Apple to Police: Take your warrant and shove it.....

[pit5000]

If you never have abused your children the answer is no. It's not a leading question. You don't have to stop if you never started.

 

but how would an uninformed or stupid jury interpret it? Lawyers will spin it in any number of ways.

[Opcode]

what defines a locked device?

if i have a passcode on it? if its stolen and i disable it? a carrier specific device?

 

edit~

"With iOS 8, Apple has changed the way its encryption works. With the newest version of Apple's mobile software in place, the company says it can no longer bypass a user's passcode—meaning that even if U.S. law enforcement presents Apple with a search warrant, the company would be incapable of accessing passcode-protected data on a user's device."

No wonder why iPhone 6 is selling like hot cakes... damn pedo's...

[LAwLz]

If you never have abused your children the answer is no. It's not a leading question. You don't have to stop if you never started.

So you have not stopped abusing your child? I wonder how the judge will interpret that statement. Just because you're thinking "since I never started, I never quit either" doesnt mean everyone thinks like that.

[patrickjp93]

So you have not stopped abusing your child? I wonder how the judge will interpret that statement. Just because you're thinking "since I never started, I never quit either" doesnt mean everyone thinks like that.

It doesn't matter. You always have the opportunity to clarify testimony. And, you could always start with "Since I never abused my children in the first place, no." Pleading the fifth is only useful for criminals and morons.

[Misanthrope]

Except when you download the new facebook app then all your privacy goes to heck!

Well that's like buying a 500 door lock and then leaving your door wide open though

[Enderman]

Well that's like buying a 500 door lock and then leaving your door wide open though

Which most of the ignorant kids who buy apple phones will do without realizing

[patrickjp93]

Which most of the ignorant kids who buy apple phones will do without realizing

I refuse to, and if you hit the install button on the prompt in facebook and quickly go back without actually downloading it in the app store, you can still get to your messages. YAY BUGS!

 

Note: you need to hit the little message bubble/person bubble right when you get back in.

[TAK]

.

[patrickjp93]

A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. I have no further questions, your honor.

That never actually happens, and you can act as your own lawyer at any point in a trial setting. And the prosecutor cannot prevent you from giving a complete statement. He/she would be in contempt of court.

[LAwLz]

That never actually happens, and you can act as your own lawyer at any point in a trial setting. And the prosecutor cannot prevent you from giving a complete statement. He/she would be in contempt of court.

"Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law"

 

Pleading the fifth is a fundamental right which can help protect you from answering self incriminating questions, even when you are innocent.

How about pleading the fifth to the question "have you ever exceeded the speed limit?" when you are being accused of drunk driving. The prosecutor might think it is relevant to the case, but it's actually not relevant to what you're actually being prosecuted for. Pretty much all of us has done it, and it shows that you're willing to break the law.

 

The entire law system is based on "innocent until proven guilty" so if the prosecutor don't have any solid evidence, why risk saying something he can twist into something that appears to be vaguely credible? Your mentality is more about "guilty until proven innocent" when you say that if you don't defend yourself, you're hiding something. This becomes even more important if you are a person who is not good with words. Your intention does not matter as much as what you actually said. if you slip up and say something which can be interpreted the wrong way.

On top of all that, pleading the fifth is very important when you get arrested. Without the fifth amendment they could interrogate you before you even get a lawyer. You do agree that a lawyer is important even when you're innocent, right? That system does not work if you didn't have the right to remain silent.

 

Robert H Jackson was the US attorney general (among other impressive positions he held) said this:

"Any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to the police under any circumstances"

That is pleading the fifth.

Here is a lecture about it in case you want to hear someone far more involved in law and order than I am, talk about why it's so important:

[RH00D]

I said nothing to hide IF the police needed it. Not invade my privacy. The police would not just ask for these things out of the blue.

Government wouldn't ask for things out of the blue? You're right, they don't ask, they just take it all warrantlessly.

[patrickjp93]

"Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law"

 

Pleading the fifth is a fundamental right which can help protect you from answering self incriminating questions, even when you are innocent.

How about pleading the fifth to the question "have you ever exceeded the speed limit?" when you are being accused of drunk driving. The prosecutor might think it is relevant to the case, but it's actually not relevant to what you're actually being prosecuted for. Pretty much all of us has done it, and it shows that you're willing to break the law.

 

The entire law system is based on "innocent until proven guilty" so if the prosecutor don't have any solid evidence, why risk saying something he can twist into something that appears to be vaguely credible? Your mentality is more about "guilty until proven innocent" when you say that if you don't defend yourself, you're hiding something. This becomes even more important if you are a person who is not good with words. Your intention does not matter as much as what you actually said. if you slip up and say something which can be interpreted the wrong way.

On top of all that, pleading the fifth is very important when you get arrested. Without the fifth amendment they could interrogate you before you even get a lawyer. You do agree that a lawyer is important even when you're innocent, right? That system does not work if you didn't have the right to remain silent.

Right, because a misdemeanour that 99% of the population has ever been guilty of is going to make a judge throw the book at you... 

 

The dramatizing and non sequitur are not helping you. In fact I'd fire back and say the prosecutor is wasting the court's time, and most judges would agree, putting the prosecutor on the defensive.

 

And, in the UK, it's guilty until proven innocent, but the penalties for false accusations are steep. It's a far superior system of law. Corporations can actually be held accountable.

 

And I said that defending yourself by avoiding the question makes you look as though you're hiding something. And no, slipping up is not all that consequential. You can always clarify testimony later. It's easy to file for that, and if your own attorney isn't a twit he/she will always ask you to look over the minutes of a trial day and request to resubmit testimony to better define it.

 

Also, interrogation before being offered a lawyer is violating the 6th Amendment, not the 5th.

The right to remain silent is very different from being able to plead the 5th. One is under custody, and the other is in a court of law. In court you must answer all questions. In custody you don't have to say anything. False equivalence is not helping your argument either.

[patrickjp93]

Government wouldn't ask for things out of the blue? You're right, they don't ask, they just take it all warrantlessly.

Not really. Taking implies keeping. Frankly in the age of cyberspace and instant communication, there's no time for getting warrants. When microseconds matter warrants are at least 6 hours away.

[LAwLz]

-snip-

Just watch the video I linked. You're naive and wrong.

 

The fact that you said "in the UK, it's guilty until proven innocent" proves that you have absolutely no knowledge or credibility in this field. It is innocent until proven guilty in the UK as well. You can't prove a negative.

[RH00D]

Right, because a misdemeanour that 99% of the population has ever been guilty of is going to make a judge throw the book at you... 

 

The dramatizing and non sequitur are not helping you. In fact I'd fire back and say the prosecutor is wasting the court's time, and most judges would agree, putting the prosecutor on the defensive.

 

And, in the UK, it's guilty until proven innocent, but the penalties for false accusations are steep. It's a far superior system of law. Corporations can actually be held accountable.

 

And I said that defending yourself by avoiding the question makes you look as though you're hiding something. And no, slipping up is not all that consequential. You can always clarify testimony later. It's easy to file for that, and if your own attorney isn't a twit he/she will always ask you to look over the minutes of a trial day and request to resubmit testimony to better define it.

 

Also, interrogation before being offered a lawyer is violating the 6th Amendment, not the 5th.

The right to remain silent is very different from being able to plead the 5th. One is under custody, and the other is in a court of law. In court you must answer all questions. In custody you don't have to say anything. False equivalence is not helping your argument either.

@LAwLz pretty much said all there is to say you about why you're wrong. But I just want to add that in innocent until proven guilty system, the burden of evidence/burden of proof is on the plaintiff. The defendant has zero obligation to assist the plaintiff.

 

Also, statements a person makes matter just as much as the actual facts. Why do you think people are wrongly convicted? Because sometimes there isn't all the facts, and a decision has to made on judgement. Which is why the statements made are crucial.

[steffen_anywhere]

if you leave it on. Can be disabled if you can find it in settings

No. Only if you specifically ENABLE it. It is off by default. Just updated everything to iOS 8/Yosemite Public Beta 3

[patrickjp93]

Just watch the video I linked. You're naive and wrong.

 

The fact that you said "in the UK, it's guilty until proven innocent" proves that you have absolutely no knowledge or credibility in this field. It is innocent until proven guilty in the UK as well. You can't prove a negative.

No, in England you have to prove you're innocent. When Barkley's was accused of laundering and corruption, they had to prove they were innocent, and failed. Perhaps for individuals the system is more innocent until proven guilty, but there are a number of examples where corporations get burned by the UK legal system specifically because it requires burden of proof on both parties, something the U.S. should learn so criminal businessmen actually go to prison.

 

 

@LAwLz pretty much said all there is to say you about why you're wrong. But I just want to add that in innocent until proven guilty system, the burden of evidence/burden of proof is on the plaintiff. The defendant has zero obligation to assist the plaintiff.

 

Also, statements a person makes matter just as much as the actual facts. Why do you think people are wrongly convicted? Because sometimes there isn't all the facts, and a decision has to made on judgement. Which is why the statements made are crucial.

Most wrongful convictions stem from evidence that should have been inadmissible in the first place. One's own testimony is often not the damning factor unless you were guilty and tripped your own timeline up in court, in which case, well, sucks to be you.

[Techhog]

Anyone who takes what a corporate entity says at face value is extremely naive. Just saying. /cynicism

[RH00D]

Most wrongful convictions stem from evidence that should have been inadmissible in the first place. One's own testimony is often not the damning factor unless you were guilty and tripped your own timeline up in court, in which case, well, sucks to be you.

*Citation needed.

 

As they say, ignorance is bliss.

[LAwLz]

No, in England you have to prove you're innocent. When Barkley's was accused of laundering and corruption, they had to prove they were innocent, and failed. Perhaps for individuals the system is more innocent until proven guilty, but there are a number of examples where corporations get burned by the UK legal system specifically because it requires burden of proof on both parties, something the U.S. should learn so criminal businessmen actually go to prison.

Sorry but you're simply wrong.

Look up the human rights act of 1998. I am going to cite it for you so that there is undeniable proof that you are 100% wrong.

Human rights act 1998 article 6 section 2:

Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

 

If what you are saying is true about the Barkley case (which I doubt since you have proven that you don't know much about law) then in that particular case the UK law was broken, not followed.

Again, the law states that you are innocent until proven guilty, and that's a very very good thing because you can not prove a negative.

[patrickjp93]

Sorry but you're simply wrong.

Look up the human rights act of 1998. I am going to cite it for you so that there is undeniable proof that you are 100% wrong.

Human rights act 1998 article 6 section 2:

If what you are saying is true about the Barkley case (which I doubt since you have proven that you don't know much about law) then in that particular case the UK law was broken, not followed.

Again, the law states that you are innocent until proven guilty, and that's a very very good thing because you can not prove a negative.

Cannot prove a negative? Have you ever actually studied informal logic? You use proof by contrapositive. Also, it's called reasonable doubt. Proving innocence beyond reasonable doubt is no more difficult than proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. By your reasoning both are cases of proving negatives.

[LAwLz]

Cannot prove a negative? Have you ever actually studied informal logic? You use proof by contrapositive. Also, it's called reasonable doubt. Proving innocence beyond reasonable doubt is no more difficult than proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. By your reasoning both are cases of proving negatives.

You're still wrong about the whole "in the UK you are guilty until proven innocent".

Please just stop posting because you are spreading misinformation. I highly recommend you watch the video I linked earlier as well, because it shows how harmful your way of thinking is. The fifth amendment is extremely important for innocent people.

 

Actually, don't stop posting. Let's do a little test. Let's assume I was accused of murdering my neighbors tomorrow. In your fantasy world, I should be found guilty unless I can without a doubt prove that I did not commit the crime. How do you think I should go ahead and prove my innocence? I was in my house the entire day so I can't have a witness say I was not close to them at the time of the murder.

They were stabbed to death in their sleep.

[patrickjp93]

Actually, don't stop posting. Let's do a little test. Let's assume I was accused of murdering my neighbors tomorrow. In your fantasy world, I should be found guilty unless I can without a doubt prove that I did not commit the crime. How do you think I should go ahead and prove my innocence? I was in my house the entire day so I can't have a witness say I was not close to them at the time of the murder.

They were stabbed to death in their sleep.

WRONG! Beyond a reasonable doubt, and then the accuser pays you legal fees plus defamation damages, and you walk away happy.

 

You have your history as a law abiding citizen, you have your relationship with the neighbors, and your local reputation speaking on your moral character against the accuser's claim of motive.

 

You have the means if you have a knife, but forensics will say whether or not a knife in your possession was involved, and anyone with a knife had the means. You could also prove you weren't covered in blood by surrendering your dirty laundry and submitting to a hand/arm swabbing, paid for by the accuser in ESCROW or another legal account holding system.

 

You have an odd idea of how difficult it is to prove innocence, but the reality is it's pretty simple. If you didn't do it, there won't be much if any evidence, and you still can discredit motive and presence claims.

[ZeroBreaker]

WRONG! Beyond a reasonable doubt, and then the accuser pays you legal fees plus defamation damages, and you walk away happy.

 

You have your history as a law abiding citizen, you have your relationship with the neighbors, and your local reputation speaking on your moral character against the accuser's claim of motive.

 

You have the means if you have a knife, but forensics will say whether or not a knife in your possession was involved, and anyone with a knife had the means. You could also prove you weren't covered in blood by surrendering your dirty laundry and submitting to a hand/arm swabbing, paid for by the accuser in ESCROW or another legal account holding system.

 

You have an odd idea of how difficult it is to prove innocence, but the reality is it's pretty simple. If you didn't do it, there won't be much if any evidence, and you still can discredit motive and presence claims.

 

Not trying to butt in here, but goddamn you should hear yourself.

 

In the UK, it is absolutely innocent until proven guilty. You know why Barclays was a complicated situation? Because it is a corporation with multiple people in control of multiple things. It's not clear cut. In the US, they consider corporations to be individuals, which has the knock on effect of providing a cover for corrupt businessmen in the form of 'This Company is at fault' rather than 'These individuals are at fault'. Here, while our law system leaves much to be desired, we at least have proper organic laws rather than a set constitution that has to be interpreted and amended.

 

You can't provide a 'lack of evidence' to the court to prove innocence.

[mr.skyrim_pc]

"Why do you care, if you've got nothing to hide?" -retarded guy