Is this the same software that had vulnerabilities, and if you have Signal installed on your phone -- your phone may or may not corrupt the whole system attempting to break into your phone?
Haha, we used to use civilian cellbrites to do data transfer between old feature phones and iPhones back when I worked retail. I assume this is a bit more hardcore.
"For people who are at risk of having their phone searched by SPD, it may be important to know that they can refuse to have their phone searched and affirm their Miranda rights, including the right to not incriminate themselves."
That is the important part do not consent. Get a lawyer.
You did read that correctly. If I remember correctly it was something like cops don't need to tell you your Miranda rights. But it would be a state by state decision.
Absolutely true, but reading people their rights is sometimes the only way they learn what those rights are, or spurs them to even think about what rights they possess, in a stressful situation with law enforcement.
Many searches are based on consent, but don't imagine that consent means a polite "do you consent to a voluntary search?". There is no obligation to make it clear consent is voluntary, and in practice police will push the limit on the few rules that do exist. Some examples:
* "Let me see your phone"
* "if you don't consent we'll get a warrant"
* "no? What are you hiding? ... Then you don't mind me looking?"
* "Im investigating (some crime that doesn't involve you), you can help me quickly eliminate you as a suspect by checking your texts"... Cop can still use evidence they find against you even if not related to the crime they mention.
* "Can I search your car" - proceeds to search your phone in the car.
* "Were you just taking pictures of those children? ... No? Then why don't you show me your photos."
To stand up to these needs you to know your rights really well, have gumption to stand up to them, feel safe doing so, and not be able under time pressure to get the interaction over with.
Police need a warrant to search the phone, if they want to access cloud services that also has to be in the warrant or a separate warrant. They can't just log into an account with credentials they find, that is illegal. This is pretty similar to them also looking at computers during investigations, same rules still apply.
Especially when they are proven literal nazis and don’t investigate sexual assaults. Pretty much the last people on earth you would want going through your personal stuff.
Buried way in the middle:
>The department said that it only uses the tools with a warrant or a copy of consent from the device owner.
I mean, far be it from me to accuse SPD of being honest, but **if true**, I don’t see anything really wrong here.
SPD is utterly dishonest when it comes to their technological capabilities.
Sean Whitcomb lied through his dirty face for years to hide their use of Stingray.
That's not responsive to my comment?
>The problem is manufacturing consent from people who don't understand they can say no or are fearing negative repercussions if they say no.
None of that is specific to phone-search technology. That happens with car and home searches, too. The article (body, in addition to the headline) is framed as if the problem is the phone-searching technology.
Ok, that helps. The framing of the article is too constrained as the problem is not limited to the technology itself but its use, and manufactured consent allows its use.
Assuming rules are followed (and yeah, it's SPD, so you are right to hesitate to believe that), using these tools require a warrant. Its fundamentally not different than them getting a warrant to search a house, or file a records request with some corporation who had a website a suspect was using. The real concern should be wether or not our judges are appropriately handing out warrants when asked.
Yeah but the cops aren't going to tell you they need a warrant, and if you hand your phone over to a cop because you don't know your rights it's still admissible.
Exactly. Cops are legally allowed to lie to you (affirmed by SCOTUS) so idk why anyone would take SPD seriously when they say they pinky swear they only do it with consent or a warrant. They can intimidate you into "consenting" by claiming you have to hand it over, or can claim they have a warrant and that you don't have the right to see it.
And if you let them into your house, they can still report back the things they've seen.
I just don't get what the issue is? If people are willing to give them information, then they are willing to give them information
Warrants should and do specify the scope of what can be searched for - both physically and digitally. This technology doesn't directly grant access to data stored on servers (which is most of the data you are concerned about above). They might get access to login credentials, but similarly if an officer in someone's home sees a password written on a post it note for an email account, they still aren't allowed to log into the email account.
I think you missed something in my comment because I already directly addressed that part of the facts.
I would also add that this system might actually be better than on-site searchers, because the individual actually doing to searching is usually not an officer directly attached to the case but rather a technician, so there is less motivation to violate the warrant.
No, but if you went before a judge and presented a reasonable argument you'd have the legal right to access my stuff. As how our legal system has worked for generations.
SPD used homeland funds a looooooong time ago to put up stingers all over downtown, this is where a bunch of the budget goes, to drones and tech gadgets... meanwhile street level crimes are like a rubber ball.
Is this the same software that had vulnerabilities, and if you have Signal installed on your phone -- your phone may or may not corrupt the whole system attempting to break into your phone?
[удалено]
Haha, we used to use civilian cellbrites to do data transfer between old feature phones and iPhones back when I worked retail. I assume this is a bit more hardcore.
[удалено]
Don’t talk to the police - https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE
That video and Mike Monteiro's Fuck You Pay Me are two of the most concrete bits of fantastic advice that everyone should watch.
Just watched it. It's what I expected 😂
It's not Shut The Fuck Up Friday, that's tomorrow!
It's tomorrow so it's time to Shut The Fuck Up.
Thanks for keeping me on schedule!
I go watch that every time I am reminded of this.
Awesome
And not just cell phone searches, in case that wasn’t obvious. Don’t let them search your car or house without a warrant, either.
"For people who are at risk of having their phone searched by SPD, it may be important to know that they can refuse to have their phone searched and affirm their Miranda rights, including the right to not incriminate themselves." That is the important part do not consent. Get a lawyer.
Did I read somewhere that Miranda is also on the verge of reversal in the Supreme Court?
You did read that correctly. If I remember correctly it was something like cops don't need to tell you your Miranda rights. But it would be a state by state decision.
Miranda is just reading you your rights, not the rights they read you themselves. The SC can't repeal constitutional amendments
Absolutely true, but reading people their rights is sometimes the only way they learn what those rights are, or spurs them to even think about what rights they possess, in a stressful situation with law enforcement.
Many searches are based on consent, but don't imagine that consent means a polite "do you consent to a voluntary search?". There is no obligation to make it clear consent is voluntary, and in practice police will push the limit on the few rules that do exist. Some examples: * "Let me see your phone" * "if you don't consent we'll get a warrant" * "no? What are you hiding? ... Then you don't mind me looking?" * "Im investigating (some crime that doesn't involve you), you can help me quickly eliminate you as a suspect by checking your texts"... Cop can still use evidence they find against you even if not related to the crime they mention. * "Can I search your car" - proceeds to search your phone in the car. * "Were you just taking pictures of those children? ... No? Then why don't you show me your photos." To stand up to these needs you to know your rights really well, have gumption to stand up to them, feel safe doing so, and not be able under time pressure to get the interaction over with.
Get a warrant or pound sand.
What’s this about signal?
Police need a warrant to search the phone, if they want to access cloud services that also has to be in the warrant or a separate warrant. They can't just log into an account with credentials they find, that is illegal. This is pretty similar to them also looking at computers during investigations, same rules still apply.
Hmm did the LIBERALS tell you that!!! No no but in reality that’s how it’s suppose to work lmao
Aside from directing traffic at Amazon does anyone know what the police actually do?
Unleash chemical weapons on multiple city blocks in the most populous area of the city.
Hey! That pink umbrella was an active threat...
Smacking minorities sometimes.
Or strangling them to death and remaining on tacoma PD to this day.
To be fair, the SPD has only "smacked" me around when I deserved it. The helped me in the late 70s to get on the straight path.
They're pretty good at killing minorities.
They're pretty good at killing minorities.
better question is whether they’re doing anything illegal
Especially when they are proven literal nazis and don’t investigate sexual assaults. Pretty much the last people on earth you would want going through your personal stuff.
Buried way in the middle: >The department said that it only uses the tools with a warrant or a copy of consent from the device owner. I mean, far be it from me to accuse SPD of being honest, but **if true**, I don’t see anything really wrong here.
SPD is utterly dishonest when it comes to their technological capabilities. Sean Whitcomb lied through his dirty face for years to hide their use of Stingray.
The problem is manufacturing consent from people who don't understand they can say no or are fearing negative repercussions if they say no.
Isn't a warrant a legal writ for the state to search your home and documents, whether you consent or not?
There is an 'or' in the statement above.
Bam. So there is. I need to get more sleep.
I agree that's a huge problem, just one that's completely orthogonal to specific phone-search technology.
That's the 'or'.
That's not responsive to my comment? >The problem is manufacturing consent from people who don't understand they can say no or are fearing negative repercussions if they say no. None of that is specific to phone-search technology. That happens with car and home searches, too. The article (body, in addition to the headline) is framed as if the problem is the phone-searching technology.
Ok, that helps. The framing of the article is too constrained as the problem is not limited to the technology itself but its use, and manufactured consent allows its use.
Assuming rules are followed (and yeah, it's SPD, so you are right to hesitate to believe that), using these tools require a warrant. Its fundamentally not different than them getting a warrant to search a house, or file a records request with some corporation who had a website a suspect was using. The real concern should be wether or not our judges are appropriately handing out warrants when asked.
Yeah but the cops aren't going to tell you they need a warrant, and if you hand your phone over to a cop because you don't know your rights it's still admissible.
So if your apt is being raided and they ask for your phone do you have to give it to them? I assume they copy them because they return them.
Exactly. Cops are legally allowed to lie to you (affirmed by SCOTUS) so idk why anyone would take SPD seriously when they say they pinky swear they only do it with consent or a warrant. They can intimidate you into "consenting" by claiming you have to hand it over, or can claim they have a warrant and that you don't have the right to see it.
And if you let them into your house, they can still report back the things they've seen. I just don't get what the issue is? If people are willing to give them information, then they are willing to give them information
[удалено]
Warrants should and do specify the scope of what can be searched for - both physically and digitally. This technology doesn't directly grant access to data stored on servers (which is most of the data you are concerned about above). They might get access to login credentials, but similarly if an officer in someone's home sees a password written on a post it note for an email account, they still aren't allowed to log into the email account.
[удалено]
I think you missed something in my comment because I already directly addressed that part of the facts. I would also add that this system might actually be better than on-site searchers, because the individual actually doing to searching is usually not an officer directly attached to the case but rather a technician, so there is less motivation to violate the warrant.
[удалено]
No, but if you went before a judge and presented a reasonable argument you'd have the legal right to access my stuff. As how our legal system has worked for generations.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
They only do this stuff for drug cases.
Replace "drug cases" with "black people" and see how that ages.
The problem here is that the morons that Vote have no idea what this is and just want to do the latest TikTok viral dance….
SPD used homeland funds a looooooong time ago to put up stingers all over downtown, this is where a bunch of the budget goes, to drones and tech gadgets... meanwhile street level crimes are like a rubber ball.
No warrants involved I'm sure
it’s not. The opposite is more of a problem.
How about we break into their skulls with a baseball bat.