You know, the same thing happens to me every time the FBI takes my phones.

  • wavebeam@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    94
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    I really hate to defend this guy because he clearly sucks. But honestly: smart move. Your phone password and much of the contents of your phone should be considered speech and you shouldn’t be compelled to testify against yourself. That said, if this phone was government property then he shouldn’t have been the only one capable of unlocking it, which is a policy failure.

    • thrawn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Recorded speech about engaging in crimes is often acceptable evidence. It’s probably the same with written messages.

      I guess it’s up to the accused to prevent law enforcement from acquiring what they said, whether it be preventing recording, preventing police from sifting through mail or unsecure communications, or preventing police from acquiring the accused’s copy of potentially illegal communications. Which he is currently attempting.

      I don’t blame him for trying, and would agree on a lesser extent that he is right to prevent self incriminating now. But copied communication as acceptable evidence is pretty settled in law by now.

    • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      I work in IT. Five bucks says their government-issued phones can be unlocked by an MDM (Mobile Device Management) profile.