Probably didnt want people to see them going through the wife's underwear drawer.BTW, further google fu shows they raided this guys house on a search warrant for his suspected role in Jan 6, and also turned off his security cams.
That’s not fun!…make it interesting say you found something odd…like a bottle of chloroform, some duct tape and a drivers license that says “jimmy hoffa”I added that to my previous post. Sorry.
I'm not a lawyer. What legal ramifications would Liberty have faced if they told the FBI to go pound sound?
I'm surprised it compels 3rd parties to hand over combinations unless they're named in the warrant.
I own a Liberty safe. Mine has an electronic lock. I'm pretty sure the master code is in the paperwork that comes with the safe. It's the code you have to use to change the combo. Unless I'm mistaken.
A valid warrant does not apply to Liberty. There is a constitutional procedure, this was not it.Sounds like much ado about nothing. If they have a valid warrant, they are going to open it anyway. These "safes" are simply residential security containers which won't long-resist a grinder anyway.
I'm all for outrage about warrantless searches and seizures (which happen with alarming frequency and seemingly little oversight.) But if the authorities have a proper warrant, Liberty did nothing wrong (and in fact there is a possible argument that they can be compelled to provide this code). If the warrant was improperly executed or signed based on invalid information, the accused's opportunity is to suppress any evidence in court.
Yeah. One could say something like "yes, sir officer. We'll be glad to cooperate but let's do this constitutionally. Get a court order and protect all peoples' rights".Yeah, that’s a dick stepping move on their part. The negative press of complying with the feebs is going to cost them sales.
Who do they think their customers are?
A simple “nah, make us” would have solved both issues.
Wonder if the same thing to happen today but with J6 suspects instead. My guess is they'd bend over backwards to help the investigation of insurrectionists.I recall Apple refusing to provide the FBI the access code to a Cali terrorist mass shooter's i-phone several years ago. FBI "said" they couldn't open it but did get it open years later.
Apple said it would destroy their customers' confidence in the security of their phones if they gave up the code, even for a dead terrorist's phone.
I guess Apple had more to lose than Liberty.
I recall Apple refusing to provide the FBI the access code to a Cali terrorist mass shooter's i-phone several years ago. FBI "said" they couldn't open it but did get it open years later.
Yeah. One could say something like "yes, sir officer. We'll be glad to cooperate but let's do this constitutionally. Get a court order and protect all peoples' rights".
Is it constitutional for a private company/individual, who no longer has any material interest in a piece of property to hand over sensitive information to a government agent without the current owner's permission? Did the LS maintain, as a condition of sale, the right to disseminate any information pertaining to your safe to whomever they wish, whenever they wish?Show me what's unconstitutional about their voluntary compliance. Not "I don't like it". What's actually unconstitutional.
It is not, GFGT seems to be saying the company should, for the sake of their reputation and customers expectations require the constitutional procedure not give it up voluntarily…Show me what's unconstitutional about their voluntary compliance. Not "I don't like it". What's actually unconstitutional.
Not exactly. Technologically, maybe but philosophically/morally not a dime's worth of difference.Not exactly. There is no 'master code' for Apple phones. The case hinged on compelling Apple to *actively assist in breaking their own encryption*, quite a different matter than turning over codes.