
It’s legal: cops seize cell phone, impersonate owner - evo_9
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/its-legal-cops-seize-cell-phone-impersonate-owner/
======
DanielBMarkham
The key point here is that _the police can lie to you_. They can tell you they
have evidence that you did it, they can tell you that your buddy is blaming
you, they can answer your phone while they're in your house and pretend
they're you, and so on. The police are not obligated under any kind of ethical
rule to tell you the truth. Deception is fine.

Of course, if _you_ like to a federal agent, it's a felony. That includes
everybody from tax collectors to folks from the Farm Bureau. If you lie to
state or local policemen, they can use that against you as evidence that you
were trying to be evasive. This is true even if you accidentally omit
something or just get confused. It's all free ammo for them to use.

This is why the only thing to do when questioned by the police is shut up and
ask for a lawyer. Even if you are innocent and have nothing to hide[1]

[1] Admittedly this is very difficult to do in situations where you are
completely innocent and a life is on the line, for example if the cops are
looking for a missing person. Personally I try to help all I can. But from
what I understand you are gambling here that the police will intuitively grok
you as a "good guy". If their perceptions change, even in error, informally
cooperating is a fool's game and you could get screwed royally.

~~~
rprasad
There's a difference between being questioned and police just asking for help.

Being questioned = they are asking about what you did

Asking for help = they are asking about what _someone else did_

If you are being questioned, you can and should demand a lawyer even if you
have nothing to hide because at this point you are already a person of
interest in their investigation.

If they are merely asking for help...just don't be stupid answering their
questions. The police aren't there for you.

------
ck2
Pretty sure they were doing this far before smartphones or even cellphones -
it was done with pagers and even home phones before that.

Think about it, they don't even need your phone.

All they have to do is find out the number and all the carriers have gateways
for law enforcement without warrants to examine everything sent/received and
locations.

Then they can route the number anywhere and impersonate you.

BTW I am 100% okay with this if a person was CONVICTED in a court of law or
they go before a judge and can prove someone is in mortal danger (child, etc.)

The biggest problem is they can now pull you over for a ticket and clone your
phone without challenge. That's not right.

------
stephengillie
So it's legal for cops to seize your residence, confiscate your postal mail,
open it, and write replies _impersonating you_ to whomever they want?

How is this any different? Because there's an electronic device involved?

~~~
sophacles
Even more similarly, what is the law on answering machines? Can someone
leaving a message on an answering machine be subjected to a similar
interception and impersonation without a warrant?

What about emails? Can emails be faked without a warrant?

~~~
rprasad
1) Not quite. A person leaving a message on a suspect's answering machine can
be called back without a warrant for them (as the original warrant/search
would still be valid on the original suspect). But a separate warrant would be
required to intercept (EDIT: removed impersonate) that caller. EDIT: They can
impersonate a person without a warrant.

2) Yes. Emails cannot be _searched_ without a warrant, but police can fake
emails without a warrant. However, if they attempt to entrap another person by
faking emails, they run into the classic entrapment defense. Furthermore, if
they cause harm to a person's reputation, etc., through the impersonation,
they are usually liable for crazy damages.

~~~
grecy
> However, if they attempt to entrap another person by faking emails, they run
> into the classic entrapment defense.

So they can do it with a cell phone (in the article), but not an email?

~~~
rprasad
No, they run into the entrapment issue either way. But it's easier to show
entrapment with email because the fake emails are recorded.

With a phone call, it is not necessarily a given that the call was recorded
(as the police may not have had proper gear set up), so it usually becomes a
he-said-cop-said problem. Cops usually choose not to record calls unless they
need to, because for evidentiary reasons (for the prosecution) it is better to
make the dispute one of credibility.

~~~
rprasad
Journalists do not understand the law very well...

In this case, the police hit up a bunch of people they suspected of being the
dealer's customers and asked them if they wanted to buy more drugs. The
callees who were arrested agreed to buy more drugs without persuasion. That's
not entrapment.

Left out of the article, because they were not relevant to the opinion, is
those people the police texted who chose not to buy drugs from the dealer
being impersonated.

~~~
grecy
> The callees who were arrested agreed to buy more drugs without persuasion.
> That's not entrapment.

It seems I'm confused about what constitutes entrapment.

If an officer walks up to me on the street and offers to sell me drugs, is
that entrapment? (I see that as exactly the same as sending a text message, or
email)

------
freehunter
*"...he can't be sure that the pager will be in the hands of its owner ... But after their arrival, Hinton's text messages on Lee's iPhone were no longer private"

I wonder if this argument still applies if you have a lock code on your phone.
Yes, my phone may have been stolen or lost or left on a desk, but if no one
can get into it then it's not public. Could an officer request you unlock your
phone and then argue that the contents of your phone are not private?

------
slovette
This is why you should just lock your iPhone with a passcode. Not that I'm
rooting for the dealer, but in no way whatsoever am I (Me not some court)
going to let a Gov PD have access to my technological data without a fight.
Lock it down and remote wipe later, play where's the data.

------
caseysoftware
They contacted people to see if they "needed more" ? So the cops initiated it?

Can someone (qualified) describe how that is not entrapment?

~~~
freehunter
Entrapment isn't a complicated concept. This isn't entrapment because the
defendant wasn't coerced into committing a crime; he was willing to commit the
crime anyway. It's not illegal for an officer to ask you to commit a crime,
it's only illegal if they give you no choice but to commit that crime.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment

------
rprasad
This is a court decision by a _low level_ court which applies only to a single
county in the state of Washington. Assuming it survives appeal, it would, at
most, apply to the state of Washington.

The distinction here (at least the one discussed in the opinion) is that the
court found that texts were an active communication method, i.e., like talking
on the phone, not one of the traditional protected methods such as postal
mail. (I do not agree with this distinction, but this is what the court
reasoned.)

~~~
Cushman
> Assuming it survives appeal, it would, at most, apply to the state of
> Washington.

That's not completely true. A decision at a state's highest court may not be
legally binding elsewhere, but it can have precedential weight in other
jurisdictions where similar laws have not yet been tested. A single case in a
single state could well determine the course of law throughout the country.

~~~
rprasad
Precedential weight has value only if there is absolutely no in-state
jurisprudence on the issue. However, texts are easily analogized to other
forms of communication (and indeed, that is what this judge did).
Consequently, the state's jurisprudence on such other forms of communication
will trump what little precedential weight this case could have.

