SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
In a filing, prosecutors have said that they are currently extracting data from locked phones seized from over 100 alleged rioters:
In new filings, prosecutors told a court in Washington, DC that within the coming weeks, they expect to extract all data from the seized cellphones of more than 100 allegedly violent protesters arrested during the inauguration of President Donald Trump. Prosecutors also said that this search is validated by recently issued warrants. [...] "All of the Rioter Cell Phones were locked, which requires more time-sensitive efforts to try to obtain the data," Jennifer Kerkhoff, an assistant United States attorney, wrote.
Also at BuzzFeed, CNET, and The Verge.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Data From the Phones of Over 100 Alleged Inauguration Rioters to be Extracted
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 44 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The last time I saw him he was walking down Lover's Lane holding his own hand.
-- Fred Allen
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday March 26 2017, @01:35PM (7 children)
If the protesters were even half-clever, they exchanged messages like: "let's keep it clean out there, peaceful protest." "WTF pig just bashed J in the head for no reason." "Mary wasn't doing anything and she just got maced!!!!" "People, this has gone south - lay down your signs and get away if you can."
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by KiloByte on Sunday March 26 2017, @02:01PM (5 children)
And that matters, how? Once your phone is in possession of an adversary, they can put anything there.
Ceterum censeo systemd esse delendam.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday March 26 2017, @02:27PM (4 children)
Sounds very high risk unless the social group is completely and perfectly closed.
"Your honor let me point out that we ran an analysis of all texts on the defendants phone and 100% of incriminating texts the defendant claims never to have entered are sent to a phone that was seized an lexical analysis shows someone at the verbal level of Gawker wrote it whereas 100% of the texts to phones not seized do NOT contain incriminating evidence and lexical analysis shows an entirely different person wrote those texts and that author appears to be the defendant and interestingly this applies to all OTHER seized phones also..."
You have to realize the antifa people are extremely violent and arrogant because they are the establishment in many areas.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by KiloByte on Sunday March 26 2017, @06:00PM (3 children)
I'm afraid you're a starry-eyed idealist when it comes to the rule of law.
No one cares what the law says, only how much clout you have to enforce it.
I have less knowledge about examples from the US, so here's a bunch from Poland -- a NATO and EU member that's on similar level as the US when it comes to respect to law.
• Several years ago, father of then-head of the Department of Justice had heart issues diagnosed as fatal. As such animals are more equal than others, he received care from an all-star team of top heart surgeons, every one of them with a worldwide fame and hundreds of publications (Poland stands quite well in this field). Despite their efforts, they did not manage to save the guy. Anyone sane would accept such an outcome -- yet somehow, our hero wants "revenge" for his father's death. He sued for not only malpractice but also intentional harm, and had the doctors arrested for murder. The government has changed in the meantime, so the lawsuit went quite as expected, with every single expert testifying that all procedures were done according to medical arts. The doctors even were granted damages. Yet before the apellate process has run its course, the government changed again and our hero is back to being the head of the Department of Justice. Experts who testified are now accused of fraud for taking their fees for delivering "false" opinions.
• The head of our Department of Defense was travelling from one non-government matter to another, drastically above all speed limits, in a car convoy. The convoy was not even legally privileged -- to have priority, they'd need to use both light and sound signals; loud sounds apparently are too undelicate for such an important person. They plowed into five cars properly stopped at a red light. Guess who's guilty according to the police?
• Our beloved Prime Minister was travelling, at even more ridiculous speeds (as measured by dividing the distance by her last known timestamped whereabouts), also without sound signals. At a place with a tight speed limit (50kph) and just after a roundabout (where you need to slow down to nearly walking speed), her driver clipped a car (who properly made evasive action to let the idiots pass but had no space to make enough room), then her car went off the road and hit a tree. The police presented speed recorder data which, despite what all witnesses say, shows that the car was going below the speed limit. Please explain to me by what miracle an armoured car can be totalled at such a speed. Obviously, the guy whom they first hit is now criminally liable for causing the accident.
Now, back to the US. Do you wonder why Trump, despite promises of sending Hillary to a federal correctional unit, hasn't done so yet? Despite her being so obviously, thoroughly guilty? Perhaps, just perhaps, it has something with Pence's emails, and the real risk of Democrites returning the favour if he puts her to jail, once they regain power?
Ceterum censeo systemd esse delendam.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday March 27 2017, @02:54AM (2 children)
H guilty of what, exactly? Doing her job as SofS without following IT security procedures? As Secretary, it is bloody well at her discretion if she should follow procedure, or just rewrite them to except herself. There are enough laws in any country over 100 years old that _everybody_ breaks laws on a regular basis, even some with big penalties, and when you move in matters of state, the definition of Treason is not black and white at all. Is taking illegal campaign financing from an adversarial foreign state a serious crime? Depends on who you ask.
Your example of the doctors and the flip-flopping trial is both sad, and believable. However, returning to the question of: what does it matter what's on the phones? If the system is to have any credibility, there are a network of diverse individuals who each have knowledge of what is found in evidence searches, electronic and otherwise, otherwise the very problem you imply is all too possible. The arresting officer on the scene perhaps has the most latitude to "plant" evidence, especially if his partner is away - or complicit. After that, the web of evidence handlers is _supposed_ to spread, if it doesn't, the system is in jeopardy of becoming a farce, well, a bigger farce than it currently is perceived to be.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Funny) by BK on Monday March 27 2017, @03:55AM (1 child)
Woosh!
You missed his point and then made it. Well done.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday March 27 2017, @01:00PM
Perhaps, perhaps not... some readers would take the "oh so absolutely guilty" at face value.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 26 2017, @02:23PM
I see a lot of possible scenarios and driving forces behind these riots, but I'm extremely hard pressed to find any scenario where the people who actually carried out the actions were anything short of complete dolts. The only question is the one of their idiocy - genuine idiots, or useful idiots?