Truly a waste of money suing for what was already deemed a public record. A few cases come to mind for a quick response:
Florida Star v. B.J.F. :: 491 U.S. 524 (1989) where it was held state officials may not constitutionally suppress publication of records lawfully obtained.
Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn :: 420 U.S. 469 (1975) the court found the media could not be held liable for disclosure of a sexual assault victim’s name that police accidently disclosed as a public record.
Ostergren v. Cuccinelli, 615 F.3d 263 (2010), in which the Court found a Virginia statute making it unlawful to intentionally publish a person’s social security number over the Internet violated the First Amendment.
Sessa v. Ancestry.com Operations, 561 F. Supp. 3d 1008, 1034 (D. Nev. 2021) “"[A] defendant cannot be liable for disclosing information about a plaintiff that was already public." ”
Wish everyone here the best, Darren Chaker
Although the statute may be constitutional under state law, if it offends the federal constitution it can be challenged post-conviction. Federal courts have stricken down such statutes and criminal sanctions based on false speech.
For government to regulate speech, it must be “integral to criminal conduct.” United States v. Meredith, 685 F.3d 814, 819, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13012, 7, 2012-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50,421, 110 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5157 (9th Cir. Cal. 2012)
Typically, restriction of speech concerns a gang member not associating with other gang member; a child pornographer being monitored or restricted from the internet, defendant not speaking to victims, etc. The only nontypical First Amendment challenge relates to a defendant speaking or writing about the unconstitutionality of tax laws and was reversed, but prohibiting advocating tax evasion was affirmed. Speech is presumptively protected by the First Amendment.
The burden is on the government to show that a defendant's website or posts are within one of the narrow categories of unprotected speech. United States v. Carmichael, 326 F. Supp. 2d 1267, 1270, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13675, 1 (M.D. Ala. 2004)
In sum, the Government must prove the speech at issue was outside the scope of the First Amendment. Protecting ones reputation is not a governmental function unless it violates criminal law. United v. Alvarez, 617 F. 3d 1198. (Stolen Valor Act held unconstitutional) "At issue here is the First Amendment exception that allows the government to regulate speech that is integral to criminal conduct. . . ." Id. at 819-20. United States v. Osinger, 753 F.3d 939, 946, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10377, 17-20, 2014 WL 2498131 (9th Cir. Cal. 2014).
With the above in mind I wish everyone here the best!
For the person who thinks emptying a waste basket, or deleting a photo or other file on his/her phone results in permanent deletion demonstrates he should not venture into such a presumption. For anyone who values privacy, 1) do not back-up anything to the cloud and 2) invest an to permanently erase data you truly want unrecoverable.
As for photos and other data on your phone, connect the phone directly to a computer and sweep the data directly to your computer. Of course, be sure your computer uses Whole Disk Encryption since it's pointless to remove data from your phone to an insecure computer.
Last, going back to the focal point of this threat (police and passwords), if you think police will want to get into your phone, lock it as to disable facial recognition and invoke the right to an attorney.
By Darren Chaker : The only good thing that came out of the push to force Apple to get into the San Bernardino iPhone, is that it pushed forward the issue of privacy and how secure the phone is (as long as you don't use bio-metric feature). Privacy serves both the good and the bad. It also protects our banking, corporate secrets, as well as photos while in Vegas! Privacy is a right and no one should be ashamed at using our right to it. Also, if back doors were implemented, all people would need to do is use Russian, Chinese, or other foreign encryption software.
I actually wrote a post about this topic, http://consenttosearch.com/site/fingerprint-and-fifth-amendment/ The law is well established a person must provide a handwriting exemplar, voice exemplar, and other non-testimonial things to police. Now, due to technology, people enjoy swiping the finger in lieu of using a PW. I know of a couple of cases that said yes, and one that said no. There's a case pending in the 9th Circuit now on this issue. I see it as, police cannot force you to provide the key to your house where you a stolen radio at, but they want you to use your finger to open up a secure phone so they may incriminate you with the contents? For now, I suggest the obvious - take the .05 second to enter in a PW, and do not use your finger for anything less that things you enjoy using it for, since we do not need the government to tell us where to put it!
I write on 4th Amend and technology, http://darrenchaker.us Good to see the courts are keeping the Riley decision alive and well. Opening a phone, is just as the court in this case, altering its current state. Obtaining a warrant is why police have access to on call judges 24/7. Police need to follow the law to get the people who do not follow the law in jail. If police fail to do so, it results in evidence getting kicked out of court, and often times the case follows.
Happy to hear about this case. I have used and like D-Vasive, http://dvasive.com/#homePage an anti-Stingray App, which also controls various Apps from using the Mic and Camera. Although the family of the murder victim has a right to be upset at police, at least the suspect was charged with other horrific crimes so did not truly 'get away'. Some suspects are just hard 2 catch.
Great point. I also see this as a case where if the government is successful in forcing the manufacturer to thrart its own decsign, next on the hit list will be whole disk encyption, encrypted email, file encryption and all things we thought were secure. As Bruce Schneier recently posted, there are almost 600 foreign encryption products, hence if American made products are not secure, people will simply look to foreign products for true security.
Possibly we can secure our border where 2.5 million have crossed in in the last 7 years, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/20/number-of-illegals-levels-off-fewer-crossing-mexic/?page=all, to secure this country in before assaulting the Fourth Amendment, encryption technology, American ingenuity, in the name of figuring out what's on the phone of two people who never should have passed screening to get into the USA in the first place. What happened in San Bernardino is being used as hyoe to get backdoors.
Interesting about the company RipoffReport keeps, where its attorney on this case was arrested child molestation, http://jaburgwilk.blogspot.com/2013/08/david-gingras-molester.html
See public records about David Gingras. Jaburg Wilk appears as his employer on recent search, http://jaburgwilk.blogspot.com/2013/08/david-gingras-molester.html
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by darrenchaker.
Redistribution of Public Records by Darren Chaker
Truly a waste of money suing for what was already deemed a public record. A few cases come to mind for a quick response: Florida Star v. B.J.F. :: 491 U.S. 524 (1989) where it was held state officials may not constitutionally suppress publication of records lawfully obtained. Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn :: 420 U.S. 469 (1975) the court found the media could not be held liable for disclosure of a sexual assault victim’s name that police accidently disclosed as a public record. Ostergren v. Cuccinelli, 615 F.3d 263 (2010), in which the Court found a Virginia statute making it unlawful to intentionally publish a person’s social security number over the Internet violated the First Amendment. Sessa v. Ancestry.com Operations, 561 F. Supp. 3d 1008, 1034 (D. Nev. 2021) “"[A] defendant cannot be liable for disclosing information about a plaintiff that was already public." ” Wish everyone here the best, Darren Chaker
Criminal Libel by Darren Chaker
Although the statute may be constitutional under state law, if it offends the federal constitution it can be challenged post-conviction. Federal courts have stricken down such statutes and criminal sanctions based on false speech. For government to regulate speech, it must be “integral to criminal conduct.” United States v. Meredith, 685 F.3d 814, 819, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13012, 7, 2012-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50,421, 110 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5157 (9th Cir. Cal. 2012) Typically, restriction of speech concerns a gang member not associating with other gang member; a child pornographer being monitored or restricted from the internet, defendant not speaking to victims, etc. The only nontypical First Amendment challenge relates to a defendant speaking or writing about the unconstitutionality of tax laws and was reversed, but prohibiting advocating tax evasion was affirmed. Speech is presumptively protected by the First Amendment. The burden is on the government to show that a defendant's website or posts are within one of the narrow categories of unprotected speech. United States v. Carmichael, 326 F. Supp. 2d 1267, 1270, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13675, 1 (M.D. Ala. 2004) In sum, the Government must prove the speech at issue was outside the scope of the First Amendment. Protecting ones reputation is not a governmental function unless it violates criminal law. United v. Alvarez, 617 F. 3d 1198. (Stolen Valor Act held unconstitutional) "At issue here is the First Amendment exception that allows the government to regulate speech that is integral to criminal conduct. . . ." Id. at 819-20. United States v. Osinger, 753 F.3d 939, 946, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10377, 17-20, 2014 WL 2498131 (9th Cir. Cal. 2014). With the above in mind I wish everyone here the best!
Challenge to Criminal Sanction on Speech - Darren Chaker Prevails
Ironically I too was jailed for speech where a Nevada police officer, Leesa Fazal,
Re: Permanent Deletion by Darren Chaker
For the person who thinks emptying a waste basket, or deleting a photo or other file on his/her phone results in permanent deletion demonstrates he should not venture into such a presumption. For anyone who values privacy, 1) do not back-up anything to the cloud and 2) invest an to permanently erase data you truly want unrecoverable. As for photos and other data on your phone, connect the phone directly to a computer and sweep the data directly to your computer. Of course, be sure your computer uses Whole Disk Encryption since it's pointless to remove data from your phone to an insecure computer. Last, going back to the focal point of this threat (police and passwords), if you think police will want to get into your phone, lock it as to disable facial recognition and invoke the right to an attorney.
War on Encryption by Darren Chaker
By Darren Chaker : The only good thing that came out of the push to force Apple to get into the San Bernardino iPhone, is that it pushed forward the issue of privacy and how secure the phone is (as long as you don't use bio-metric feature). Privacy serves both the good and the bad. It also protects our banking, corporate secrets, as well as photos while in Vegas! Privacy is a right and no one should be ashamed at using our right to it. Also, if back doors were implemented, all people would need to do is use Russian, Chinese, or other foreign encryption software.
Giving the 5th Amend the Finger
I actually wrote a post about this topic, http://consenttosearch.com/site/fingerprint-and-fifth-amendment/ The law is well established a person must provide a handwriting exemplar, voice exemplar, and other non-testimonial things to police. Now, due to technology, people enjoy swiping the finger in lieu of using a PW. I know of a couple of cases that said yes, and one that said no. There's a case pending in the 9th Circuit now on this issue. I see it as, police cannot force you to provide the key to your house where you a stolen radio at, but they want you to use your finger to open up a secure phone so they may incriminate you with the contents? For now, I suggest the obvious - take the .05 second to enter in a PW, and do not use your finger for anything less that things you enjoy using it for, since we do not need the government to tell us where to put it!
4th Amend Alive and Well
I write on 4th Amend and technology, http://darrenchaker.us Good to see the courts are keeping the Riley decision alive and well. Opening a phone, is just as the court in this case, altering its current state. Obtaining a warrant is why police have access to on call judges 24/7. Police need to follow the law to get the people who do not follow the law in jail. If police fail to do so, it results in evidence getting kicked out of court, and often times the case follows.
Stingray
Happy to hear about this case. I have used and like D-Vasive, http://dvasive.com/#homePage an anti-Stingray App, which also controls various Apps from using the Mic and Camera. Although the family of the murder victim has a right to be upset at police, at least the suspect was charged with other horrific crimes so did not truly 'get away'. Some suspects are just hard 2 catch.
Re: Brute Force
Great point. I also see this as a case where if the government is successful in forcing the manufacturer to thrart its own decsign, next on the hit list will be whole disk encyption, encrypted email, file encryption and all things we thought were secure. As Bruce Schneier recently posted, there are almost 600 foreign encryption products, hence if American made products are not secure, people will simply look to foreign products for true security.
Possibly we can secure our border where 2.5 million have crossed in in the last 7 years, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/20/number-of-illegals-levels-off-fewer-crossing-mexic/?page=all, to secure this country in before assaulting the Fourth Amendment, encryption technology, American ingenuity, in the name of figuring out what's on the phone of two people who never should have passed screening to get into the USA in the first place. What happened in San Bernardino is being used as hyoe to get backdoors.
RipoffReport Attorney David Gingras - Molestation Arrest
Interesting about the company RipoffReport keeps, where its attorney on this case was arrested child molestation, http://jaburgwilk.blogspot.com/2013/08/david-gingras-molester.html
iPhone Encryption
Not only must encryption be used for the phones, but also good passwords.
David Gingras Child Molest Arrest
See public records about David Gingras. Jaburg Wilk appears as his employer on recent search, http://jaburgwilk.blogspot.com/2013/08/david-gingras-molester.html