XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.mobile.android   
   From: bashley101@gmail.com   
      
   On 01/06/2016 03:47 PM, Lewis wrote:   
   > In message <0001HW.1C3CCACE0A27E8AF10CF373CF@news.giganews.com>   
   >    Savageduck  wrote:   
   >> On Jan 5, 2016, F Murtz wrote   
   >> (in article<568c8dc3$0$65279$c3e8da3$e074e489@news.astraweb.com>):   
   >   
   >>> PAS wrote:   
   >>> > "Jolly Roger"wrote in message   
   >>> > news:devqebF4fotU3@mid.individual.net...   
   >>> > > On 2016-01-04, Jolly Roger wrote:   
   >>> > > > (PeteCresswell)wrote:   
   >>> > > > > Per Lewis:   
   >>> > > > > > > That if anyone finds his phone laying on a desk or table etc   
   they   
   >>> > > > > > > can cause   
   >>> > > > > > > it to self-destruct in just five touches.   
   >>> > > > > >   
   >>> > > > > > What the fuck are you talking about>   
   >>> > > > >   
   >>> > > > > I think he is referring to phone security systems that initiate   
   data   
   >>> > > > > deletion if/when somebody attempts to log on with the wrong PW.   
   >>> > > >   
   >>> > > > What does that have to do with a law that prevents cops from   
   accessing   
   >> a   
   >>> > > > device without a court order?   
   >>> > >   
   >>> > > More to the point: Since the law prohibits cops from accessing devices   
   >>> > > without a court order, the need for wiping the device after a certain   
   >>> > > number of failed attempts is diminished rather than increased.   
   >>> >   
   >>> > It's not safe to assume that the cops will obey the law. For example,   
   >>> > it's Constitutionally protected under the 1st Amendment to   
   >>> > photograph/record the police in public. That hasn't stopped the police   
   >>> > from arresting people for doing it at worst, harassing them for doing it   
   >>> > at best.   
   >>>   
   >>> And if they do access your phone and find something then even without   
   >>> being able to use it they then know you are suss and can concentrate on   
   >>> finding legal evidence   
   >   
   >> ...and that is only bad for you, if you are a criminal. Strangely enough   
   >> there are a few of those out there.   
   >   
   > Oh right, because the police and the prosecutors never set out a   
   > multi-year systematic system of intentionally framing and convicting   
   > people they *know* are innocent?   
   >   
   > Oh wait, that happens *every* *fucking* *day*.   
      
   I just binge-watched Making A Murderer.  Not a single member of the   
   legal establishment involved, most especially the judges and juries who   
   should have stood up halfway through the trials and demanded that the   
   cases be dismissed immediately, was anything but evil.   
      
   The good defense lawyer said that the prosecutors weren't going after   
   people they knew to be innocent, just people they thought were guilty   
   and so they were justified in the shitty things they did.  I think the   
   lawyer said that, contrary to what he actually believed, out of simple   
   fear.  A lawyer wouldn't be as easy to railroad as a bunch of   
   "challenged" people, but it wouldn't be impossible.   
      
   --   
   Cheers, Bev   
   =====================================================   
   "America is at an awkward stage: it is too late to work within the   
   system, but it is too early to shoot the bastards."  -Claire Wolfe   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)