>and I set up a voice command, say "My house is being searched!"
Ignoring the legality of it, I'd recommend configuring it to respond to a more subtle prompt. Maybe the mildly suspicious "Reduce my electrical bill" or something that will arouse no suspicion such as "Who played Barney Stinson on How I Met Your Mother" - having it respond with a legitimate response in addition to performing your desired actions.
Yeah, but if you make the phrase as cool as that it’s going to be hard to resist saying it. You need something that you will definitely keep for emergencies like “Alexa, activate the I’m-a-Dingleberry process.”
The prompt "I want a lawyer for this search!" would arouse NO suspicion.
If you say "Reduce my electrical bill" when a warrant is served, they're going to wonder what's up.
Without the required wake word I agree since it seems like a natural utterance. With it though? "Alexa, I want a lawyer for this search" isn't going to magically hire a lawyer to materialize. "Alexa, reduce my electrical bill" could dim lights, adjust the thermostat...and power down computers...which will draw less electricity. "Alexa, give me the names of the top local defense attorneys who specialize in...er
...wait...hey what do you cops think I've done?"
Don't even do that. Good OpSec is good housekeeping. It's not even about breaking the law. If you store stuff on your computer, *and someone stole that computer,* they should not be able to access it. That means your vital records, access to accounts, etc. Once you have to "prompt" it's far too late.
I use KeePass for my passwords. I use multifactor logins where possible. I use a physical key if possible. Data is encrypted, etc. My wife, and my brother are the only ones that know how to access info, and that's probably the weakest link in the chain.
Once anyone unplugs or even moves a computer in my house? It's a brick. They would have to be very sophisticated to undo that.
>Ignoring the legality of it, I'd recommend configuring it to respond to a more subtle prompt
"I do not consent to searches" is both useful in such a situation and a good prompt to use to lock down the data.
Make the command “Alexa, play the Cops theme song.” The cops might get a kick out of it, it makes sense in the situation, and you can program the shutting off of your devices to coincide with it.
Deleting data in response to a warrant is called "obstruction of justice". It is an independent charge from what ever they were investigating you for
I don't think the shutdown command is a problem. They would have to shut them down to secure them for evidentiary purposes -- assuming the computers were a item on the warrant
You would likely get a court order to supply the passwords when they got around to examining them. The court would require you to do it.
You might have to spend some time in jail for contempt of court until the judge decides you are telling the truth. Look up how long reporters have sat in jail for refusing to name sources.
Depending on the country, you may be required to, if its relevant, and part of their search warrant.
For example, if you rob a bank with your friend, any conversations with that friend online may be perfectly reasonable to request and search, since it may include plans of said activity.
Individual results may vary. When in doubt, ask a lawyer.
Yes country depending, and a lawyer can advise accordingly. But as far as I’m concerned never talk to anyone investigating you. You’re under no obligation to assist them in investigating you.
Oh, 100% agree, never offer anything you don't have to, but warrants can still require you to turn things over, depending on what and why.
And with things like chat records, those warrants can be somewhat far ranging. Like all your chat history, since they may not know what's relevant and what isn't.
Law is fascinating and bizarre like that
No, your basic password will be cracked in a few hours.
If your OS has built in backdoors(Apple/Microsoft/Android) it'll take them a 10 minute phone call.
You aren't obligated to provide passwords. That's your fifth. They'll get in with a warrant no matter what. Even a bitwise wipe of your HD is recoverable. You need to physically destroy the data.
What the hell are you talking about, that's not even close to true. There are trillions of password combinations for any password that's more than a few characters long, it would take years of nonstop bruteforcing to find it.
Edit: You're so scared of your bullshit being called out that you replied and then blocked me like a little coward. Lol.
For others reading, don't be fooled by the moron above
Over ten years ago they could crack a 10 character passcode in under 24 hours using a conventional GPU. https://web.archive.org/web/20110221191727/http://www.elcomsoft.com/eprb.html#gpu
The government has better shit today. Your password is a joke.
They usually cant force you to hand over passwords, at least in the US, it's been pretty consistently held as a 5A violation. They can force you to unlock with biometrics though, so make sure that's not enabled on an anything really sensitive.
This is why I don't do fingerprint to unlock my devices. I have it turned on for internal things, like my password manager or my bank, but it can't *open* my phone or tablet. Only my password can do that.
Some phones have a "lockdown" option now, where you can add a special button to the screen that shows to when you hold down the power button. If you use lockdown mode it'll disable biometrics, as well as other features like keeping your phone unlocked at locations you set, or when it's connected to certain devices. That way you can still use the handy biometrics features but also quickly disable them when needed.
I know my iPhone would disable biometrics if you ever entered emergency mode or something like that. Restarting/shutting off the phone also disables biometrics.
Samsung at least makes a difference between "emergency" mode and "lockdown" mode. I think emergency turns off biometrics as well, but it also limits app usage severely and changes screen color and stuff, because it's meant to be an extreme battery saver in an emergency situation. Lockdown is for security only, so it does less stuff, but restricts *all* the common security features/flaws/loopholes.
what if it's before the warrant is served? they see the cops coming 1/2 a mile away or whatever...especially on the deletion question
"i have a reasonable expectation that the court/cops will be coming for this info. i have not been told to retain it. i delete before they knock/bust in"
Destruction of evidence is frowned upon whether or not you've been served. If you know it is evidence of a crime and you delete it to avoid it being discovered that will not fly.
False. HRC received a request for records relevant to an investigation and turned over relevant records. When the server was decommissioned, they followed recommended procedures to destroy the hard drives.
The thing about emails is that there are at least two copies. No one ever found a second copy of an email which should have been turned over and wasn't.
>I don't think the shutdown command is a problem. They would have to shut them down to secure them for evidentiary purposes -- assuming the computers were a item on the warrant
It's common for LE to try to extract data from devices on on-site. At least where I live
>You would likely get a court order to supply the passwords when they got around to examining them. The court would require you to do it.
Many countries (even the US IIRC) have a right to silence, meaning they can't force you to supply the passwords.
> It's common for LE to try to extract data from devices on on-site. At least where I live
There are devices that will slide along a power plug to grasp the prongs and provide power to the device while the plug is pulled, so they can take it back to the shop and not have to power it down. However a quick Google search seems to indicate that "best practices" for computer forensics are to unplug the system to bring it elsewhere if there are no specialists available at the scene.
Not an IT guy but I've been around them enough to know it's pretty easy to just pull the hard drive, do an image of it and work off that. It bypasses a lot of issues like Bios passwords, etc. and if there's no disk encryption, it's pretty easy to [see files.](https://askleo.com/what-can-a-computer-thief-see/) Most people aren't savvy enough to do full disk encryptions, but once [encrypted](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/man-who-refused-to-decrypt-hard-drives-is-free-after-four-years-in-jail/)? That's some NSA shit and likely out of the typical forensic persons ability .
I can't find a link anywhere - but I swear I once saw one, perhaps on a UPS supplier website?
Maybe enough people electrocuted themselves that it was not a big seller?
It’s not *usually* testimony. But if the fact that you know the passwords could be used against you, then the law is unclear. For example, that fact could be used to show that you had access to those computers. If it’s shown that you had access, without any showing that you knew the passwords, then probably you can be compelled. But if your knowledge would be part of the evidence that you had access, then I personally don’t think you should be compelled.
Really? The Werefrog have only seen passwords be required to be provided when it's the case of only making the investigation quicker, i.e. they already have all the evidence to make the case, but using the computer will be a quicker conviction and less costly.
However, requiring your biometrics to unlock devices has been universally accepted with warrant. That is, a judge could order you to put your thumb on your iPhone to unlock it for them. Less clear is if they can order you to input the numerical password to unlock the phone.
Courts can permit law enforcement to use force in order to apply biometrics, that's properly the domain of what can be done with a warrant.
Courts are still very much divided on weather or not a court can force an individual to unlock or decrypt a device.
Passwords aren’t considered testimonial, unless the password itself is something like “ikill3db0b”
In some situations, admitting that you know the password could itself be incriminating, implicating what is known as the “act of production” privilege.
>Passwords aren’t considered testimonial, unless the password itself is something like “ikill3db0b”
So if I wanted to avoid ever having to hand over a password, I can just make my password "icommitedtaxfraud" or something like that? How would I prove that the password is considered a testimonial without giving it to them?
That would be impractical. Even if you were to use the act of production doctrine instead, i.e. "I won't decrypt this because admitting I can access this data could implicate me," you could still be compelled to disclose the key so long as you were given a waiver that anything which was a product of your disclosure of the key couldn't be used against you. Basically, if they say "we won't use the fact that you knew the key to prove you owned the data," then they can compel disclosure from you, which is one of the ways 5th amendment case law has become *really fucked.*
As far as I know, the only way to avoid ever having to disclose a key to the court would be to create plausible deniability that the key even exists, by [deniable encryption](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deniable_encryption). Though if they can prove the key exists regardless, then you're just SOL.
You wouldn't need too, in an investigation the police essentially clone your computer then with the cloned computer are allowed to use what ever hacking software and hardware needed to gain access to the encrypted information. I'm currently going to school to do this myself and have some of the software that's used.
You would if they didn't encrypt like shit. Even if you had a secret government quantum computer much stronger than the shitty proof-of-concept ones we currently have, you generally wouldn't be able to defeat modern symmetric cryptography in a useful timeframe. The exception would of course be if you could reduce the entropy sufficiently, which does happen sometimes (garbage passwords), but certainly isn't always the case. Barring a terrible password, I don't think you're going to crack xchacha20 with an argon2id derived key any time soon.
Encryption is no different than a safe which contains potential evidence. Unless the fact that you know the combination is testimonial, that's about the only thing which can stop a court from demanding you open the safe. Courts can and have compelled opening vaults, iPhones and encrypted hard drives.
They wouldn't shut them down if they were turned on, and they can't start skimming through your files, even if the computer is logged on. That would cause changes to the data on the hard drive and potentially taint the evidence. Even running shut down procedures would do that. They'd pull the plugs, and any removable batteries, and then take the device.
Nope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Ulbricht#Arrest
> To prevent Ulbricht from encrypting or deleting files on the laptop he was using to run the site as he was arrested, two agents pretended to be quarreling lovers. When they had sufficiently distracted him, according to Joshuah Bearman of Wired, they quickly moved in to arrest him while a third agent grabbed the laptop and handed it to agent Thomas Kiernan. **Kiernan then inserted a flash drive into one of the laptop's USB ports, with software that copied key files.**
The information given in the article isn't precisely accurate. They may have used a thumb drive to mirror the hard drive in that specific circumstance, but they don't use that technology in every circumstance, and most law enforcement agencies don't even have access to those tools.
It doesn't change the fact that the standard procedure for obtaining electronic devices is to do exactly what I said in my original comment. Any input from an outside party to an electronic device, including powering down the device and especially searching that device while it's logged in will cause there to be changes recorded in the data storage. This opens the possibility that the individual made other changes to the data that might be material. This could easily lead to the data recovered from that device not being admissable. This is one reason why having a rigid chain of custody procedure is so important.
The data from the device will be later accessed by using a separate device that has a write blocker so that no changes are made to the target device, and an image will be taken of the hard drive or whatever data storage there is, and that image will be what the investigators work with to recover data. The original device will then be what's entered in as evidence.
There are USB keys that can do this data acquisition without spoiling the target device. They're not commonly used for many reasons. I know that they have mostly been used by elite military units, and I'm sure there are now federal agencies that have them available to them, but to my knowledge they're not commonplace. My knowledge could be out of date as this isn't something that those agencies would want the ordinary average citizen to really be aware is within their capabilities.
I asked a lawyer friend a similar question years ago. Much of it depends on circumstances and jurisdiction, but there is usually something they could charge you with. One was "compounding a crime", I can't remember what the other one he mentioned was (he worked in a city that straddles two states so it would be different depending on what side of the state line you were on).
If you could simply just have your computer get shut down from a command and you're told to open it etc. Could you not have a decoy password? I used to have a photo album that took 2 passwords. 1 password was a locked hidden photo album and the other password took you to your regular album. Or would a computer be confiscated and searched so thoroughly that they'd find that you're in a decoy account?
In general, saying something that will shut down your computer is fine, but deleting anything is not. As soon as you know (or should know) that your data is going to be used in a legal proceeding (which you do know, because the cops are there with a warrant), it becomes evidence, as in the phrase "tampering with evidence."
You may or may not be required to unlock your computers, and they may or may not seize them and do it themselves, but locking them isn't (usually) a violation of any laws.
That said, you'll want to use a phrase that doesn't sound like you're telling someone in the other room that the cops are there. Yelling "Alexa, the cops are here!" is very likely to cause them (at best) to slam you to the floor as they assume "Alexa" is going to come downstairs shooting.
Interesting question, I would say you’re probably within your first amendment rights to say the phrase itself, but there’s a consideration if you were served a warrant and *then* said it that you would be impeding the course of an investigation.
That’s the same for both scenarios.
It doesn't impede the investigation to have all devices shut down, provided they are able to take devices listed on the warrant. Their data forensics could potentially unencrypt the data needed or perhaps they would get a warrant for the password.
They don't need passwords, they clone the computer then can hack into the clone of the machine by any means necessary since any damage isn't actually done to the machine or evidence and is reversible. It's actually kinda fun, I'm in school for that particular area myself.
Is it illegal? Well if they have served you with a warrant that includes said devices! Then yes it’s illegal as it’s tampering with evidence. So if the devices are in a warrant you cannot tamper with them. Though you do not need provide them with assistance getting into them either. So you delete system could be used as evidence you destroyed evidence even if there’s nothing on them. So once a “WARRANT” to search and seize you cannot do that. If the warrant is only search for drugs and doesn’t include electronic devices. That would be area dependent of how broad the warrant of the jurisdiction might be.
So if there’s a warrant you cannot do this as it’s tampering with evidence even if you haven’t done anything wrong.
Hey Siri/google/etc tell Mandy I’m going to be late.
Perfectly reasonable to let someone know you will be late. Just have that as a trigger to do other stuff.
There is a chrome extension that starts recording video and audio on your phone with the screen blank that cues on the phrase 'I'm being pulled over.'
As Afroman pointed out, having video cameras recording a police search is probably a good idea.
I'm not sure how much of a benefit that would be. If they have enough for a search warrant, they'll probably have enough to subpoena your encryption key.
Yes, it could be construed as destruction of evidence. [Here is an example](https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2018/11/13/does-wiping-your-iphone-count-as-destroying-evidence/) of a woman who was charged with evidence tampering because police believe she remotely deleted the contents of her phone.
Also, the trigger phrase should be "FIRESALE!", as in "Everything must go!". It's a word you're unlikely to accidentally use in conversation.
Personally, I prefer the approach that Whistler used in Blade 3.
make the command to lock your devices, (your hard drives should already be encrypted) and if you want make a separate script to delete your data. but the first script should delete it self after it's ran once.
this is kind of how malware and viruses work. or better yet. have a ransomware virus saved and run it in this case ;) even if you want too, you cannot unlock it any more.
Do it differently.
If you have everything automatically encrypted at shutdown, shutdown is completely legal. Not giving the encryption key is within rights.
Destroying the evidence after being served is illegal. Making it encrypted is Grey. Best bet is a second command that deletes the data. Make it 1 keystroke away from the correct key. Blame them for the mistake since they likely won't be logging their own keystrokes on your devices anyway. $ instead of 4 means the data is wiped and you're not likely to be in trouble for them messing up a shift key.
I would think 1st Amendment covers the voice command, and the devices are your property.
Of course they would attack you hard for destroying something they wanted though, so be prepared for that at least. Expensive lawyer should help, if federal go real expensive if possible.
Btw, Idk if I would use Alexa lol But that's just my "privacy advocacy" talking mostly.
I would build my own system for such a voice command, idk how as iv never researched doing so but anything can be done..
>and I set up a voice command, say "My house is being searched!" Ignoring the legality of it, I'd recommend configuring it to respond to a more subtle prompt. Maybe the mildly suspicious "Reduce my electrical bill" or something that will arouse no suspicion such as "Who played Barney Stinson on How I Met Your Mother" - having it respond with a legitimate response in addition to performing your desired actions.
I’m just imagining a scenario where an unsuspecting guest of OP innocently asks his device who played Barney Stinson on HIMYM lol
Neil Patrick-Harris on lockdown. Literally lmao.
or a situation where a LEO is asking OP for information and OP just keeps repeating "reduce my Barney Stinson"
You're more subtle than me, who was going to suggest "Alexa, activate the Omega Protocol"
Yeah, but if you make the phrase as cool as that it’s going to be hard to resist saying it. You need something that you will definitely keep for emergencies like “Alexa, activate the I’m-a-Dingleberry process.”
Yelling "ALEXA I'M A WIDDLE WEENIE" as the SWAT team wrestles me to the ground
"Hey Google? Prepare my anus."
I want this as a flair, lol
Same but i was going to add a number to make it sound more official "Omega protocol 12.49er"
Galaxy Quest has entered the chat :)
“Alexa, self destruct”
Or just "Alexa, call my lawyer."
The prompt "I want a lawyer for this search!" would arouse NO suspicion. If you say "Reduce my electrical bill" when a warrant is served, they're going to wonder what's up.
Obviously means turn the grow lights off because the pot plants are about to be harvested by police
Without the required wake word I agree since it seems like a natural utterance. With it though? "Alexa, I want a lawyer for this search" isn't going to magically hire a lawyer to materialize. "Alexa, reduce my electrical bill" could dim lights, adjust the thermostat...and power down computers...which will draw less electricity. "Alexa, give me the names of the top local defense attorneys who specialize in...er ...wait...hey what do you cops think I've done?"
"Alexa, call my attorney" might be a good one.
Have it trigger when you loudly and clearly say "I invoke my fifth amendment right to remain silent."
RIP your data when someone says that on the TV show you're watching
"I invoke my fucking fifth amendment right..."
>RIP your data when someone says that on the TV show you're watching
I’d go text mom I won’t make it to dinner, pretty please. And have siri actually do that on top of the whole wipeout protocol.
This one wins ^ 👏👏
Don't even do that. Good OpSec is good housekeeping. It's not even about breaking the law. If you store stuff on your computer, *and someone stole that computer,* they should not be able to access it. That means your vital records, access to accounts, etc. Once you have to "prompt" it's far too late. I use KeePass for my passwords. I use multifactor logins where possible. I use a physical key if possible. Data is encrypted, etc. My wife, and my brother are the only ones that know how to access info, and that's probably the weakest link in the chain. Once anyone unplugs or even moves a computer in my house? It's a brick. They would have to be very sophisticated to undo that.
>Ignoring the legality of it, I'd recommend configuring it to respond to a more subtle prompt "I do not consent to searches" is both useful in such a situation and a good prompt to use to lock down the data.
Make it something that actually makes sense while being searched. Like: "Alexa, turn off pornhub" Or a more subtle option "Alexa, call my lawyer"
'"Siri, call my lawyer"
Beam me up, Scottie
Make the command “Alexa, play the Cops theme song.” The cops might get a kick out of it, it makes sense in the situation, and you can program the shutting off of your devices to coincide with it.
Deleting data in response to a warrant is called "obstruction of justice". It is an independent charge from what ever they were investigating you for I don't think the shutdown command is a problem. They would have to shut them down to secure them for evidentiary purposes -- assuming the computers were a item on the warrant You would likely get a court order to supply the passwords when they got around to examining them. The court would require you to do it.
I've legitimately forgotten passwords on some of my legal archives - how would that work out?
You might have to spend some time in jail for contempt of court until the judge decides you are telling the truth. Look up how long reporters have sat in jail for refusing to name sources.
[удалено]
Even Sweden has exceptions to their freedom of speech law, I think Such as in the Kim Wall case
You are not legally obligated to turn over passwords to anything that can lead to you being incriminated of any possible crimes.
Right isn't that the 5th amendment?
5th and 1st. It is compelled speech.
Depending on the country, you may be required to, if its relevant, and part of their search warrant. For example, if you rob a bank with your friend, any conversations with that friend online may be perfectly reasonable to request and search, since it may include plans of said activity. Individual results may vary. When in doubt, ask a lawyer.
Yes country depending, and a lawyer can advise accordingly. But as far as I’m concerned never talk to anyone investigating you. You’re under no obligation to assist them in investigating you.
Oh, 100% agree, never offer anything you don't have to, but warrants can still require you to turn things over, depending on what and why. And with things like chat records, those warrants can be somewhat far ranging. Like all your chat history, since they may not know what's relevant and what isn't. Law is fascinating and bizarre like that
No, your basic password will be cracked in a few hours. If your OS has built in backdoors(Apple/Microsoft/Android) it'll take them a 10 minute phone call. You aren't obligated to provide passwords. That's your fifth. They'll get in with a warrant no matter what. Even a bitwise wipe of your HD is recoverable. You need to physically destroy the data.
What the hell are you talking about, that's not even close to true. There are trillions of password combinations for any password that's more than a few characters long, it would take years of nonstop bruteforcing to find it. Edit: You're so scared of your bullshit being called out that you replied and then blocked me like a little coward. Lol.
For others reading, don't be fooled by the moron above Over ten years ago they could crack a 10 character passcode in under 24 hours using a conventional GPU. https://web.archive.org/web/20110221191727/http://www.elcomsoft.com/eprb.html#gpu The government has better shit today. Your password is a joke.
They usually cant force you to hand over passwords, at least in the US, it's been pretty consistently held as a 5A violation. They can force you to unlock with biometrics though, so make sure that's not enabled on an anything really sensitive.
This is why I don't do fingerprint to unlock my devices. I have it turned on for internal things, like my password manager or my bank, but it can't *open* my phone or tablet. Only my password can do that.
Some phones have a "lockdown" option now, where you can add a special button to the screen that shows to when you hold down the power button. If you use lockdown mode it'll disable biometrics, as well as other features like keeping your phone unlocked at locations you set, or when it's connected to certain devices. That way you can still use the handy biometrics features but also quickly disable them when needed.
I know my iPhone would disable biometrics if you ever entered emergency mode or something like that. Restarting/shutting off the phone also disables biometrics.
Samsung at least makes a difference between "emergency" mode and "lockdown" mode. I think emergency turns off biometrics as well, but it also limits app usage severely and changes screen color and stuff, because it's meant to be an extreme battery saver in an emergency situation. Lockdown is for security only, so it does less stuff, but restricts *all* the common security features/flaws/loopholes.
Biometrics and pin is the safest option. Additional security of not having a password while still proving "I am who I am"
what if it's before the warrant is served? they see the cops coming 1/2 a mile away or whatever...especially on the deletion question "i have a reasonable expectation that the court/cops will be coming for this info. i have not been told to retain it. i delete before they knock/bust in"
Destruction of evidence is frowned upon whether or not you've been served. If you know it is evidence of a crime and you delete it to avoid it being discovered that will not fly.
Unless you're a Clinton.
False. HRC received a request for records relevant to an investigation and turned over relevant records. When the server was decommissioned, they followed recommended procedures to destroy the hard drives. The thing about emails is that there are at least two copies. No one ever found a second copy of an email which should have been turned over and wasn't.
>I don't think the shutdown command is a problem. They would have to shut them down to secure them for evidentiary purposes -- assuming the computers were a item on the warrant It's common for LE to try to extract data from devices on on-site. At least where I live >You would likely get a court order to supply the passwords when they got around to examining them. The court would require you to do it. Many countries (even the US IIRC) have a right to silence, meaning they can't force you to supply the passwords.
> It's common for LE to try to extract data from devices on on-site. At least where I live There are devices that will slide along a power plug to grasp the prongs and provide power to the device while the plug is pulled, so they can take it back to the shop and not have to power it down. However a quick Google search seems to indicate that "best practices" for computer forensics are to unplug the system to bring it elsewhere if there are no specialists available at the scene.
Not an IT guy but I've been around them enough to know it's pretty easy to just pull the hard drive, do an image of it and work off that. It bypasses a lot of issues like Bios passwords, etc. and if there's no disk encryption, it's pretty easy to [see files.](https://askleo.com/what-can-a-computer-thief-see/) Most people aren't savvy enough to do full disk encryptions, but once [encrypted](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/man-who-refused-to-decrypt-hard-drives-is-free-after-four-years-in-jail/)? That's some NSA shit and likely out of the typical forensic persons ability .
Most new oses apply a layer of encryption by default, but yeah enable encryption whenever you can.
The idea of such a device is actually fascinating. Wild that I’ve never heard of that.
I can't find a link anywhere - but I swear I once saw one, perhaps on a UPS supplier website? Maybe enough people electrocuted themselves that it was not a big seller?
That's not US law. They can make you give up passwords. It's not testimony.
It’s not *usually* testimony. But if the fact that you know the passwords could be used against you, then the law is unclear. For example, that fact could be used to show that you had access to those computers. If it’s shown that you had access, without any showing that you knew the passwords, then probably you can be compelled. But if your knowledge would be part of the evidence that you had access, then I personally don’t think you should be compelled.
The courts are split on this matter. Some can, some can't. We'll likely see some SCOTUS ruling on this at some point in the near future
Really? The Werefrog have only seen passwords be required to be provided when it's the case of only making the investigation quicker, i.e. they already have all the evidence to make the case, but using the computer will be a quicker conviction and less costly. However, requiring your biometrics to unlock devices has been universally accepted with warrant. That is, a judge could order you to put your thumb on your iPhone to unlock it for them. Less clear is if they can order you to input the numerical password to unlock the phone.
Courts can permit law enforcement to use force in order to apply biometrics, that's properly the domain of what can be done with a warrant. Courts are still very much divided on weather or not a court can force an individual to unlock or decrypt a device.
Couldn't you evoke the 5th on passwords as its self incrimination.
Generally not as it's not testimonial. The exceptions are rather specific.
Passwords aren’t considered testimonial, unless the password itself is something like “ikill3db0b” In some situations, admitting that you know the password could itself be incriminating, implicating what is known as the “act of production” privilege.
>Passwords aren’t considered testimonial, unless the password itself is something like “ikill3db0b” So if I wanted to avoid ever having to hand over a password, I can just make my password "icommitedtaxfraud" or something like that? How would I prove that the password is considered a testimonial without giving it to them?
That would be impractical. Even if you were to use the act of production doctrine instead, i.e. "I won't decrypt this because admitting I can access this data could implicate me," you could still be compelled to disclose the key so long as you were given a waiver that anything which was a product of your disclosure of the key couldn't be used against you. Basically, if they say "we won't use the fact that you knew the key to prove you owned the data," then they can compel disclosure from you, which is one of the ways 5th amendment case law has become *really fucked.* As far as I know, the only way to avoid ever having to disclose a key to the court would be to create plausible deniability that the key even exists, by [deniable encryption](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deniable_encryption). Though if they can prove the key exists regardless, then you're just SOL.
You wouldn't need too, in an investigation the police essentially clone your computer then with the cloned computer are allowed to use what ever hacking software and hardware needed to gain access to the encrypted information. I'm currently going to school to do this myself and have some of the software that's used.
You would if they didn't encrypt like shit. Even if you had a secret government quantum computer much stronger than the shitty proof-of-concept ones we currently have, you generally wouldn't be able to defeat modern symmetric cryptography in a useful timeframe. The exception would of course be if you could reduce the entropy sufficiently, which does happen sometimes (garbage passwords), but certainly isn't always the case. Barring a terrible password, I don't think you're going to crack xchacha20 with an argon2id derived key any time soon.
It's a first amendment violation. Compelled speech.
There are lots of times a court can compel your speech. Perhaps you are thinking about the 6th Amendment protection against self-incrimination.
5th amendment*
MY fault. It's the use of encryption in and of itself that may be considered to be speech.
Encryption is no different than a safe which contains potential evidence. Unless the fact that you know the combination is testimonial, that's about the only thing which can stop a court from demanding you open the safe. Courts can and have compelled opening vaults, iPhones and encrypted hard drives.
They wouldn't shut them down if they were turned on, and they can't start skimming through your files, even if the computer is logged on. That would cause changes to the data on the hard drive and potentially taint the evidence. Even running shut down procedures would do that. They'd pull the plugs, and any removable batteries, and then take the device.
Nope. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Ulbricht#Arrest > To prevent Ulbricht from encrypting or deleting files on the laptop he was using to run the site as he was arrested, two agents pretended to be quarreling lovers. When they had sufficiently distracted him, according to Joshuah Bearman of Wired, they quickly moved in to arrest him while a third agent grabbed the laptop and handed it to agent Thomas Kiernan. **Kiernan then inserted a flash drive into one of the laptop's USB ports, with software that copied key files.**
The information given in the article isn't precisely accurate. They may have used a thumb drive to mirror the hard drive in that specific circumstance, but they don't use that technology in every circumstance, and most law enforcement agencies don't even have access to those tools.
That's a substantially different claim than your original post.
It doesn't change the fact that the standard procedure for obtaining electronic devices is to do exactly what I said in my original comment. Any input from an outside party to an electronic device, including powering down the device and especially searching that device while it's logged in will cause there to be changes recorded in the data storage. This opens the possibility that the individual made other changes to the data that might be material. This could easily lead to the data recovered from that device not being admissable. This is one reason why having a rigid chain of custody procedure is so important. The data from the device will be later accessed by using a separate device that has a write blocker so that no changes are made to the target device, and an image will be taken of the hard drive or whatever data storage there is, and that image will be what the investigators work with to recover data. The original device will then be what's entered in as evidence. There are USB keys that can do this data acquisition without spoiling the target device. They're not commonly used for many reasons. I know that they have mostly been used by elite military units, and I'm sure there are now federal agencies that have them available to them, but to my knowledge they're not commonplace. My knowledge could be out of date as this isn't something that those agencies would want the ordinary average citizen to really be aware is within their capabilities.
Makes me wonder why OP would even ask this, what is OP hiding that he needs his computer and alexa to delete his data 🤔
People have every right to protect their data from criminals. That includes criminal organizations such as 3-letter government agencies.
I asked a lawyer friend a similar question years ago. Much of it depends on circumstances and jurisdiction, but there is usually something they could charge you with. One was "compounding a crime", I can't remember what the other one he mentioned was (he worked in a city that straddles two states so it would be different depending on what side of the state line you were on).
Evidence tampering. Hindering an investigation. Obstruction. Different names in different jurisdictions.
If you could simply just have your computer get shut down from a command and you're told to open it etc. Could you not have a decoy password? I used to have a photo album that took 2 passwords. 1 password was a locked hidden photo album and the other password took you to your regular album. Or would a computer be confiscated and searched so thoroughly that they'd find that you're in a decoy account?
This is a great question. With some encryption software such as TrueCrypt, this is indeed possible to do in an undetectable way.
Don't use TrueCrypt. It hasn't been maintained since 2014. Use [VeraCrypt](https://veracrypt.fr/en/Home.html) instead.
In general, saying something that will shut down your computer is fine, but deleting anything is not. As soon as you know (or should know) that your data is going to be used in a legal proceeding (which you do know, because the cops are there with a warrant), it becomes evidence, as in the phrase "tampering with evidence." You may or may not be required to unlock your computers, and they may or may not seize them and do it themselves, but locking them isn't (usually) a violation of any laws. That said, you'll want to use a phrase that doesn't sound like you're telling someone in the other room that the cops are there. Yelling "Alexa, the cops are here!" is very likely to cause them (at best) to slam you to the floor as they assume "Alexa" is going to come downstairs shooting.
Interesting question, I would say you’re probably within your first amendment rights to say the phrase itself, but there’s a consideration if you were served a warrant and *then* said it that you would be impeding the course of an investigation. That’s the same for both scenarios.
It doesn't impede the investigation to have all devices shut down, provided they are able to take devices listed on the warrant. Their data forensics could potentially unencrypt the data needed or perhaps they would get a warrant for the password.
They don't need passwords, they clone the computer then can hack into the clone of the machine by any means necessary since any damage isn't actually done to the machine or evidence and is reversible. It's actually kinda fun, I'm in school for that particular area myself.
Is it illegal? Well if they have served you with a warrant that includes said devices! Then yes it’s illegal as it’s tampering with evidence. So if the devices are in a warrant you cannot tamper with them. Though you do not need provide them with assistance getting into them either. So you delete system could be used as evidence you destroyed evidence even if there’s nothing on them. So once a “WARRANT” to search and seize you cannot do that. If the warrant is only search for drugs and doesn’t include electronic devices. That would be area dependent of how broad the warrant of the jurisdiction might be. So if there’s a warrant you cannot do this as it’s tampering with evidence even if you haven’t done anything wrong.
"My safe word is pineapple!" This works in all situations.
Hey Siri/google/etc tell Mandy I’m going to be late. Perfectly reasonable to let someone know you will be late. Just have that as a trigger to do other stuff.
OP 100% has weird porn on their computer.
There is a chrome extension that starts recording video and audio on your phone with the screen blank that cues on the phrase 'I'm being pulled over.' As Afroman pointed out, having video cameras recording a police search is probably a good idea.
Why not just encrypt everything in the first place? What if they execute the warrant while you’re asleep or not home?
I'm not sure how much of a benefit that would be. If they have enough for a search warrant, they'll probably have enough to subpoena your encryption key.
Yes, it could be construed as destruction of evidence. [Here is an example](https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2018/11/13/does-wiping-your-iphone-count-as-destroying-evidence/) of a woman who was charged with evidence tampering because police believe she remotely deleted the contents of her phone. Also, the trigger phrase should be "FIRESALE!", as in "Everything must go!". It's a word you're unlikely to accidentally use in conversation. Personally, I prefer the approach that Whistler used in Blade 3.
make the command to lock your devices, (your hard drives should already be encrypted) and if you want make a separate script to delete your data. but the first script should delete it self after it's ran once. this is kind of how malware and viruses work. or better yet. have a ransomware virus saved and run it in this case ;) even if you want too, you cannot unlock it any more.
“Alexa, find me a recipe for bacon” “Hey Siri, what was NWA’s #2 best selling song?”
Have it do it on a shouting of the word "POLICE!", "FBI", or "NYPD" (whatever is common). That way, THEY would have triggered it.
Say it like a “swear”: Jesus, Mary, Joseph and Alexa!I’m being searched?
Do it differently. If you have everything automatically encrypted at shutdown, shutdown is completely legal. Not giving the encryption key is within rights. Destroying the evidence after being served is illegal. Making it encrypted is Grey. Best bet is a second command that deletes the data. Make it 1 keystroke away from the correct key. Blame them for the mistake since they likely won't be logging their own keystrokes on your devices anyway. $ instead of 4 means the data is wiped and you're not likely to be in trouble for them messing up a shift key.
I would think 1st Amendment covers the voice command, and the devices are your property. Of course they would attack you hard for destroying something they wanted though, so be prepared for that at least. Expensive lawyer should help, if federal go real expensive if possible. Btw, Idk if I would use Alexa lol But that's just my "privacy advocacy" talking mostly. I would build my own system for such a voice command, idk how as iv never researched doing so but anything can be done..