You have completely misunderstood the situation

Yes it was blofeld. Been a long time since I watched the older James Bonds though so I don’t remember what else he did.

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 switched to have kagi always open a new tab when clicking on links. that resolved pretty much any issue I ever had with rationing. I switched relatively soon after to unlimited, but not because I needed more, but because they updated the plan pricing so I just got it automatically. If you have it you use it pretty much.

I saw this same comment in the comments on the article and it just doesn’t make any sense. The owner of the phone didn’t burn anything down, the feds did. They were the ones with the device, they were the ones that typed in the code.

This would be like the federal government showing up to search your house, you saying “no”, they say “give us a key” (not the key to unlock, but a key) and you give them one set on fire and they light the house on fire themselves. You didn’t do anything except give them what they asked for, it’s their fault they didn’t realize what it would do. I believe if the defendant argues it properly in court there’s gonna be nothing the Feds can do, because he didn’t interfere with anything.

Maybe if the feds had asked for the passcode that let them into the phone so they could search it then that’s one thing. But I seriously doubt they did.

edit: in addition what he's being charged of is destruction of property to prevent seizure. The government still has the phone, they were not prevented from taking property under their control. This statute doesn't match in any sense of the word.

for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government’s lawful authority to take such property into its custody or control or to continue holding such property under its lawful custody and control

Probably the tesseract dev

No joke, watched James Bond Diamonds are forever this weekend and it was pretty much the same thing. Villain invents a weapon to stop all governments from using nuclear bombs, has a great speech about bringing peace…and then suddenly decides to auction off the technology to the highest bidder? Huh?

Spread your dna all over the place smh.

What is the law? That you can’t prepare against cyber attacks?

!okbuddyrosalyn@lemmy.world

Your profile is a year and a half old, you have 1.1k posts. Year is 365 days. 12/3=4. Maybe they did a little bit more but you don’t need much information to get a decent guess.

Fifteen hours!?!?!?!? Good grief! Well however much you have left, good luck!