Highest Court In Indiana Set To Decide If You Can Be Forced To Unlock Your Phone (eff.org) 190
The Electronic Frontier Foundation argues that police should not be allowed to force you to turn over your passcode or unlock your device. "The Fifth Amendment states that no one can be forced to be 'a witness against himself,' and we argue that the constitutional protection applies to forced decryption," writes the EFF. Last week, the non-profit digital rights group filed a brief making that case to the Indiana Supreme Court, which is set to decide if you can be forced to unlock your phone. From the report: The case began when Katelin Eunjoo Seo reported to law enforcement outside of Indianapolis that she had been the victim of a rape and allowed a detective to examine her iPhone for evidence. But the state never filed charges against Seo's alleged rapist, identified by the court as "D.S." (Courts often refer to minors using their initials.) Instead, the detective suspected that Seo was harassing D.S. with spoofed calls and texts, and she was ultimately arrested and charged with felony stalking. Along with a search warrant, the state sought a court order to force Seo to unlock her phone. Seo refused, invoking her Fifth Amendment rights. The trial court held her in contempt, but an intermediate appeals court reversed. When the Indiana Supreme Court agreed to get involved, it took the somewhat rare step of inviting amicus briefs. EFF got involved because, as we say in our brief filed along with the ACLU and the ACLU of Indiana, the issue in Seo is "no technicality; it is a fundamental protection of human dignity, agency, and integrity that the Framers enshrined in the Fifth Amendment."
Our argument to the Indiana Supreme Court is that compelling Seo to enter her memorized passcode would be inherently testimonial because it reveals the contents of her mind. Obviously, if she were forced to verbally tell a prosecutor her password, it would be a testimonial communication. By extension, the act of forced unlocking is also testimonial. First, it would require a modern form of written testimony, the entry of the passcode itself. Second, it would rely on Seo's mental knowledge of the passcode and require her to implicitly acknowledge other information such as the fact that it was under her possession and control. The lower appellate court in Seo added an intriguing third reason: "In a very real sense, the files do not exist on the phone in any meaningful way until the passcode is entered and the files sought are decrypted. . . . Because compelling Seo to unlock her phone compels her to literally recreate the information the State is seeking, we consider this recreation of digital information to be more testimonial in nature than the mere production of paper documents." Because entering a passcode is testimonial, that should be the end of it, and no one should be ordered to decrypt their device, at least absent a grant of immunity that satisfies the Fifth Amendment. The case gets complicated when you factor in a case from 1976 called Fisher v. United States, where the Supreme Court recognized an exception to the Fifth Amendment privilege for testimonial acts of production. "State and federal prosecutors have invoked it in nearly every forced decryption case to date," writes the EFF. "In Seo, the State argued that all that compelling the defendant to unlock her phone would reveal is that she knows her own passcode, which would be a foregone conclusion once it 'has proven that the phone belongs to her.'"
"As we argue in our amicus brief, this would be a dangerous rule for the Indiana Supreme Court to adopt. If all the government has to do to get you to unlock your phone is to show you know the password, it would have immense leverage to do so in any case where it encounters encryption."
Our argument to the Indiana Supreme Court is that compelling Seo to enter her memorized passcode would be inherently testimonial because it reveals the contents of her mind. Obviously, if she were forced to verbally tell a prosecutor her password, it would be a testimonial communication. By extension, the act of forced unlocking is also testimonial. First, it would require a modern form of written testimony, the entry of the passcode itself. Second, it would rely on Seo's mental knowledge of the passcode and require her to implicitly acknowledge other information such as the fact that it was under her possession and control. The lower appellate court in Seo added an intriguing third reason: "In a very real sense, the files do not exist on the phone in any meaningful way until the passcode is entered and the files sought are decrypted. . . . Because compelling Seo to unlock her phone compels her to literally recreate the information the State is seeking, we consider this recreation of digital information to be more testimonial in nature than the mere production of paper documents." Because entering a passcode is testimonial, that should be the end of it, and no one should be ordered to decrypt their device, at least absent a grant of immunity that satisfies the Fifth Amendment. The case gets complicated when you factor in a case from 1976 called Fisher v. United States, where the Supreme Court recognized an exception to the Fifth Amendment privilege for testimonial acts of production. "State and federal prosecutors have invoked it in nearly every forced decryption case to date," writes the EFF. "In Seo, the State argued that all that compelling the defendant to unlock her phone would reveal is that she knows her own passcode, which would be a foregone conclusion once it 'has proven that the phone belongs to her.'"
"As we argue in our amicus brief, this would be a dangerous rule for the Indiana Supreme Court to adopt. If all the government has to do to get you to unlock your phone is to show you know the password, it would have immense leverage to do so in any case where it encounters encryption."
Spirit of the 5th amendment (Score:2)
Nobody should be compelled to aid in their own prosecution.
Re:Spirit of the 5th amendment (Score:5, Informative)
Can you be forced to open up a physical safe? (Generally not, but the police can call a safe-cracker to get in as long as they have a warrant.)
But how about a booby-trapped safe? Or one that incinerates the paper contents if a lock is forced?
I think those are the types of comparisons that should be made when doing legal analysis on smartphone / computer storage devices (again, assuming the police have a judicially-approved warrant).
The "it's encrypted so the bits don't philosophically exist" argument doesn't pass muster, sorry. You could say that about any stream of data, mathematically speaking. Or even programmatically speaking. ("This spreadsheet containing my drug cartel's finances is only such if you interpret the magnetic data in a certain way!") Unless the Feds are calculating hash collisions on you to plant evidence, it should be assumed that encrypted data is not data nullis until decrypted.
Re: Spirit of the 5th amendment (Score:2)
All I see is the rise of devices that shift passwords after a certain amount of time and permanently locks the device or wipes it after a certain amount of no activity. It's already becoming easy enough to do.
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but I believe that the police can require you to produce a physical key, if one exists. So a key to your house, or your safe, or whatever. Obviously, they have the alternative of breaking in if you refuse, but they can also charge you with a crime for your refusal. However, as I understand it, they cannot force you to open a combination safe. And this seems like the obvious equivalent to a passcode on your phone. Again, IANAL.
It seems like the real answer should be: there should not be any legal requ
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I think the EFF is making a dangerous argument here... if they succeed, then anything the police decrypt by force(cracking code, not cracking skulls) will have been "created" when it was decrypted, therefore making it forensically invalid.
Re: (Score:2)
And what's wrong with that? There are codes which can be decrypted multiple ways, after all—the most famous being the one-time pad, which can be decrypted to any message of the same length simply by choosing the right pad. The burden should be on the police to prove that the plaintext they produced is the same plaintext originally encrypted by the suspect, and not just something invented by the police which happens to share the same ciphertext.
Re:Spirit of the 5th amendment (Score:5, Informative)
You can actually buy self-destructing safes, they're not illegal. You wouldn't be charged with obstruction as long as the documents were in there before the warrant was served. You could be charged with various other 'crimes' such as if you run a business and can't produce certain records, you may not be able to defend a tax or contract lawsuit that includes your requirement to produce said documents.
Re: (Score:2)
Some phones, such as some older Blackberry models, do a factory reset if the password is misentered too many times. This prevents brute force in most circumstances, because extracting the data otherwise requires an expensive technology forensics lab.
They still have unlimited attempts once they copy the phone.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory: XKCD [xkcd.com]
Re:Spirit of the 5th amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you know what they are really trying to do, what the legal reality is. They are trying to make you legally liable, with prison sentence, for the proper functioning of your phone, if you phone fails, you go to jail. Think about that, they are talking say, ten years behind bars based upon the claimed crime if your phones password function fails. Hey, lets, hold the corporation and the executives equally liable, let them sign up to a decade in prison if the phone they make ever fail the password function. Rattle of any nonsense and how can they prove you are lying unless they already have the correct password, whether your fault or the phones fault, incorrect password, ten years behind bars, really, is that anyway fair or reasonable.
There was the other one as well, where you give the individual the correct password, they type it in and then change the password and say your password does not work and you are lying and ten years behind bars thank you very much.
Why the fuck should any citizen be held legally liable for the functioning of their phone, hell the phone could have been hacked between the last time the person used it, even when they were using and months latter in court, what is the password, 'Go Fuck Yourself', right ten years, no that is the password 'Go Fuck Yourself', doesn't work and well pissed off judge and you a now legally liable for the phone, and it's security for months since you used it. Obviously the only place that request should be made is in a court and it would need to be done publicly in front of the judge to ensure no tampering with the process and wow, the legal responsibility you now take for the functioning of that phone.
"I can't recall my password." (Score:1)
If I was ever in a situation like this where I was asked to decrypt my phone, I would let the police know that I no longer remember my password. Then when/if I ever receive my phone back, I'd do a complete factory reset on it without entering the password.
Re: "I can't recall my password." (Score:2)
I'd do a complete factory reset on it without entering the password.
Methinks you might have to enter the password at some point to unlock the bootloader...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I no longer remember my password
I'm sorry sir, but perhaps you will remember after 6 months in jail for contempt of court.
No? Well perhaps a year will jog your memory. Or 5.
We can wait. [arstechnica.com]
Re: "I can't recall my password." (Score:4, Insightful)
After a while I can't remember passwords I have used a few months back.
Re: "I can't recall my password." (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And subject yourself to a perjury or obstruction charge?
Re: (Score:2)
If I was ever in a situation like this where I was asked to decrypt my phone, I would let the police know that I no longer remember my password. Then when/if I ever receive my phone back, I'd do a complete factory reset on it without entering the password.
I think on an iPhone you can do make the phone unusable (just enter the wrong passcode 12 times), but you can't make the phone usable again without knowing your Appleid and passcode. Obviously to make it much less useful for thieves. Unfortunately when you buy an iPhone on eBay and the idiot seller didn't reset the phone properly there's a problem.
Sure (Score:2)
Here's the password.
Uhh. Do you mind if I crouch down behind a heavy piece of furniture before you enter that?
This means nothing (Score:4)
It doesn't matter which way this goes it means nothing outside of Indiana. The FBI can still work you over till you crack. They will just hand it over to the federal government if they can't get you to unlock it. Then it doesn't matter what a Indiana court says.
This needs to go to the Supreme Court so this can be dealt with once and for all. But the way the current court is stacked I'm not betting it would go the way it should go.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What you have is a view on how the law is supposed to work. Not how it actually works today. The worse administration in history, the one before the current, made it common practice to try to bring federal charges up when things didn't go the PC way in state court.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it matter when it comes to State courts considering other State courts precedent what the Federal government has done in unrelated cases?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't you love it how when one certain political party that lost a certain election int 2016 thinks that they can change the rules. Let us be clear, here are some things that are not going to happen.
The Electoral College is not going any where, period.
There are NEVER going to be more than 9 justices on the supreme court, period.
Trump is not going to be impeached and removed from office, period.
You lost the election in 2016, you are not going to change the rules because you don't like them. Just t
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem isn't that he won, it's that he's a shitty President.
Re: (Score:3)
You keep saying that. It's like if you keep saying it, it will be true. Silly democrats. Reality is a good place, you should try it some times.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Electoral College is not going any where, period.
There are NEVER going to be more than 9 justices on the supreme court, period.
Trump is not going to be impeached and removed from office, period.
One of these is not like the other. And the fact you state it with "period" means that you have abandoned the concept of rule of law. Or maybe you believe that congress has abandoned that concept. Heck no one in the history of impeachments has thought it likely for a president to be impeached before some charges were actually brought against them.
Re: (Score:3)
There are NEVER going to be more than 9 justices on the supreme court, period.
The size of SCOTUS is determined by Congress, not the Constitution.
It has been as small as 7, and as large as 10 (from 1883-1886).
Re: (Score:2)
Correct, which is why FDR's plan to pack the court in 1937 failed (because Congress tossed his proposal into committee and left it to it die there.)
Re: (Score:2)
"Obviously. You still need the Senate for that, and the republicans there have given up."
You misspelled complicit there
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it is there for a very GOOD reason. Remember this is the United STATES of America. States rights, eh?
This is there to give ALL states a more proportional ability to choose the president. If it weren't there, you'd have basically 2-3 massive states deciding for the rest of the states, and that is not fair. This is a vast country and a state like MO has vastly different concerns than CA, and th
Re: (Score:3)
The Dems latest plans to tax the hell out of the rich and medicare for all (I mean, who would argue against that except the rich?) plus the MASSIVE tax cuts just handed away to the rich by trump is going to be a disaster for him and the right next election.
I would argue against it and I'm not rich. See I know what happens in a free society when you "tax the hell out of the rich." They take their money and put it in banks outside the country. You know, where they can't be taxed the hell out of. That is exactly what happened under the worse president in history. The one before Trump. He tried to tax the hell out of the rich and what happened? All the money and jobs went over seas where it was taxed less. You see, the rich don't have piles of money la
Re: (Score:2)
Even in NON-poor countries, they are having trouble keeping up healthcare for all and the costs are starting to weigh in heavily.
Healthcare problems in the UK [bbc.com]
Canada isn't that much better than US [ctvnews.ca]
Re: (Score:3)
Bonus question: How come poor countries can afford it but the US can't?
Question back. How come in these poor countries where they have free healthcare, when they need something done to save their ass, they come to the US? When the rich and power need a heart or cancer treatment, they come to the US. What is wrong with the free health care in their country? Why is it when a child need a life saving operation a charity bring them to the US? If the healthcare is so good back home, why come to the US?
Average life expectancy (Score:2)
Even if the UK and Canada are "having trouble keeping up healthcare for all", they seem to be doing better than the US in average life expectancy and infant mortality rate.
Average life expectancy:
US: 78.69 years
UK: 80.96 years
Canada: 82.30 years
infant mortality rate:
US:6.9 deaths per 1,000 live births
UK: 5 deaths per 1,000 live births
Canada: 5.4 deaths per 1,000 live births
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The Republicans refused to even hold hearings for Obama's SC candidate. He could have just appointed them anyway, after all if the Republicans aren't going to pay any attention to constitutional norms why should he? But he didn't, he took the moral high road and tweeted about it now and then.
It really is time that you reformed the SC. Limited terms for justices at the very least, and a much more robust vetting process.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama could have simply appointed Garland to sit on the USSC, but it would have been temporary, and Mr. Garland would have been removed the say that the Senate reconvened in 2017. Constitution says the Senate has to advise and consent, and without that, any appointment by the executive is temporary at best.
Also, note that Garland was nominated in the beginning of election season (which started in Jan. 2016 with the Iowa Caucus), so the Senate was well within its rights to postpone confirmation until whoever
Re: (Score:3)
It really is time that you reformed the SC. Limited terms for justices at the very least, and a much more robust vetting process.
No it isn't. It works just fine the way it is. The vetting process works just fine. It worked great with the last nomination and it will work with Trumps next pick just as well. We don't need limits on the justices because job security is one of the reasons they can be impartial as they are.
Fifth Amendment privilege? That sucks! (Score:1)
Guess all our rights are privileges now.
Wasn't this a Dilbert cartoon? (Score:1)
Shroedinger’s Files? (Score:5, Funny)
In a very real sense, the files do not exist on the phone in any meaningful way until the passcode is entered [...]
One could argue that, at the quantum level, the files both exist and do not exist and it is the action of unlocking the phone that causes the files to exist.
Or not. I know nothing of quantum mechanics...
Re:Shroedinger’s Files? (Score:5, Funny)
Your honor, we find the defendant both guilty and not guilty.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
File compression does the same thing
Not true. File compression is self sustaining and very much not encrypted in any way. The contents of the file can be restored with information from the archive itself. That is quite different to something requiring an independent decryption key.
What if you are forgetful? (Score:2)
Ok your honor the pass code is 1234. Or maybe 4321? No wait its 1111! Sorry you had my phone away from me for too long and I usually type it using muscle memory and its gone now. Lets just reset it back to factory settings and I can set up a new code for you ;-)
How do they "force" you to unlock your phone? (Score:3)
They can put you behind bars, but that doesn't guarantee unlocking the phone... While not everyone might be resistant to the point of even going to jail, if they cannot get what they want by threatening punishment, what good does the punishment even do?
Further, I can imagine a futuristic type of lock existing someday that would not unlock under any circumstances when its designated owner is compromised, perhaps to keep trade secrets secure... Being arrested and compelled to unlock your phone could be interpteted by such a system as such a comprise, and there would be absolutely no way to force the person to unlock it, even if they wanted to at that point.
Re: (Score:3)
The legal term is "compel" not "force".
It basically amounts to: "Do this thing or face legal trouble".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's assuming that is the goal... why would they have that goal without evidence?
And if they don't care about evidence, then they can lock you up anyways by simply manufacturing a crime that you never committed at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Android and iPhones could easily employ a mechanism that wipes a phone that isn't logged into in 7/30/365/whatever days. That would also mean the state could only hold you in contempt for a limited period. Now, they could try to get you for destruction of evidence after the fact, but that is a whole different can of worms.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the same general idea, yeah... in theory, if the would-be coercer is aware that the lock exists, they will have to reconsider trying at all, because they know it will not achieve the desired result.
Re: (Score:2)
But they don't unlock the phone. Which apparently is their *stated* goal.
And in fact, if or when the tech exists to implement and advanced intelligent lock system that behaves as I described above, locking people up for not unlocking their devices wouldn't accomplish anything, so they might as well not do it when they don't have any other evidence that a crime which merits imprisonment was actually committed.
And if they have other evidence, then why can't they can convict on that? Compelling you to
Re: (Score:3)
Can you be arrested for wanting to comply with law enforcement but not being able to because of a decision that you made long before to use a securing technology that would lock you out in the event you are compromised just because
Alternate code to erase (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No no no, that's automatic destruction of evidence, and contempt of court. What you want is a dummy profile - one that doesn't retain call/text/web history and has a few 'safe' phone numbers in it.
Now that you mention it, why doesn't the the prosecution probably already have the call/text/web history? Why do they need her to unlock the phone? If she was harassing the guy like they say, can't the phone company pull her call/text history?
Hmm. I wonder if she was using one of those Internet based VOIP num
Re: (Score:2)
It must have malfunctioned!
Re: (Score:2)
Oh good. Not one but 2 counts of contempt of court. Such a stupid lie won't get you very far.
Re: (Score:2)
Prove it didn't, forget the whole thing, or admit the Constitution has been shredded.
Re: (Score:2)
Prove it didn't
No need. It's up there with the "I forgot" cases. The amazing coincident that something magically happens to evidence by pure unlucky malfunction is beyond any reasonable doubt of malfunction.
or admit the Constitution has been shredded.
The constitution says nothing about defending your acts of god during a legal case. When it all comes down to it in criminal activity your high and mighty constitution combined with your incalculable lucky break just fails to meet any requirements of reasonable doubt.
Sorry mate, but when you look guilty AF you will ult
Re: (Score:2)
Innocent until proven guilty. Fortunate and unfortunate coincidence does happen all the time. Long chains of fortune may strain credulity, but single coincidences are not only common, but a lack of them would strain credulity.
Take any disaster in history and you will probably find a number of people who survived because their alarm didn't go off or the car wouldn;'t start or they couldn't find their keycard, etc. On the other side, there are people who mis-dial and accidentally set up a drug buy with a cop
Re: (Score:2)
Innocent until proven guilty.
No. Innocent until thought guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Catch phrases won't get you far in the legal system.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's because the Constitution is in the shredder.
Re: (Score:2)
You should read the constitution. You'll find that it has nothing to do with anything being discussed here. Not free speech, not self incrimination, and not being innocent until proven guilty.
But you're on a role for not knowing the legal system of your country.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently you don't. I am well aware that a great deal of sophistry has grown up around violations of the Constitution. I simply don't buy in to it.
You've painted yourself into a corner and so you are now left with only bald assertions and misquotes of the law. For some odd reason you are supporting imprisoning someone based on no evidence whatsoever and with no jury in sight.
You claim that forgetting and malfunctions are so unlikely as to be beyond reasonable doubt. I pointed out that people do forget all
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it... (Score:2)
There are already several cases where you can be compelled to to divulge your passwords or crypto keys:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Suggested new phone feature... (Score:2)
There is already a feature on many phones to wipe them if a certain number of attempts are made to unlock them with the wrong password.
Why not simply have another feature that wipes the phone immediately if someone enters a specific password?
This is a feature I'd be willing to upgrade for.
I can save them some time (Score:2)
Re: The thing is that there's nothing they can do (Score:3)
What are they going to do about it?
Wow, you're astute: they'll either:
A) Throw you in a cell and wait patiently until you crack, or
B) Move the schedule up with Ye Olde Pipewrenche.
Re: (Score:3)
B) Move the schedule up with Ye Olde Pipewrenche.
This is the 21st century, nobody is going to take pipe wrench to your ass. For one it leaves to many marks. Modern techniques use low voltage and work it up from there. Just as good as a pipe wrench but leaves lots of room for possible deniability. No marks when done by a professional
Re: (Score:3)
No marks when done by a professional
Waterboarding also works very well, and leaves no marks. Just a bit of duct tape to cover the nose, and a trickle of water into the back of the throat is all it takes.
The only risk of marks is the suspect struggling against the restraints, so always use plenty of padding.
Re: (Score:3)
This makes me pine for the Bush and Obama days before the world had such dictators. Don't bee too surprised when Mueller indcits Trump for things like torture and bombing men, women, and children.
Obama didn't get indicted for drone striking men, women, and children. Why would Trump? That would set a precedent that neither party wants to see.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Pick on apostrophe usage. (Score:2)
âAre you trying to spell "parties"?â(TM)
The last bastion of people with no argument and no footing - go to minor grammar issues. Thatâ(TM)s not contributing or challenging. Itâ(TM)s just assholery.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't vote for him but have been pleasantly surprised with the economy, with the progress in the Koreas, the fact that he isn't war-mongering in the mid-east.
The lies and stupidity over Kavanaugh and others - like those high school kids - makes me have an antipathy for the Democrats the same as I've had for the Republicans.
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't vote for him but have been pleasantly surprised with the economy,
Trump has only harmed the economy, he hasn't helped it. Even conservative-loved Harley-Davidson has had to move thousands of jobs overseas as a result.
with the progress in the Koreas
You know NK hasn't stopped nuclear testing right?
the fact that he isn't war-mongering in the mid-east.
He is, he's just claiming he isn't.
The lies and stupidity over Kavanaugh
What lies?
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, lowest unemployment rate since the 60s...certainly he's "harmed the economy".
The last missile test NK did was 28 Nov 2017.
Please point to the warmongering your claiming...would it be Syria or Afghanistan, where he's been trying to pull troops out? Or, would it be getting NATO to pay it's fair share for their defense?
And, FWIW, the man is an ass, and I didn't vote for him.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, lowest unemployment rate since the 60s...certainly he's "harmed the economy".
A lot of things are lowest right now, like how much money people have in savings. Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, even ones with good jobs like federal workers. And many of those who do have jobs are underemployed, meaning they're going further and further into debt to support their families. Eventually, they'll have to go bankrupt, like a Trump casino, and it will cost all of us money.
The last missile test NK did was 28 Nov 2017.
They haven't dismantled the facilities they use to build the weapons. There will be more tests.
Please point to the warmongering your claiming...would it be Syria or Afghanistan, where he's been trying to pull troops out?
You believe this
Re: (Score:2)
with the progress in the Koreas
You know NK hasn't stopped nuclear testing right?
- The missile launches have stopped.
- The industrial grade loudspeakers spewing propaganda have stopped AND have been torn down. Stopping the propaganda would have been something. Tearing down the loudspeakers and the 30' platforms they were on is next level sh!t.
- Bodies were exhumed in the 100s (if not 1000s now) and returned to SK and the US. DNA tests shows that these are not simply "bodies"
- Mine shafts leading to underground testing sites have been blocked up and the railroad tracks leading there h
Re: (Score:2)
The missile launches have stopped.
Get back to me when they eliminate their nuclear development facilities. Regardless, none that shit has anything to do with Trump. Lil' Kim wanted to do that stuff for economic reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
But it has nothing to do with Trump offering the correct carrot and stick.
Right. Got it.
Trump BAD.
Just so you start grasping things. I didn't vote for him. I didn't think he would do as well as he's done. But of course. Orange Man Bad.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the 21st century, nobody is going to take pipe wrench to your ass.
If it was good enough for the Godfather, it's good enough for me.
No marks when done by a professional
Amateur. You ALWAYS sign your work. If I'd wanted deniability, then you wouldn't ever find the subject to start with.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The thing is that there's nothing they can do (Score:1)
Her name is already public, so she's now officially toast anyway since calling the 5th means that she has something to hide.
Good luck for her the next decade to find a decent job.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Start posting your personal details so we can tell if you have something to hide or not, asshole.
See how quickly that gets turned on your sorry and ignorant old ass?
Oh, you're a Z00phile. Pretty obvious by your name, animal fucker. Got that pawprint tattoo, too?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, speaking of cowardly shit, looks like your bedug.com domain is all "Redacted for Privacy" on whois.
You fucking hypocrite cowardly fuck. What kind of child porno server are you running behind that domain, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
It's GDPR. And I had to close the Drupal server I was running due to security bugs. But that's what you get for trusting that PHP is in any way safe and stable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Her name is already public, so she's now officially toast anyway since calling the 5th means that she has something to hide.
Good luck for her the next decade to find a decent job.
Helpful bit of info concerning that assumption... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Her name is already public, so she's now officially toast anyway since calling the 5th means that she has something to hide.
Good luck for her the next decade to find a decent job.
There are plenty of managers (like myself) who would gladly hire someone who stuck up for what's right. Assuming she's found innocent of any wrongdoing, she'll likely end up with offers of employment from people who've followed the case.
Re: (Score:2)
Torture is used to get a confession, not information, and 24 Hours is a TV series, not a descriptive teaching of proven investi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When you open the door to your home and show the police something, it doesn't give them the right to snoop around for other stuff w/o a warrant. Sure, they can go after stuff with probable cause, or if there's something wrong within eyesight of that door...not the case here, and insinuating that it is would set a bad precedent.
Re: (Score:2)