Huh?? What would federal regulation have to do with anything in that regard??
Well he does sort of have a point. All national banks are required to be members of the Federal Reserve and probably several other regulatory agencies. In order to rent a safety deposit box you must have an account with the bank, even if the safety deposit box is the only banking relationship you have with them. With a warrant, the police can require the bank to reveal the contents of the box just as they can do with any other account you may have with the bank. To not do so could result in substantial fines imposed by the Federal Reserve.
Those who favor torture are in fact against it when it's being done to them. Shouldn't right and wrong be the same irrespective of one's point of view?
I'd really orderer he hadn't gone to the religious place: that opens an entire can of worms when those sorts of issues should be based on law and not anyone's private superstitions.
Most people have not been trained to withstand torture of any type. Simple sleep deprivation can work wonders. I'll tell you whatever the hell you want to know for a nap.
And when you were picked up in error you'll start spouting anything you think will get you that nap and so will everyone else picked up in error or because you're neighbor has a grudge and dropping the dime is an easy revenge, plus money rewards in some systems (Afghanistan): that floods the finite resources with totally dead ends. Worse then useless: wasteful. Worse than wasteful as it saddles you with people you can NEVER let go because you've so badly pissed them off. To. No. Purpose.
Huh?? What would federal regulation have to do with anything in that regard??
Well he does sort of have a point. All national banks are required to be members of the Federal Reserve and probably several other regulatory agencies. In order to rent a safety deposit box you must have an account with the bank, even if the safety deposit box is the only banking relationship you have with them. With a warrant, the police can require the bank to reveal the contents of the box just as they can do with any other account you may have with the bank. To not do so could result in substantial fines imposed by the Federal Reserve.
"With a warrant, the police can require the bank to reveal the contents of the box just as they can do with any other account you may have with the bank."
Or any other personal possession. (house, boat, storage locker)
Right. So you are saying 'I' have a point, right? That was 'my' point.
Right. So you are saying 'I' have a point, right? That was 'my' point.
It would not make sense for the bank to refuse - since the police with a warrant would be able to drill the lock out.... leaving the bank to clean up the mess.
The police beat the living crap out of someone until they gave them the information they wanted. Does that answer your question?
They still do. But it seems that the new generations are
Tougher, and they have the power of media, so I guess the
the police is looking for a more subtle and more intrusive way
To get what they want and more, may be that way they can
Imprison you before you commit the crime. ????
A bank is a Federally regulated entity. Entirely different.
If the bank did not open it the police (with a search warrant) can drill the locks off the box and search it anyways....
They however cannot require a private locksmith who does not work for the police to work for them.
And, as a more direct parallel, presumably, they cannot require the manufacturer of the deposit box to open it for them if their drilling attempts were (hypothetically) to fail.
"With a warrant, the police can require the bank to reveal the contents of the box just as they can do with any other account you may have with the bank."
Or any other personal possession. (house, boat, storage locker)
Right. So you are saying 'I' have a point, right? That was 'my' point.
The original poster claimed that the bank must comply with the search because it is under federal regulations, and unless I'm misunderstanding your position you are saying federal regulations have no bearing on the case. Consider for a moment if law enforcement had surveillance of him renting a video instead of renting a safety deposit box, they would have no right to search the video store unless they had a reasonable suspicion that it had some involvement with the criminal activity, enough to be used to obtain a search warrant. The video store is not federally regulated to require them to share a customer's private information, but the bank has the legal responsibility to share information with law enforcement because they are bound by federal regulations to assist in determent of terrorism, money laundering and other criminal behavior. They probably wouldn't even need a warrant, just a request.
If detectives can't crack a case without cracking a phone, they're not doing their job. iPhone wasn't even invented 10 years ago how were all these cases handled before??
As the News Corp phone hacking case in the UK has shown us, it's relatively easy to get anything off an older phone. The chief problem is that there is less "useful" information stored on those older phones, but that didn't seem to bother them.
The police beat the living crap out of someone until they gave them the information they wanted. Does that answer your question?
Which is why they widely protested the Miranda decision, and the subsequent requirement that suspects be informed of their rights. How could they solve crimes without being able to beat confessions out of suspects? Turns out to not be that difficult if you actually put a little effort in.
The implication that law enforcement can't function, never has functioned, and shouldn't be expected to function without violating constitutional rights and individual liberty is one I reject. I think even expressing jokingly that abuse is to be expected is destructive to people's determination to protect their rights. Outrage fatigue has to be countered. Official abuse is an outrage the first time it happens, and it's an outrage the millionth time it happens.
I don't believe they were seriously advocating police brutality as a solution, but as I mentioned above, it was an argument seriously made by law enforcement after the Miranda decision. The idea that they couldn't do their jobs without being able to violate an individual's rights was seriously put forward in a way that's eerily similar to arguments made today about security backdoors, warrantless wiretapping, and even having to remove your shoes at airports. They probably even claimed that if you were innocent you shouldn't mind the occasional beating from the police, since you have nothing to hide.
If detectives can't crack a case without cracking a phone, they're not doing their job. iPhone wasn't even invented 10 years ago how were all these cases handled before??
A bit of a false argument there. Since the iPhone didn't exist 10 years ago, not only did the police not have to be able to crack an iPhone to solve the case (as you point out), but the suspected criminal ALSO did not have an iPhone to hide things in in the first place. So the police solving crimes without cracking an iPhone is an irrelevant argument.
If you want to discuss how crimes were solved 10 years ago, limit it to the technology the criminals has available 10 years ago. Mostly, it was stuff the police could get into without cooperation (drilling a safe deposit box was offered as an example above).
Was there this much moral outrage in the past when police, with warrants, broke into safe deposit boxes, private safes, homes, cars, etc, to solve crimes? Absolutely not.
However, forcing a private company to assist in the execution of that warrant is questionable. But private companies cooperate with authorities all the time in solving crimes (turning over security video, etc). Where do you draw the line?
"Secret case?" There is no legal thing as a secret case. Judge should throw it out on that basis alone.
But the judge works for the federal government so is not actually independant.
This is how the USA is corrupt.
What? You want to privatize judges now? Or maybe have to beg for money? Judges are nearly impossible to fire (unless they are elected ones) - which gives them lots of independence.
What? You want to privatize judges now? Or maybe have to beg for money? Judges are nearly impossible to fire (unless they are elected ones) - which gives them lots of independence.
A judge that is unaccountable to anyone is dangerous. You know, that whole "absolute power corrupts absolutely" thing.
However, forcing a private company to assist in the execution of that warrant is questionable. But private companies cooperate with authorities all the time in solving crimes (turning over security video, etc). Where do you draw the line?
I remember reading about police busting some mafia guy maybe 10 years ago. They used General Motors OnStar to eavesdrop on a conversation while they were driving a car.
I was born, and raised in NYC where neurosis is as common as rectums. You all on here are lightweights.
New York, Smooyork. If you're a prisoner of war being interogated, and they brought in [@]Sog35[/@] so he could repeatedly tell you why Apple should go private, regardless of the context of what was being discussed, you are now better equipped to handle that level of obsessive annoyance. Me, I'd crack instantly. I'd be crying and spilling everything like Chunk from Goonies just to get him to shut up.
I was born, and raised in NYC where neurosis is as common as rectums. You all on here are lightweights.
New York, Smooyork. If you're a prisoner of war being interogated, and they brought in [@]Sog35[/@] so he could repeatedly tell you why Apple should go private, regardless of the context of what was being discussed, you are now better equipped to handle that level of obsessive annoyance. Me, I'd crack instantly. I'd be crying and spilling everything like Chunk from Goonies just to get him to shut up.
[VIDEO]
Sog35 is a special case. The Jews could've used him during The Inquisition to break the will of Torquemada.
Seemingly, there's plenty of study to the contrary.
You only get what you're expecting to get; not the truth.
This is one of those pieces of disinformation promulgated by those who advocate the abolition of all torture. They want you to believe that torture is ineffective, so you won't want to support it.
Sure, if you torture one person for information about which you know nothing, and accept the results at face value, you're probably not going to get the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But torture 10 people about multiple things, some of which you know for certain, and eventually the stories will all match up to a greater degree than random chance provides.
Proper torture techniques are strategic, just as are combat, chess and sports.
Comments
Huh?? What would federal regulation have to do with anything in that regard??
Well he does sort of have a point. All national banks are required to be members of the Federal Reserve and probably several other regulatory agencies. In order to rent a safety deposit box you must have an account with the bank, even if the safety deposit box is the only banking relationship you have with them. With a warrant, the police can require the bank to reveal the contents of the box just as they can do with any other account you may have with the bank. To not do so could result in substantial fines imposed by the Federal Reserve.
I'd really orderer he hadn't gone to the religious place: that opens an entire can of worms when those sorts of issues should be based on law and not anyone's private superstitions.
I like this judge.
Most people have not been trained to withstand torture of any type. Simple sleep deprivation can work wonders. I'll tell you whatever the hell you want to know for a nap.
And when you were picked up in error you'll start spouting anything you think will get you that nap and so will everyone else picked up in error or because you're neighbor has a grudge and dropping the dime is an easy revenge, plus money rewards in some systems (Afghanistan): that floods the finite resources with totally dead ends. Worse then useless: wasteful. Worse than wasteful as it saddles you with people you can NEVER let go because you've so badly pissed them off. To. No. Purpose.
Huh?? What would federal regulation have to do with anything in that regard??
Well he does sort of have a point. All national banks are required to be members of the Federal Reserve and probably several other regulatory agencies. In order to rent a safety deposit box you must have an account with the bank, even if the safety deposit box is the only banking relationship you have with them. With a warrant, the police can require the bank to reveal the contents of the box just as they can do with any other account you may have with the bank. To not do so could result in substantial fines imposed by the Federal Reserve.
"With a warrant, the police can require the bank to reveal the contents of the box just as they can do with any other account you may have with the bank."
Or any other personal possession. (house, boat, storage locker)
Right. So you are saying 'I' have a point, right? That was 'my' point.
Right. So you are saying 'I' have a point, right? That was 'my' point.
It would not make sense for the bank to refuse - since the police with a warrant would be able to drill the lock out.... leaving the bank to clean up the mess.
They still do. But it seems that the new generations are
Tougher, and they have the power of media, so I guess the
the police is looking for a more subtle and more intrusive way
To get what they want and more, may be that way they can
Imprison you before you commit the crime. ????
And, as a more direct parallel, presumably, they cannot require the manufacturer of the deposit box to open it for them if their drilling attempts were (hypothetically) to fail.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/senate-to-approve-controversial-cybersecurity-bill_562f7a9ae4b06317990f50db
"With a warrant, the police can require the bank to reveal the contents of the box just as they can do with any other account you may have with the bank."
Or any other personal possession. (house, boat, storage locker)
Right. So you are saying 'I' have a point, right? That was 'my' point.
The original poster claimed that the bank must comply with the search because it is under federal regulations, and unless I'm misunderstanding your position you are saying federal regulations have no bearing on the case. Consider for a moment if law enforcement had surveillance of him renting a video instead of renting a safety deposit box, they would have no right to search the video store unless they had a reasonable suspicion that it had some involvement with the criminal activity, enough to be used to obtain a search warrant. The video store is not federally regulated to require them to share a customer's private information, but the bank has the legal responsibility to share information with law enforcement because they are bound by federal regulations to assist in determent of terrorism, money laundering and other criminal behavior. They probably wouldn't even need a warrant, just a request.
Which is why they widely protested the Miranda decision, and the subsequent requirement that suspects be informed of their rights. How could they solve crimes without being able to beat confessions out of suspects? Turns out to not be that difficult if you actually put a little effort in.
I don't believe they were seriously advocating police brutality as a solution, but as I mentioned above, it was an argument seriously made by law enforcement after the Miranda decision. The idea that they couldn't do their jobs without being able to violate an individual's rights was seriously put forward in a way that's eerily similar to arguments made today about security backdoors, warrantless wiretapping, and even having to remove your shoes at airports. They probably even claimed that if you were innocent you shouldn't mind the occasional beating from the police, since you have nothing to hide.
If detectives can't crack a case without cracking a phone, they're not doing their job. iPhone wasn't even invented 10 years ago how were all these cases handled before??
A bit of a false argument there. Since the iPhone didn't exist 10 years ago, not only did the police not have to be able to crack an iPhone to solve the case (as you point out), but the suspected criminal ALSO did not have an iPhone to hide things in in the first place. So the police solving crimes without cracking an iPhone is an irrelevant argument.
If you want to discuss how crimes were solved 10 years ago, limit it to the technology the criminals has available 10 years ago. Mostly, it was stuff the police could get into without cooperation (drilling a safe deposit box was offered as an example above).
Was there this much moral outrage in the past when police, with warrants, broke into safe deposit boxes, private safes, homes, cars, etc, to solve crimes? Absolutely not.
However, forcing a private company to assist in the execution of that warrant is questionable. But private companies cooperate with authorities all the time in solving crimes (turning over security video, etc). Where do you draw the line?
But the judge works for the federal government so is not actually independant.
This is how the USA is corrupt.
"Secret case?" There is no legal thing as a secret case. Judge should throw it out on that basis alone.
But the judge works for the federal government so is not actually independant.
This is how the USA is corrupt.
What? You want to privatize judges now? Or maybe have to beg for money? Judges are nearly impossible to fire (unless they are elected ones) - which gives them lots of independence.
What? You want to privatize judges now? Or maybe have to beg for money? Judges are nearly impossible to fire (unless they are elected ones) - which gives them lots of independence.
A judge that is unaccountable to anyone is dangerous. You know, that whole "absolute power corrupts absolutely" thing.
However, forcing a private company to assist in the execution of that warrant is questionable. But private companies cooperate with authorities all the time in solving crimes (turning over security video, etc). Where do you draw the line?
I remember reading about police busting some mafia guy maybe 10 years ago. They used General Motors OnStar to eavesdrop on a conversation while they were driving a car.
New York, Smooyork. If you're a prisoner of war being interogated, and they brought in [@]Sog35[/@] so he could repeatedly tell you why Apple should go private, regardless of the context of what was being discussed, you are now better equipped to handle that level of obsessive annoyance. Me, I'd crack instantly. I'd be crying and spilling everything like Chunk from Goonies just to get him to shut up.
[VIDEO]
Sog35 is a special case. The Jews could've used him during The Inquisition to break the will of Torquemada.
Seemingly, there's plenty of study to the contrary.
You only get what you're expecting to get; not the truth.
This is one of those pieces of disinformation promulgated by those who advocate the abolition of all torture. They want you to believe that torture is ineffective, so you won't want to support it.
Sure, if you torture one person for information about which you know nothing, and accept the results at face value, you're probably not going to get the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But torture 10 people about multiple things, some of which you know for certain, and eventually the stories will all match up to a greater degree than random chance provides.
Proper torture techniques are strategic, just as are combat, chess and sports.