Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by DannyBee 3888 days ago
"This arstechnica comment has it spot on and is tagged as Readers Fav: "

No, it doesn't.

I know it's a great conspiracy theory, but it's not really likely.

It's actually significantly more likely they want to unlock the phone to try to get more evidence against the other 6 people he was charged with, probably because it's lacking.

Federal prosecutors, whatever you think of them, are generally not dumb. They know this is not the strongest argument they can make, and so if they really didn't need the evidence, they would drop it and make the argument in a context that wasn't trivial.

Seriously. They deal with tons of drug offenses every day. So do the judges.

It's much better for them to wait for a child-killing baby-eater who also has child porn on his phone or something that plays better than "yeah, uh, we want to go look for evidence against the other 6"
2 comments
plorg 3888 days ago
Out of naïveté I am curious: if it is the right to not incriminate yourself that prevents a defendant from being forced to unlock her phone, is it different if the evidence being sought is against a third party? That is, could someone who has been convicted on other evidence be compelled to unlock her phone if the prosecution believes there is evidence on that device to convict, say, a higher rank in a drug operation? Does the third party doctrine apply to private citizens? I am not endorsing this view, merely curious.
link
HappyTypist 3888 days ago
IANAL, but my understanding is that you can be compelled to give evidence if you are given immunity from incrimination from any evidence you give, directly or indirectly.
link
yourepowerless 3888 days ago
People who prattle on about conspiracy theories really having nothing to add after the snowden revelations or wikileaks. Conspiracy theory? Nope, conspiracy fact, the US government does so many secret and nefarious activities the only sane default is to assume ulterior motives.
link
Amezarak 3888 days ago
The people talking about what the NSA got up to before Snowden weren't engaging in conspiracy theories, they were basing what they said off prior whistleblowers and limited, logical extrapolation.

A lot of what Snowden put out wasn't new at all, it just gave us particulars on what we already knew or had very good reason to suspect based on that information. (e.g. if they have one fiber tap, they probably have many fiber taps.) [1] [2]

'The Government' is not one single unitary entity. It's a massive, sprawling bureacracy, with most agencies almost completely unaware of what the other is doing. Interagency cooperation is a rarity.

US Attorneys are certainly not the NSA's minions.

[1] http://archive.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/04/70...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

link
MaysonL 3888 days ago
US Attorneys are certainly not the NSA's minions.

Except possibly when they are arguing that nothing the NSA does should ever be revealed, and that nobody has a right to sue the NSA.

link