They Tried to Throw Me in Jail Before This Documentary Came Out
tube.beit.hinrichs.cc
Follow me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/c/RecklessBen Get some merch: https://westealfromoldpeople.com Follow me on instagram: @recklessbenschneider Animated and directed by Lee Thompson (Ins...

If you’re not familiar with the LEGO scandal, the tl;dw is that this YouTuber Reckless Ben (Ben Schneider) has been investigating a stolen set of LEGO worth ~$100-200k (depending on who you ask) and the local police dept and criminal justice system has been colluding with the criminals (all members of the local Mormon church) to get him to STFU. The long version is, very long. You can check his channel for more.

Previously the local police dept managed to get a warrant to raid Ben’s rental home with guns drawn and arrest him, based on what is clearly fabricated evidence. Here they appear to have done it again to get access to his Google account.

The linked video is mirrored on Peertube and timestamped to the relevant section.

Ben does also provide a copy of the subpoena in the video but I cannot vouch for its’ validity, and he has used placeholder evidence before, but that’s neither here nor there.

Anyway, the part that was relevant to this community was that in the course of their investigation they subpoenaed Google, and Google handed over basically his entire life to them. I’m sure this was very useful in their investigation.

I don’t necessarily blame Google here for complying with a subpoena, but the moral of the story is to stop giving Google your data, because everything you say and do can and will be used against you in a court of law, with or without legitimate justification, and the more stuff you give them, the more ammunition you’re providing the prosecutor.

This is also not exclusive to Google. Anything not local, self-hosted or encrypted a la Proton can be subpoenaed and the provider will have to comply. It just so happens that Google probably has more information about literally everyone in the world than any other particular entity.

  • artyom@piefed.socialOPEnglish
    14·
    6 hours ago

    What makes self hosted data different?

    You can’t be compelled to testify against yourself.

    4pm comes, they are at your door, what are you gonna do?

    If they have a warrant, they can have it. It’s encrypted anyway. If they don’t have a warrant, it’s not admissible in court anyway. Let em have it.

    I just worry that even the holy grail of privacy, i.e. self hosted data, is going to be of little consequence to them.

    It’s outside of their control. Nothing they can do. Encryption is legal.

      • Imaginary_Stand4909@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        2·
        3 hours ago

        Passwords are protected under the 5th Amendment, as it’s something “from your mind” that would fall under self-incriminating. Hence why people say if you’re at a protest with your phone put it into lockdown mode so you have to input a code/password to open it as they can legally force you to use your thumb/face to unlock it.

        We’re pretty fucked up as a nation right now, but in order to repeal or nullify a previous amendment you’d have to get a fuckton of states or representatives to agree and we literally can’t agree on shit, so it’ll never happen (Hell, Prohibition is literally the only amendment we’ve ever repealed in 250 years).

        No law can revoke that and you’d have an easy case if someone did force you to give passwords.

        • ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          1·
          2 hours ago

          Passwords are protected under the 5th Amendment, as it’s something “from your mind” that would fall under self-incriminating

          That argument falls apart quickly if you use a password manager and have it generate your passwords though.

          Edit: and it assumes due process in the justice system, something that seems to be eroding.

          • Imaginary_Stand4909@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
            1·
            37 minutes ago

            Sure, I’ll give you that. But I would assume a person wouldn’t put their phone/laptop password in a password manager as you use it every day. And if you were really planning crazy shit you should keep it on your local device and not posted to your Twitter account imo.

        • PantaloonMonsoon@sh.itjust.works
          1·
          2 hours ago

          This is hilariously wrong. The reality is they can use biometrics to open it without a warrant. They can and will force you to unlock it with a warrant.

          Any lawyers reading this post are either cackling or bashing their head into a brick wall.

          • Imaginary_Stand4909@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
            2·
            42 minutes ago

            Motherfucker I said that biometric ISN’T protected and that you SHOULD go password only for that exact reason. ANd I wasn’t talking about warrants and subpoena, that falls under the 4th Amendment. 5th is self incrimination.

      • PantaloonMonsoon@sh.itjust.works
        3·
        3 hours ago

        It’s not. This reply is incredibly naive. They can compel you to give the password to your phone, why wouldn’t they be able to compel you to give the password to your encryption? There’s a reason so many cases are solved via phone contents even though that’s “testifying against yourself”. If they have a warrant and you refuse you’ll definitely be charged with obstruction. Also in court there’s a concept where if you refuse to provide evidence the court/jury is instructed to assume that it’s as bad as it can possibly be, making sure you’re going to lose.

        • ropatrick@lemmy.world
          1·
          2 hours ago

          That’s what I thought, hence the “I hope…”. I wasn’t hopeful with the “I hope…” 😁.

          I just don’t trust nowadays that there are enough or sufficient safeguards for people, regardless of what way their data is stored. OK you might hold out and not give them your encryption key from your head, and on that singular point you technically win, but at what cost with the litany of other things you will be nailed for, as you have outlined. You can think about that win from your prison cell I guess?

          Loss is almost predetermined in situations like this.

          Most of this seems to relate mainly to the US, and I dont live there, but this shit is still frightening.

          • PantaloonMonsoon@sh.itjust.works
            1·
            2 hours ago

            I would guess this is the case everywhere. If there was, “I don’t want to give you evidence” loophole so many people would walk away no problem. I mean, this literally how Alex Jones lost. They refused to comply with discovery so the judge said you lose, let’s go to the judgement phase. There was no trial.