They were the ones with the device, they were the ones that typed in the code. […] and you give them one set on fire and they light the house on fire themselves.
I have no idea how some people can believe the words they say. Literally the entire point of a duress code is that the attacker doesn’t know that it’s a duress code – that it looks indistinguishable from a normal password. In your example, the key is physically on fire. A duress code is “oops, I gave you the key that activates a hidden mechanism to burn my house down. Guess you’re the ones who destroyed it lol.”
To say “well your honor, I intentionally tricked someone into destroying the evidence for me” would not hold up in court is an understatement.
I’m not trying to be condescending, genuinely making sure because your analogy is so far-off: you are familiar with what a duress password is, right?
I’m not trying to be condescending, genuinely making sure because your analogy is so far-off: you are familiar with what a duress password is, right?
yes… and you do understand that if you are a federal agent who is questioning someone, you probably shouldn’t be trusting anything they say right? You do understand that these are ‘special agents’ who should (and do!) have training on different operating systems and how to get into them right? The FBI is known for buying tools to get them into iOS even, the CBP breaks into phones daily!
I have no idea how some people can believe the words they say.
Right back at you. Let’s do a different analogy. If I give someone a gun and they murder someone with that, I’m not culpable. Unless they tell me they are going to murder someone with it before I give it to them. And then you’re an accomplice to murder, but not a murderer. If the CBP told him they were going to unlock the phone with the code then sure, he’s an accomplice to the actual crime which is “Destruction or removal of property to prevent seizure”. Which would require trying the CBP agent for that same crime. Do you think the CBP agent is going to be tried for it?
In any case, my analogy isn’t off at all, either of them. An CBP agent knows better, and if they don’t they’re incompetent and should be fired.
I have no idea how some people can believe the words they say. Literally the entire point of a duress code is that the attacker doesn’t know that it’s a duress code – that it looks indistinguishable from a normal password. In your example, the key is physically on fire. A duress code is “oops, I gave you the key that activates a hidden mechanism to burn my house down. Guess you’re the ones who destroyed it lol.”
To say “well your honor, I intentionally tricked someone into destroying the evidence for me” would not hold up in court is an understatement.
I’m not trying to be condescending, genuinely making sure because your analogy is so far-off: you are familiar with what a duress password is, right?
yes… and you do understand that if you are a federal agent who is questioning someone, you probably shouldn’t be trusting anything they say right? You do understand that these are ‘special agents’ who should (and do!) have training on different operating systems and how to get into them right? The FBI is known for buying tools to get them into iOS even, the CBP breaks into phones daily!
Right back at you. Let’s do a different analogy. If I give someone a gun and they murder someone with that, I’m not culpable. Unless they tell me they are going to murder someone with it before I give it to them. And then you’re an accomplice to murder, but not a murderer. If the CBP told him they were going to unlock the phone with the code then sure, he’s an accomplice to the actual crime which is “Destruction or removal of property to prevent seizure”. Which would require trying the CBP agent for that same crime. Do you think the CBP agent is going to be tried for it?
In any case, my analogy isn’t off at all, either of them. An CBP agent knows better, and if they don’t they’re incompetent and should be fired.