when you're reporting the news?
If you have a President who routinely promotes violence among his supporters, at what point is it ok to report a connection between that and the violence committed by his supporters without it being editorial content?
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't use golden mean fallacy, hurt a trumpkin's feelings, and pointed out how Trump had harmed white American families which is a particular sore spot for conservatives.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
what exactly makes this "unacceptable journalism" in your opinion?
My guess is that the "unacceptable" part is where it makes their side look bad.
They're obviously "fine, upstanding citizens" whose integrity and loyalty are "beyond reproach."
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly... its verbiage copy pastaed on like 9 out of 10 "politics" websites as well... When you get a group of agitated people like were at the capitol, and you don't police it appropriately (capitol policing was ridiculously lax, as well as have a handful of inside instigators potentially)... you have a perfect storm for your media narratives for the next several years.
Too bad everyone is over this crap. DJT has a big ego, but that's about it.... attempting to pin s
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The only people that bother to read CNN now are Slashdot editors.
Speaking of hyperbolic nonsense, what does bad journalism have to do with how many people read it / follow it? If people didn't read read bad journalism or hyperbole then basically all of right wing media would no longer exist.
It's quite ironic to complain about bad journalism and hyperbole while writing a comment that is devoid of critical thinking and ... includes hyperbole.
Conspiracy time: koxabon707 works for CNN and is disgruntled against his employer so poopoos them online.
Re: (Score:3)
"Reality agrees with my view" is definitely the point of view of most "open minded" liberals and not a lazy, arrogant argument at all.
Something I'm not clear on (Score:3)
As the court here noted, requiring a defendant to expose his face to unlock a computer can be lawful, and is not far removed from... standing in a lineup, submitting a handwriting or voice exemplar, or submitting a blood or DNA sample... judges try to strike a balance "between respecting a defendant's privacy and other rights on the one hand, and enabling prosecutors to obtain potentially crucial evidence with minimal intrusion on the defendant's rights, on the other.
I get the difference between face, handwriting, and voice, (which as far as access goes are readily available without the participation or consent of an accused), and a password, which is private and requires action on the part of an accused that seems clearly to be self-incrimination. But it seems to me that DNA and blood samples, (if taken directly from an accused without consent, as opposed to coming from other physical evidence or medical records), belong in the same category as entering a password into a computer. Does anybody know the legal reasoning that compels defendants to provide blood or DNA, but doesn't compel them to type a password into a device?
Re:Something I'm not clear on (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Something I'm not clear on (Score:4, Insightful)
Courts are split on whether that's also an act of testimony prohibited by the 5th Amendment... most legal scholars think so, but courts usually put the needs of cops far above civil rights. So you have mixed rulings that eventually SCOTUS will have to settle. It's a coinflip there. You couldn't even count on the 3 liberal justices to be unanimous.
Re: (Score:3)
So his mistake was to rely on face login, presumably Windows Hello, which doesn't seem to have basic security features like requiring a password after some time or a reboot. I guess being a Capitol Insurgent he clearly wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed but still, seems like pretty basic opsec if you are planning to attack your own government.
Re: (Score:2)
The "compelled to reveal password" situation does have the twist where you can claim "I don't know the password" -- I vaguely remember some cases over the years where people have been held in contempt (or the equivalent) until the revealed their password. What if they truly do not know it? Life in prison?
In any case, I found the comparison to "standing in a line
Re: Something I'm not clear on (Score:2)
Claiming you forgot requires the court to believe you. If they think you're lying, and that being held in contempt would get you to divulge it, then it's appropriate. Courts aren't machines; they're run by generally smart human beings who may be as or more clever than the defendant before them.
Re: (Score:3)
They're supposed to release you when it becomes apparent you're not capable of ever complying or j
Re: (Score:3)
Not just "I don't know the password", but "there is no password". Properly encrypted data can be indistinguishable from random data. What is someone supposed to do when they're being forced to "decrypt" something that is not encrypted in the first place. Consider, for example, one time pads. What if you have a large file on your system filled with random data that's intended to be used as a one time pad? It's for use in encryption but is not, in and of itself, an encrypted file. If authorities believe you c
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, in that case, there's something to provide to law enforcement because there is actually a password to provide. The problem of law enforcement believing that something that is not encrypted data at all and demanding it be unlocked is more of a problem, because there is no password to provide them that unlocks anything. In that situation, the computer owner did not set out to keep their information secret, they just don't have any secret information, but law enforcement insists that they do.
Re: Something I'm not clear on (Score:2)
Freedom of speech includes right to not speak. Weirdly, the First Amendment protects password.
Re:Something I'm not clear on (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I strongly suspect that if the founding fathers had been aware of how far science would be able to go in regards to DNA, blood, and other personal items the 5th would have been written with much broader scope to ensure there were no questions about those being off limits as well. The thought that some DNA sample that might have been given as a medical test decades ago, and which may not have had any chain of custody that was legally strong in either its original examination or the storage of any part of its
Re: (Score:3)
As the summary says, the questions are interesting. Under current 5th Amendment precedent as I understand it, y "self-incrimination" means *testifying*, not necessarily *actions* like turning over a key, or standing in a suspect lineup, even if that compulsory act incriminates you:
(a) The Fifth Amendment does not independently proscribe the compelled production of every sort of incriminating evidence but applies only when the accused is compelled to make a testimonial communication that is incriminating. [Fisher v. United States [justia.com]]
If you trace back the line of reasoning in Fisher v. United States you run into Holt v. United States [justia.com] (1910), in which a defendant objected to being forced to try on a shirt that would implicate him in a murder:
The prohibition of the Fifth Amendment against compelling a man to give evidence against himself is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from him, and not an exclusion of his body as evidence when it is material, and so held that testimony of a witness that the accused put on a garment and it fitted him is admissible, whether the accused had put on the garment voluntarily or under duress.
In effect the cour
I know it can get complicated... (Score:5, Insightful)
....but I just don't like the idea of being compelled to 'cooperate' -- in any way whatsoever -- to one's own own prosecution by the gov't; I know, I know... but there are good reasons at times blah blah blah
such a huge imbalance of power that if the gov't can't get everything it needs to remove one's rights via due process w/out forcing 'cooperation', then that should be the end of it
not perfect, but it reminds me of the ' It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer' approach to not giving an inch to the basic right of self preservation
Re: (Score:3)
but I just don't like the idea of being compelled to 'cooperate' -- in any way whatsoever -- to one's own own prosecution by the gov't
Whenever this topic comes up, I see a lot of people on Slashdot who aren't happy about what happened, but so far as I can tell it's almost always because they've subscribed to one of two possible misinterpretations for the right against self incrimination without realizing that they've done so.
Misinterpretation 1: If the notion that you can be compelled to provide evidence against yourself chafes because it feels contrary to the right against self incrimination, think about what things would look like if we
Don't use biometrics (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
With a strong password, you can plea the 5th and not self incriminate. This is not an option with biometrics.
Re: Don't use biometrics (Score:2)
not in the UK.
There you have to use the "it was on the piece of paper stuck to the laptop with blutac" defence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Or at least partially. While being forced to state a password or passphrase requires active cooperation which you can refuse (and suffer the consequences), biometrics can always be taken by force from you. But as to whether they are allowed to coerce you to give a password or passphrase, the courts and laws differ on this. This is because laws and courts are not concerned with reality, but use a fictional distorted approximation of reality instead and they are always about making you submit to the s
Or they could just unlock it with their mugshot... (Score:2)
Fourth Amendment (Score:5, Informative)
"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."
If the warrant described the place to be searched I don't think this is unreasonable.
So much for biometrics (Score:5, Insightful)
In addition to you being unable to change them, they can be obtained from you without your consent or active cooperation.
Not unusual (Score:2)
The fifth amendment prevents being compelled to testify against oneself, but being seen by a camera looking for biometrics isn't testimony in the same way that being asked to stand in a lineup for witness identification or being fingerprinted isn't testimony. A password arguably could be, but even then there are nuances. If a court decides that you can be compelled to divulge passwords, and you don't (even if you try to make an excuse which is disbelieved), they can try to compel you to respect the order of
Re: Not unusual (Score:2)
If you're referring to the courts being wrong re: biometrics, I disagree with you. It's not in the nature of testimony to simply be seen or fingerprinted, and I assure you, they can definitely manage that without your consent.
If you're merely speaking as to passwords, the question basically revolves around that the law only prohibits being compelled to testify against oneself, and courts disagree as to whether disclosing a password is in the nature of testimony. For example, if the state can independently p
public information (Score:3)
The lesson here is do not use public information alone, like your face, for security.
Something you know, something you have, something you are; pick at least 2. If you have to pick only one make it something only you know.
Most comments missing the point; search warrant (Score:2)
Biometrics never made any sense to me (Score:5, Insightful)
You might as well write your PIN number on your forehead and wander around.
Laptops and phones should have two passwords, one which unlocks and the other wipes the device.
Re:It will be interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
..,to watch Slashdot all of a sudden turn into law and order conservatives regarding this.
Uh, I'd be more interested in finding out why the FBI couldn't figure out how to crack into a Windows desktop, which aligns a hell of a lot better with the Slashdot crowd. According to Democrats, we're dealing with "domestic terrorists" here, so why play by the rules when it comes to search and seizure again?
Not exactly an iPhone, and you're telling me that laptop was patched within the last two weeks, while likely sitting in an evidence locker?
https://msrc.microsoft.com/upd... [microsoft.com]
That's but one bypass.
Re:It will be interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is more about the government showing it can flex its muscles and force someone to do something against their will.
I don't think I'll ever understand how the government forcing someone to turn over their passwords is legal.
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is more about the government showing it can flex its muscles and force someone to do something against their will.
They already do. Every April 15th.
Re:It will be interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are charged for a serious crime, what happened on Jan 6 is very serious, there has been a long standing president that officials can have warrants to search and seize your property. While TV loves to show cops breaking down doors, and advanced technology breaking into computers. The court may just tell the person to give them their keys, or provide the combination to the lock, so they don't have to do unnecessary damage if they don't have to.
It isn't incriminating themselves, giving them the key, or bio-metrics for this case. If there is no evidence on that laptop then there isn't evidence to be used against him. He is also not obliged to tell officials that he stored it on his laptop, or that he put it on a different storage medium. But if the officially legally obtain the property, they can require to get it in.
The laws around technology happened from a strong push from the Conservative side of our government who wanted to get data out of proposed terrorists devices. Now that a good number of Conservative people had performed a serious crime, that law will apply to them too.
Re:It will be interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
While TV loves to show cops breaking down doors, and advanced technology breaking into computers.
I have no problem with them hacking the device.
It isn't incriminating themselves, giving them the key, or bio-metrics for this case. If there is no evidence on that laptop then there isn't evidence to be used against him.
That feels like the "if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" argument. That's the same argument used for cameras everywhere.
The laws around technology happened from a strong push from the Conservative side of our government who wanted to get data out of proposed terrorists devices. Now that a good number of Conservative people had performed a serious crime, that law will apply to them too.
There are two ways to view that: 1 is "KARMA is a bitch and you deserve this!!" 2 is "Now that you see what a bad idea that was, maybe we can work together to restore the freedoms you shortsightedly surrender."
Re:It will be interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
the warrant already says you are likely to be hiding something, so I don't see how you can't use your same reluctance to allow them to request access to a device as being any different than requesting a key to a physical space
of course, as noted below, the courts are there to rule on how the hair splits when the key is in your pocket, on your finger tip, or in your brain
Re: It will be interesting... (Score:3)
Re: It will be interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
His face is not protected by the 5th. His password is.
It's all bullshit; we're either"secure in our papers" or we're not - and as they were obviously talking about our information, zeroes and ones are no exception.
You're secure in your papers, until a judge issues a lawful warrant requiring you to surrender your papers. The 4th Amendment is pretty clear about that.
Re:It will be interesting... (Score:5, Informative)
There's a very strong argument it's testimonial to require you to enter a password, so many legal scholars think the 5th Amendment will ultimately protect it, since the caselaw comes down to whether you're using the contents of your mind to aid in your prosecution as opposed to handing over a physical object, but a lot of judges don't care much for civil rights that get in the way of the police, so some rulings have gone the other way.
Pushing for compelled decryption has been bipartisan. Every AG and FBI director under Trump, Obama, and Bush has pushed for it. And remember the Clipper Chip in the Clinton years?
Re:It will be interesting... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It will be interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Almost as if you shouldn’t document your crimes for the benefit of law enforcement.
Re:It will be interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Almost as if you shouldn't have Face Unlock enabled on your laptop where you have documented your crimes.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:It will be interesting... (Score:5, Informative)
Uh, I'd be more interested in finding out why the FBI couldn't figure out how to crack into a Windows desktop
Why should they? The courts have already ruled in the past that, with a warrant, the police can force a person to unlock their laptop with biometric recognition. https://www.theatlantic.com/te... [theatlantic.com] http://www.macrumors.com/2016/... [macrumors.com]
This story isn't really news.
Re: (Score:2)
I was shocked that they didn't 3D print a mask of his face to unlock the laptop. Even a photograph might work if you're lucky.
Anyone who uses biometrics as a password substitute deserves what they get.
Re:It will be interesting... (Score:5, Informative)
This is how it works:
The police see that it is password protected.
They ask him to open it. He refuses.
They tell him to open it. He refuses.
They go to court to get the court to order him to open it. Because he was using Hello, the court gave them permission to stand him in front of it.
If the court had said no, they would have applied for a warrant to crack it.
This way, the evidence can't be thrown out at trial.
Re:It will be interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, the FBI could very likely have gotten in. But why admit that? Also, this was a really low-cost solution.
Re: (Score:3)
Those were my first thoughts. Apparently this guy is a lot better at securing his system than I am or the FBI is just lazy.
I strongly disagree with the actions of this individual, but will defend his right to privacy in this particular case.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a HUGE difference between domestic and foreign terrorists though. Just try doing drone strikes on a domestic terrorist and see how well that plays.
P.S. Since Korematsu wasn't a terrorist (nor was he called a terrorist then or now) I'm not sure how Korematsu vs United States is relevant to your argument.
P.S.S. Ex parte Quirin also has nothing to do with terrorists. These men were spies. It is a bit of a stretch to equate spies to terrorists.
Re:It will be interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
The irony of the "blue lives matter" crowd beating a cop with the pole from an American flag is mind boggling.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/2... [cnbc.com]
Re:It will be interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, while they don't appear to have actually been using a "blue lives matter" flag to beat an officer, there's widely available imagery of an officer being beaten while one of the protesters standing right there holds a "thin blue line" flag. That's a US flag altered so one of the stripes is blue for "blue lives matter". So it sure seems like "blue lives matter" supporters were certainly ok with at least letting it happen.
Re: (Score:3)
that was a bad democrat librul cop. the good cops are the ones who invited them in and left.
there is usually agreement in america that there are "some bad cops". of course that doesn't go very far when the disagreement is on which ones are which. ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think I'm insane, but who can really say. In any case, I would like to think that, in a confrontation where a mob is trying to beat someone, possibly to death, I might try to help the person being attacked. I recognize that there is a risk involved and that many people may not take that risk. Of course, if there's real danger, most people who are not going should be expected to run away. Just standing there spectating in that situation seems like an endorsement of what's going on. Then there's the f
Re: (Score:3)
The overlap of "Blue Lives Matter" and "Jan 6 Was a Peaceful Protest" is pretty significant. To not be outraged over Jan 6 and spout "Blue Lives Matter" is total and utter hypocrisy [axios.com].
Re: (Score:3)
The ones "storming the capital" are clearly not peaceful but that's a pretty small portion of the 75 million people that voted for Trump.
Now try and guess how many of the 81+ million people that voted for Biden stormed the Capital building on January 6th. That's a tough one so I'll give you a few minutes to answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. I don't approve of this particular court action though I do approve of prosecuting him with the other evidence available.
Re:It will be interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot has plenty of conservatives on it already. Both the real kind and the Trump supporter kind. I think what you're expecting is seeing posters who normally believe that people should not be forced to testify against themselves by, for example, revealing passwords, etc. change their tune for this particular case.
For my part, I'm going to stay with my normal interpretation of the 4th and 5th amendments. I don't believe that it's appropriate to force people to reveal passwords or to break biometric controls. However, there is some nuance here in that biometrics suck on many levels. The big problem with biometrics vs, for example, passwords, is that passwords use private information to unlock things and biometrics use public information to unlock things. It's like credit cards where all the information to charge the card can be captured with a few photos when someone takes the card out of their wallet. Faces and even fingerprints can also be captured with good cameras, not to mention lifted off surfaces, etc. So, when someone is compelled to reveal a password, they are being compelled to give up a private secret in a way that should count as testifying against themselves. However, taking fingerprints and taking photos and recordings of a person's face is something that police have long been allowed to do.
So, since the police can already take someone's picture, it's a very short leap for the judge to say that they can take the person's picture with their own device, subsequently unlocking the device. While it's a short leap, I still believe that it's not a justified leap. However, it gets a little tricky. Obviously, with a warrant, the police should be allowed to break into the device if they can. If it's biometrically protected, that can mean things like taking the person's recorded fingerprint, or images of their face to fool the device, and basically all biometric protection systems can be fooled like this. It's trickier for some than others, but it can pretty much always be done. So, the question there is if it's acceptable for the police to use legal recordings they have taken of the person's body to break the biometric protection. It seems like the answer should be yes. However, if they can do that, could they, for example, hook up a camera to a small display that sits in front of the camera for the device and just feed video of the person directly from the other camera to the device camera to unlock the device? That would seem to be consistent with the logic allowing them to use legally obtained images to unlock the device, but it's also essentially the same thing as just putting the subject directly in front of the device camera. So, there's a surprising amount of nuance for what seems like a simple question.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For my part, I'm going to stay with my normal interpretation of the 4th and 5th amendments. I don't believe that it's appropriate to force people to reveal passwords or to break biometric controls.
We are assuming a situation where the police has the right to see what's on the computer, but because of protection, they can't. Like if they come to your home with a search warrant and you have a ten inch steel door.
There has been some precedence. The fact that the police can read evidence on the laptop after unlocking it, is perfectly legal. Unlocking it does not make you a witness against yourself. It's different if either the password that you use, or the fact that you are capable of unlocking the la
Re: (Score:2)
Myself I'd consider progressive. Let me be clear, on the whole police need a heck of a lot more accountability. Fact is while on the job they should have body cams and what they do be accounted for, and if there's a death it should be judged by an independent group not affiliated directly with the police, and there should be actual fricking consiquences for killing someone that isn't an immidiate danger for those around him. I say the same for people in general if a cop isn't currently trying to kill you, b
Re: (Score:3)
He's not testifying. He's not even handing over a password. He is being instructed by the court to stand somewhere. I get why this feels wrong, but as the 5th amendment is worded I don't see how "Stand there" is tantamount to being compelled to stand witness against himself.
If he was not using "Hello", but had instead used a password only I'd be more in agreement that this is potentially a 5th amendment issue, but your face isn't speech. Or at least I'm n
Re:It will be interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's weird how you think that liberals are against the police. They tend to be very cautious of the police and not particularly trusting, and they tend to think that they should be held to high standards. Even most people saying "defund the police" are not actually against the idea of police, they just recognize the limitations of police and the real problems that exist in many police forces.
Re:It will be interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
My house got robbed in New York. I didn't even call the police. I wanted to, but I couldn't. My crib is too nice. It's not that it's too nice, but it's too nice for me. You know how the police are in New York. Soon as I open the door, they'll be like, "He's still here! Open and shut case, Johnson. Apparently this black guy broke in and hung up pictures of his family everywhere. Never seen anything like it."
Everyone wants to be able to call the cops when shit happens, but the lack of accountability means if cops show up and make things worse, you've got no one to blame but yourself for calling them in the first place. In the wrong communities, calling the cops is a bit like Russian Roulette. You hope the chamber will come up empty, and they'll be helpful, but it's always possible it will end with a bullet in someone's brain.
Defund the police is not abolish the police (though there are supporters of both). It's about reducing our reliance on a paramilitary force for problems that do not benefit from paramilitary tactics, and diverting those funds to new/different agencies with different training. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and far too many cops today feel like all they can trust is their gun to solve problems.
Re: (Score:3)
That is exactly what they want the difference in funding used for. Community relations and things like that.
Re:Worthless kids not raised right (Score:5, Informative)
you don't rat out family unless the present a clear and present danger someone. If the harm is already done, you shut damn mouth and you keep it shut.
From TFA:
Reffitt had threatened to kill family members if they turned him into the FBI.
Lock his terrorist ass up.
Re: (Score:2)
Its probably fucking Windows Hello and the drive had bitlocker enabled. Which the FBI should be competent enough to circumvent. But the feds usually want others to unlock stuff for them instead of hacking devices. Mostly I think to set the precedent that they can. Remember how they have had several clashes with Apple over backdoors and stuff. The issue wasn't that they couldn't crack iPhones and needed Apple. It was that they would rather be able to compel a company to do so than do it themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That and Barr had a woodie for beating up tech companies to the show the demented that he was one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
They way this works is that there is a key in the biometric software or hardware module and that one requires a hash of a "face print" to get decrypted. The insecure but easy way to implement that is to actually have the key in an allegedly secure MCU (there is no such thing) and the "face print" just acts as an authenticator. If the MCU thinks "close enough", it releases the key. If it gets hacked, it releases the key as well, no face needed. The more secure way is to actually derive the key from the face-
Re: (Score:2)