| |
| ▲ | datsci_est_2015 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > It exists for when compromising the device could get people the owner cares about killed or disappeared and the owner considers their own liability, disappearance, or death a preferable outcome. Devil’s advocate, it sounds like the accused could be part of some mutual aid networks who could be helping people who are vulnerable against the actions of the current government. People who may die if they’re deported, or returned to their family (gay or trans youth). This person may literally have saved lives by not handing over their phonebook and messages. | |
| ▲ | Rohansi 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > It exists for when compromising the device could get people the owner cares about killed or disappeared and the owner considers their own liability, disappearance, or death a preferable outcome. Or it's preferable to get caught lying to a federal officer than it is for them to have the evidence on your phone. | | |
| ▲ | dathinab 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | possible but not necessary evidence, as evidence would imply a crime. But when it comes to police harassing activists, or outright mislabeling them as terrorists, there are many fully legal things you still might prefer the police not to have. Lets not forget that boarder police has in the past tried absurd things like trying to seize Attorney-client privilege protected information from a US attorney. Through most likely many people setting up and using a duress pins never truly think this thought from a legal POV. |
| |
| ▲ | deejaaymac 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >Lying to a fed They asked for the pin, maybe they should have said "not the duress pin" >Destroying evidence How did they know there was any evidence on there? >it exists for when compromising the device could get people the owner cares about killed or disappeared and the owner considers their own liability, disappearance, or death a preferable outcome. No, the duress pin is there for when I'm under duress and being forced to unlock my device against my will >It is an extreme solution for extreme scenarios Wiping a device I own is extreme? | | |
| ▲ | lelanthran 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > >Lying to a fed > They asked for the pin, maybe they should have said "not the duress pin" The law doesn't work like that. Unless you're provably at the developmental level of a 5 year old, the court knows you know what was required, and also knows what you intended when you gave the duress pin. The justice system famously never plays "simon says"... | |
| ▲ | sfRattan 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > They asked for the pin, maybe they should have said "not the duress pin" This is a Mickey Mouse distinction no court will take seriously. > Wiping a device I own is extreme? When the consequences are potential years in prison for lying to the US government or, in another country, torture or death in prison for obstructing an authoritarian government, then yes... Extreme. All I'm saying is to decide to use a duress PIN at any national border or in any foreign country soberly, with knowledge of the potential or likely consequences. | | |
| ▲ | b40d-48b2-979e 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Just submit citizen. Nothing to hide, right? | | |
| ▲ | AnimalMuppet 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's a different discussion. Are you interested in staying out of trouble at the border? Or are you interested in taking down the system (or at least fixing it)? If you think the system needs fixed or destroyed, you do you, but don't be surprised when that approach gets you in trouble at the border. |
| |
| ▲ | za3faran 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > or, in another country, torture or death in prison for obstructing an authoritarian government Also happens in the US | |
| ▲ | jibal 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's sad that your perfectly valid previous comment is dead (and that HN even works that way) ... adding is ≠ ought probably doesn't even help for the people who don't grasp that in the first place. People who think that tricking the cops into wiping your device legally absolves you need to grow up. Also those who argue that LE can't prove any evidence was destroyed since it's been destroyed. | | |
| ▲ | sfRattan 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, but the way HN works is leagues ahead of other, similar platforms. And the top voted comment of a subthread (at that moment) being flagged is its own interesting signal about both the issue at hand and the HN userbase. I'll be grateful if reasonable folks vouch, but I'm not mad about it either way. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | malcolmgreaves 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I’m quite unfamiliar with this notion. What law says it’s illegal to lie when you’re not under oath during a court proceeding? | | |
| ▲ | sfRattan 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 18 U.S. Code § 1001 [1] [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001 | | |
| ▲ | hinata08 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | does this apply to defendant ? the most authoritarian places in the world wouldn't charge defendants for "lying" | | |
| ▲ | sfRattan 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | In America, the defendant generally has the right not to testify against himself by remaining silent, both in court and when questioned by agents of the state out of court. Not a right to lie. This is why criminal defense attorneys advise everyone to shut up, shut up, SHUT UP without a lawyer present. Police can and will attempt to catch you in a provable lie. > the most authoritarian places in the world wouldn't charge defendants for "lying" What on Earth is this second part of your comment supposed to mean? Do you expect to be able to lie to the government in an authoritarian country? And not be arrested if they catch you in the lie there? And not be charged or worse if they consider the lie serious? | | |
| ▲ | hinata08 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Alright. Most places would investigate crimes and charge you for them before they look at your defense itself, so I had several worries about that One of which is self indications (even of things that cops didn't know about or couldn't prove) that would allow them to just question anyone into admitting even a parking offense, but I guess you can shut up indeed I was worried that they could use any crime in a broad area and just force everyone to say with who they were and what they were doing, but you can also shut up I was also worried than on investigations with no real crime involved, they could just go play jeopardy and ask you what you were doing minute by minute, and get you to talk until something gets inaccurate (while they have cctv but you have no vcr in your brain). But again, you can shut up. When I'll be in America, I'll remember not to talk to cops. Not even to 911 as emergency calls are error prone :
You said someone was attacked by a suv and knife when it was a pickup truck and machete, you go to jail | | |
| ▲ | 15155 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Not even to 911 as emergency calls are error prone : You said someone was attacked by a suv and knife when it was a pickup truck and machete, you go to jail Very few states have anything resembling this specific federal statute, and one doesn't typically call 911 to obtain service from federal law enforcement agencies. And in the case of a 911 call specifically, "heat of the moment" and "good faith" do a lot of work. Unless you obviously intended to mislead an emergency services response, you will not be criminally implicated from good faith statements made during a 911 call regarding some incident you merely observed as a bystander. | |
| ▲ | sfRattan 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I was worried that they could use any crime in a broad area and just force everyone to say with who they were and what they were doing In authoritarian countries, that absolutely happens. In America and the West, police are generally expected to have reasonable suspicion of anyone they detain to interrogate, and the length of detention is also limited if no evidence validating suspicion is forthcoming. They could not simply arrest everyone in the proximity of a crime, and geofence warrants are controversial exactly because that was the standard in the analog world. > I was also worried than on investigations with no real crime involved, they could just go play jeopardy and ask you what you were doing minute by minute, and get you to talk until something gets inaccurate Again, they must have reasonable suspicion to even detain you. You are reasoning about law codes as if they were literalist computer code for a compiler. The law, at least common law in America, is written by and for humans who are expected to exercise good faith as a part of enforcing and interpreting the law. Do know your right to remain silent, and ask for a translator and consular assistance if detained or arrested. Police departments will provide these things because attorneys in court will question the reliability and admissibility of any testimony in the absence of their provision. Don't worry too much about police if you're in America to visit. They're ordinary people who mostly want to catch criminals who are hurting their community. Bad apples are rare, and bad apples who harass someone on a tourist visa are rarer still. |
|
| |
| ▲ | jibal 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | From the cited statute: > Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding. |
|
| |
| ▲ | object-a 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Famously, 18 USC 1001 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001 | |
| ▲ | 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | c22 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Here's one: https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-37-08/ | |
| ▲ | mannanj 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | you had answers here. I'm trying to understand why our leaders can get away with lying so much and it being obviously in the public record, with videos on YouTube etc, and there being no recourse or accountability? Is it true that the law is only selectively applied to some people? | | |
| ▲ | 8note 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | if you follow the links theres a lot of carve outs for the government to be allowed to lie | |
| ▲ | Exoristos 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | "Our leaders" also are sometimes persecuted for lying to a federal officer; the past few years there have been more than one high-profile case. | | |
| ▲ | mannanj 31 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Yes and did you see how Biden issued dozens of pardons before he left office absolving several leaders of their lies and whatever was actually persecuted to the "crime" level? Seems if crimes are only crimes for normal people, theres rarely actual application of law for everyone. It instead shows itself to the governed as a system of control for them for the benefit of the leadership (since their friends absolve them of crimes, and also participate in the systematic neutering of any other forms of justice opposing their friends privileged behaviors). Not saying this as a political thing to target one side like Biden/right and say Trump/left is clean. I'm saying I notice this in all levels both left and right. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | digitalPhonix 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Lying to a federal officer is a crime That doesn’t pass the sniff test | | |
|
