| |
| ▲ | gruez 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >There is a difference between exploding a bomb Mines (in wars, as implied by "solider") aren't illegal. Also even for the first example there are certainly improvised explosives you can set up that isn't criminal to create or set off, fireworks for instance. Same with a barrel of gasoline. It's certainly a crime to use it to kill someone, but that's my point. By OP's logic it's not the person who set it up's fault, it's the person who triggered it. | | |
| ▲ | LoganDark 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you set up a device to explode once someone enters a room, it doesn't matter who set it off by entering the room if they had no idea the room would blow up. I don't think it'll be very easy to get out of liability in this case. The duress PIN is a feature explicitly designed to delete all data when it is entered, especially in cases of coercion like this. There would be more plausible deniability if officers had simply discovered it somewhere and tried it on their own, but in this case it was knowingly provided directly in place of the real PIN. |
| |
| ▲ | mc32 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Intentional destruction of evidence is also a crime. Now, whether this applies to this scenario I suppose will have to be determined by the courts. Destroying potential evidence before suspicion is not a crime. Destroying it once under suspicion is a crime. So anyone can destroy their data at their hotel room even just before entry even if the data contains evidence of crimes. Of course the courts could take that into evidence to support the argument that there were crimes but it would not be a crime in and of itself. | | |
| ▲ | ComputerPerson 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Great comment. Wish it was the top one so I didn't have to read through the others to get here. Do you have thoughts as to how the courts would debate the deletion that you could present on a similar intellectual plane? | |
| ▲ | LoganDark 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Destroying potential evidence before suspicion is a crime if done with intent to impede a future investigation, even if the investigation hasn't yet started. Your example would be a crime if it could be proven that there would likely have been evidence in what you deleted. |
| |
| ▲ | LoganDark 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Deleting your data is absolutely a crime when you know the authorities could've wanted whatever it was you deleted -- even if they haven't told you yet. It stands to reason that providing a duress PIN that deletes your data when entered would be a crime as well, if said data is of interest. Not to say that I personally agree with either of those cases. But what is considered crime can get pretty unfair when it comes to the authorities thinking you did something wrong. | | |
| ▲ | hamper653 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > when it comes to the authorities thinking you did something wrong Did they though? Was there an actual investigation going on? | | |
| ▲ | LoganDark 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Here "wrong" includes phony bullshit like going after political activists. Even if you did nothing actually wrong, and you know it, and you can prove it, successfully messing with the authorities tends to be pretty difficult. |
| |
| ▲ | bdangubic 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Can you provide a statute number for this crime please? Any federal or even state statute will do | | |
| ▲ | someothherguyy 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2232 is what he was charged with (a) see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception | | |
| ▲ | LoganDark 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | > seems like a stretch though I think the issue will fall on whether the encrypted data on the device (or its decrypted counterpart) counts as property. The rest looks pretty clear-cut to me. |
| |
| ▲ | gruez 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampering_with_evidence | | |
| ▲ | bdangubic 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | First, that is not an actual statute and second exactly what "evidence" is my phone, evidence of what exactly? | | |
| ▲ | LoganDark 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Evidence of anything. You're tampering with evidence if you act to prevent them from seeing something, even if they had no reason for suspicion. Like how you get arrested for fleeing even if you didn't do anything wrong. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | yodon 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Can you provide a statute number for this crime please? Any federal or even state statute will do The google search required to find the answer ("federal statute for destruction of evidence") is shorter than your question here. "Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry..."[0] [0]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519 | | |
| ▲ | croon 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Let's say I want to retire my laptop to my kid, so I reformat it. Are you saying in the eventuality that federal police then wants my laptop that I have committed a crime? If so, on that assumption, should no one ever be able to erase data on their hardware? Is it schrodingers guilt, that you're simply not guilty until someone looks, and then you are? And if not, you haven't answered GP's question. | | |
| ▲ | yodon 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >Are you saying in the eventuality that... Legal cases are adjudicated by human judges who have been dealing with scenarios like this for thousands of years, since long before the invention of software and laptops, and who are not the least bit challenged when presented with strawman scenarios like the one you called out. | |
| ▲ | AnimalMuppet 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If you want to retire you laptop to your kid, and so you reformat at the moment a federal officer is looking over your shoulder asking to look at it, then yes, you have. |
| |
| ▲ | hamper653 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > knowingly Did he know he was suspected of something? Was he suspected of something? | | |
| ▲ | LoganDark 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's more about knowing the PIN would wipe the device, and providing it with that intent. Edit: 18 U.S.C. § 1519 doesn't seem to cover this (unless it covers the act of setting up the duress PIN in the first place as "altering"). § 2232(a) covers actually knowingly providing the duress PIN. |
|
| |
| ▲ | LoganDark 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | There is a federal criminal provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1519 (destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations) > Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. That covers the first part of my comment. As for the second part, there is 18 U.S.C. § 2232(a) (destruction or removal of property to prevent seizure) > Whoever, before, during, or after any search for or seizure of property by any person authorized to make such search or seizure, knowingly destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government's lawful authority to take such property into its custody or control or to continue holding such property under its lawful custody and control, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. IANAL, but the encrypted data on the device could be considered property, and the act of providing the duress PIN in place of the real one could be considered a knowing action for the purpose of preventing the government either from continuing to hold that data under its control, or from seizing the data into its control in the first place (since the data was never decrypted). | | |
| ▲ | hamper653 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > destruction of records in federal investigations There was a federal investigation going on? | | |
|
|
|
|
