2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: hvybarrels on September 07, 2023, 09:24:41 PM
-
Glad I don’t own anything that I would need a Liberty Safe for
https://youtu.be/zMhQeXBzJ3Q?si=KGmuv6M8hkdN3Wp3
-
Glad I don’t own anything that I would need a Liberty Safe for
https://youtu.be/zMhQeXBzJ3Q?si=KGmuv6M8hkdN3Wp3
Steve Lehto, the Lemon Law lawyer, had a video on it, too.
He's of the opinion that once the safe is sold, it's no longer the property of Liberty, and therefore they have no legal obligation to help LE get into a customer's safe, warrant or no. LE can't force Liberty to open a customer's safe if there's no existing relationship between the two, like ongoing maintenance contracts.
Liberty is free (pun intended) to run their business however they wish as long as it's done within the law. However, I think it's time for consumers to explain to Liberty Safes how we feel about them giving access to our valuables to anyone -- especially LE.
I'm not sure a boycott would be effective, given the type of products. But, a lot of bad "press" could drive buyers into the arms of other companies that are less eager to assist the cops in their searches.
People buy safes for a reason -- to protect things. That includes protecting one's privacy from law enforcement if the situation arises. If the owner wants to deny the cops access, then they need to deal with him -- like a contempt charge or obstruction. But doing an end-run around the owner and going to the manufacturer seems wrong to me.
p.s. if you strip the ?si= from your YT link (and everything after to the end of line), you'll be able to show the video preview in your post. I figured that out last week. :geekdanc:
-
I am undecided about this. On the one hand I want my stuff in the safe to be... safe but on the other hand, if a law enforcement agency has a justified reason to go into a safe and did the proper thing of securing a search warrant then I am not against helping either. I don't think Liberty Safes has any obligation to cooperate legally speaking though.
From a purely economic standpoint though, if it costs them enough in sales because of unhappy customers then well they shouldn't continue the practice.
-
I am undecided about this. On the one hand I want my stuff in the safe to be... safe but on the other hand, if a law enforcement agency has a justified reason to go into a safe and did the proper thing of securing a search warrant then I am not against helping either. I don't think Liberty Safes has any obligation to cooperate legally speaking though.
From a purely economic standpoint though, if it costs them enough in sales because of unhappy customers then well they shouldn't continue the practice.
Look at it from a legal perspective.
The warrant was executed against the owner of the safe and his property. The cops never filed for any court orders to compel Liberty to divulge any information. Liberty basically cast themselves as agents of the FBI assisting in executing a warrant against a former customer with no authority other than the FBI asking them to.
Obviously the FBI already knew Liberty had the backdoor code to give them, or they would not have asked. Since Liberty stated it's their policy to provide that code to LE when a search warrant is being executed, this is not the first time for this.
This is a good example of why you should always opt for a mechanical dial over a keypad/digital lock. If you're opting for biometric locks, then there's even more risk.
As I said already, nothing legally compelled Liberty to give the FBI that backdoor code. It was 100% their decision. They should have at least waited for a judge to issue an order compelling the information be turned over. If they'd done that, they should have also appealed it in court -- any avenue to avoid violating the trust of not just that one customer, but every single one who hears about it now.
-
Look at it from a legal perspective.
The warrant was executed against the owner of the safe and his property. The cops never filed for any court orders to compel Liberty to divulge any information. Liberty basically cast themselves as agents of the FBI assisting in executing a warrant against a former customer with no authority other than the FBI asking them to.
Obviously the FBI already knew Liberty had the backdoor code to give them, or they would not have asked. Since Liberty stated it's their policy to provide that code to LE when a search warrant is being executed, this is not the first time for this.
This is a good example of why you should always opt for a mechanical dial over a keypad/digital lock. If you're opting for biometric locks, then there's even more risk.
As I said already, nothing legally compelled Liberty to give the FBI that backdoor code. It was 100% their decision. They should have at least waited for a judge to issue an order compelling the information be turned over. If they'd done that, they should have also appealed it in court -- any avenue to avoid violating the trust of not just that one customer, but every single one who hears about it now.
^^^ This. It would be diff if Liberty was court ordered to do so.
But in the end, I assume all electronic safes have a backdoor access code. Like how I assume everything I type is read by them. So since I need a new safe soon, I might take advantage of firesales.
There is also 1 range on Oahu that I know of that willingly gives the AFT access to a video, so I also assume all ranges with videos would provide it to any LEO agency without a warrant. The age of technology, nothing is secret. BRB clearing Phub browsing history for hot bitches eating ice cream (youtube joke).
-
This was fast!
The power of consumers is getting results.
(1) You can now have your combination/access code expunged from the company's records by going online to "opt out" or when registering a new safe.
(2) Also going forward, they will require a subpoena compelling them to provide access codes to law enforcement IF they have it.
Given the money buyers invested in top quality Liberty Safe products, this is probably the best outcome for new and existing owners. If you aren't hell-bent on destroying them for previous policies, this is a positive reaction by the company. :thumbsup:
JMHO
https://youtu.be/Ko7ESyCFMI8
-
Apparently liberty safes parent company has been donating to anti gun candididates like Raphael warnock and mark Kelly.
-
i don't agree with Elon Musk's reasoning. Liberty had 100% latitude to assist the FBI or not unless there's some federal law that requires anyone with backdoor codes to cooperate with the FBI.
Maybe he was implying they didn't want to be added to the DOJ's list of political targets?
In September 2021, Liberty Safe was acquired by Monomoy Capital Partners, a private
investment firm that has offices in New York and Connecticut and $2.7 billion in committed
capital across five investment funds. Liberty Safe operates out of its Payson, Utah, facility.
The manufacturer's CEO, Justin Hillenbrand, made political contributions to Obama twice
when the Democrat was a first-time presidential nominee in 2008, totaling $4,600, according
to Federal Election Commission (FEC) records.
Monomoy founding partner Stephen Presser, who died in March, is listed by the FEC as
making countless individual contributions to myriad Democrats, including current Senators
Raphael Warnock, John Fetterman and Mark Kelly. The company's max donations over the
last 10 election cycles have totaled almost $400,000.
"And we're supposed to be surprised they betrayed their customers to the FBI as quickly as
humanly possible?" Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk wrote on X, formerly Twitter.
"Boycott Liberty Safe."
Kirk previously expressed disdain for Liberty Safe's decision to comply with the FBI warrant,
saying that instead of fighting it akin to companies like Apple, "they buckled and bent over."
Elon Musk, however, said that Liberty Safe should not be boycotted.
"I think we're going too far with these Jan 6th sentence lengths, especially given other crimes
that aren't being prosecuted at all, but Liberty Safe had no choice here and are not to blame,"
Musk wrote on his platform.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/liberty-safe-ceos-obama-donations-spark-renewed-backlash/ar-AA1goolv#image=1
-
has it clearly come out the details on what combination liberty safe gave the feds? was it the owners manually chosen combination that the owner gave to liberty safe for "safe keeping"? or was it some kind of backdoor master combination?
-
has it clearly come out the details on what combination liberty safe gave the feds? was it the owners manually chosen combination that the owner gave to liberty safe for "safe keeping"? or was it some kind of backdoor master combination?
Watch the Washington Gun Law video i posted the link for. The company's statement is provided, which gives some more details.
Based on their statements, they have "a secure database of factory-set combinations". The main purpose is to keep customers from being locked out of their safe for any reason, and to use when performing warranty or repair work -- no need to share your personal combo with any authorized repairman or locksmith.
The thing that still bugs me is, 'expunging' the factory-set combo from their database doesn't remove it from the lock. If the software or procedure for generating those factory codes is ever compromised (disgruntled former employee...), then anyone who ascertains your code no matter how they do it will still be able to open your safe.
The "opt out" needs to include a way to delete that code from the lock on the safe, not just in the database.
-
so it was a backdoor. next question is if the existance of this backdoor combination is made clear to each customer, or if it was a company secret. prior to this incident of course. like is it clearly stated in the manual or documents that the safe has a backdoor combination?
-
so it was a backdoor. next question is if the existance of this backdoor combination is made clear to each customer, or if it was a company secret. prior to this incident of course. like is it clearly stated in the manual or documents that the safe has a backdoor combination?
This begs another question: is there more than one combination? For some locks, you can create, enable, disable and delete multiple users to give each their own combo. if an employee leaves, let's say, then you can disable that combo without having to change it for everyone.
So, the answer may be, it depends on the lock your safe has whether there's a factory code AND your own.
(https://i.imgur.com/oPWNWuS.png)
-
Weird: Liberty Safe Dials
Revealed To Only Turn Left
At publishing time, the company had announced they would now be
offering a free FBI raid with each safe purchase.
https://babylonbee.com/news/weird-liberty-safe-dials-revealed-to-only-turn-left
-
And here's the answer to one of my questions:
Yes, you can delete any factory-set codes.
https://youtu.be/pSfx0iH9Am0
-
Not sure this situation is totally resolved ....
(https://i.imgur.com/sfXheT9.jpg?1)
-
Look at it from a legal perspective.
The warrant was executed against the owner of the safe and his property. The cops never filed for any court orders to compel Liberty to divulge any information. Liberty basically cast themselves as agents of the FBI assisting in executing a warrant against a former customer with no authority other than the FBI asking them to.
If we look at it compared to other businesses, it is quite common that businesses will give cops information without a warrant or subpoena. Imagine someone commits an assault inside a supermarket, the supermarket will usually give the video without a court order. That does not make the supermarket an agent of law enforcement because they provided information simply on law enforcement request.
Obviously the FBI already knew Liberty had the backdoor code to give them, or they would not have asked. Since Liberty stated it's their policy to provide that code to LE when a search warrant is being executed, this is not the first time for this.
Possibly but not necessarily. Someone at the FBI might have simply come up with the idea of asking if Liberty had a back door instead of the harder way of breaking the safe open. But once someone figures out that this option exists then it would likely become pretty widely known.
As I said already, nothing legally compelled Liberty to give the FBI that backdoor code. It was 100% their decision. They should have at least waited for a judge to issue an order compelling the information be turned over. If they'd done that, they should have also appealed it in court -- any avenue to avoid violating the trust of not just that one customer, but every single one who hears about it now.
That is less of a legal perspective and more of a policy perspective. Legally they could give this backdoor code or they could demand a subpoena/search warrant.
On a side note I always wished I had gotten the digital keypad since it is faster but at least the mechanical lock they don't have a backdoor. In the end I think this is not really that big an issue. If cops come to my house and take my safe as part of some criminal investigation they are going to get into it eventually
-
If we look at it compared to other businesses, it is quite common that businesses will give cops information without a warrant or subpoena. Imagine someone commits an assault inside a supermarket, the supermarket will usually give the video without a court order. That does not make the supermarket an agent of law enforcement because they provided information simply on law enforcement request.
Possibly but not necessarily. Someone at the FBI might have simply come up with the idea of asking if Liberty had a back door instead of the harder way of breaking the safe open. But once someone figures out that this option exists then it would likely become pretty widely known.
That is less of a legal perspective and more of a policy perspective. Legally they could give this backdoor code or they could demand a subpoena/search warrant.
On a side note I always wished I had gotten the digital keypad since it is faster but at least the mechanical lock they don't have a backdoor. In the end I think this is not really that big an issue. If cops come to my house and take my safe as part of some criminal investigation they are going to get into it eventually
im 90% sure 1 gun range also provides video willingly.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
If we look at it compared to other businesses, it is quite common that businesses will give cops information without a warrant or subpoena. Imagine someone commits an assault inside a supermarket, the supermarket will usually give the video without a court order. That does not make the supermarket an agent of law enforcement because they provided information simply on law enforcement request.
Please show me where protecting a supermarket's video is a constitutionally protected right of the people. Also, people in a supermarket are in a public access area where there is no expectation of privacy. Thirdly, releasing the video does not grant LE access to the private, secured spaces owned by anyone in the video. Your analogy is 100%+ wrong.
Possibly but not necessarily. Someone at the FBI might have simply come up with the idea of asking if Liberty had a back door instead of the harder way of breaking the safe open. But once someone figures out that this option exists then it would likely become pretty widely known.
That's a ridiculous argument when the company has a stated policy that says what I said. Liberty explained they only provide access codes where a warrant is in place.
That's not a hypothetical. That's an admission as to how they have been operating.
That is less of a legal perspective and more of a policy perspective. Legally they could give this backdoor code or they could demand a subpoena/search warrant.
No. Now you're just mincing words. You reiterated exactly what I said, but chose to say it's policy, not "legal perspective." That's BS. When they were not compelled LEGALLY to disclose anything until and unless a subpoena forced them to, that's about as much of a legal issue as it can get. It was their policy to cooperate with only a search warrant issued for their customer's property, but the fact that they had no legal requirement to do so is 100% within the scope of "legal perspective" regardless of policy.
On a side note I always wished I had gotten the digital keypad since it is faster but at least the mechanical lock they don't have a backdoor. In the end I think this is not really that big an issue.
So, if you buy a safe to protect your property from ANY access without your permission, and the vendor bypasses your combination to let LE open it, you'd be okay with that?
WTH did you buy a safe for then? If a 3rd party can decide to allow someone else access to your safe's contents, would you really not see that as a big deal?
If cops come to my house and take my safe as part of some criminal investigation they are going to get into it eventually
Saying "they are going to get into it eventually" is a rationalization, not a justification. Any motivated thief is going to eventually get into your locked safe to steal your guns, so why have a safe at all? Just get a locking cabinet to keep the kids out, and you're golden.
-
On a side note I always wished I had gotten the digital keypad since it is faster but at least the mechanical lock they don't have a backdoor. In the end I think this is not really that big an issue. If cops come to my house and take my safe as part of some criminal investigation they are going to get into it eventually
Unfortunately Mechanical safes do have a backdoor code.
-
Unfortunately Mechanical safes do have a backdoor code.
Can you elaborate?
I thought there's only one possible combination that can unlock a safe with a mechanical lock. i.e. all the tumblers have to be aligned for it to open which means each tumbler has one position / one number which allows it to align.
Are you talking about the factory-set combo? Liberty says all mechanical locks ship with a random, factory-set combo. If you wish to change it, they say you have to hire a locksmith to do it for you.
That's not a "back door", but a combo the factory created for the "front door," gave to the customer, and stored in their database.
By contrast, i replaced my electronic lock with an S&G 6730-100 Mechanical Safe Lock. This is a Group 2 class lock.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002EDF466/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1
I installed it myself and selected my own combo, which is super easy using the set key provided.
The only thing I can think which keeps a consumer from setting their own combo is if the change key is not available to anyone except locksmiths and authorized Liberty Safe reps.
Some safes are equipped with a mechanical safe lock where you need to turn
a dial to enter your code. Changing the code on this type of lock must be done
by an authorized Liberty Safe dealer or a licensed locksmith.
You can find a list of dealers and locksmiths in your area here.
https://www.libertysafe.com/blogs/the-vault/can-i-change-the-combination-on-my-safe-lock#mech
-
Please show me where protecting a supermarket's video is a constitutionally protected right of the people. Also, people in a supermarket are in a public access area where there is no expectation of privacy. Thirdly, releasing the video does not grant LE access to the private, secured spaces owned by anyone in the video. Your analogy is 100%+ wrong.
Please show me where a safe owner has a constitutionally protected right against the safe company from proving a back door code to the safe. The 4th amendment applies to the government, not a private individual or entity. A business can comply with a law enforcement request for information if it wants to. Take a hotel manifest for example, not public information but if a cop says we are looking for John, is he staying in your hotel they can choose to say yes and give the room number.
That's a ridiculous argument when the company has a stated policy that says what I said. Liberty explained they only provide access codes where a warrant is in place.
That's not a hypothetical. That's an admission as to how they have been operating.
Would you be fine if a safe company gave your safe code to the authorities if they had a warrant?
No. Now you're just mincing words. You reiterated exactly what I said, but chose to say it's policy, not "legal perspective." That's BS. When they were not compelled LEGALLY to disclose anything until and unless a subpoena forced them to, that's about as much of a legal issue as it can get. It was their policy to cooperate with only a search warrant issued for their customer's property, but the fact that they had no legal requirement to do so is 100% within the scope of "legal perspective" regardless of policy.
Their decision to give a code to law enforcement is a policy decision, not a legal one because they had the power to comply or to ask for a subpoena or ask for a warrant. If the cops came with a warrant and they complied with the warrant then it would be a legal decision.
So, if you buy a safe to protect your property from ANY access without your permission, and the vendor bypasses your combination to let LE open it, you'd be okay with that?
WTH did you buy a safe for then? If a 3rd party can decide to allow someone else access to your safe's contents, would you really not see that as a big deal?
Saying "they are going to get into it eventually" is a rationalization, not a justification. Any motivated thief is going to eventually get into your locked safe to steal your guns, so why have a safe at all? Just get a locking cabinet to keep the kids out, and you're golden.
I am pointing out that it is a moot point. If cops take my safe as evidence in some crime it make no difference whether they get in through brute force or through a back door code, they are going to get in and have a look regardless. The question that matters is whether they are justified to take my safe and look into it. I won't be more or less guilty if the cops use a crowbar instead of a back door code.
-
Please show me where a safe owner has a constitutionally protected right against the safe company from proving a back door code to the safe. The 4th amendment applies to the government, not a private individual or entity. A business can comply with a law enforcement request for information if it wants to. Take a hotel manifest for example, not public information but if a cop says we are looking for John, is he staying in your hotel they can choose to say yes and give the room number.
...
LOL! When a private company or individual acts as an agent of any law enforcement agency, then the government is also an actor.
if Liberty had called up the FBI and volunteered the information, then you'd have a point. But when they were asked for the code and willingly handed it over without a subpoena, they were acting in the same capacity as any other officer helping to execute a warrant on the subject's home.
Ever watch shows like Law & Order? i've seen many movies, TV shows and episodes in which a cop talked a third party into doing what they could not do themselves -- like searching an apartment the third party is the maintenance guy or landlord for. The evidence gets thrown out because the third party was only looking for the evidence at the request of the police. That's all it takes to become an agent of the government. And if the agent violates someone's constitutional rights, the government is responsible.
-
LOL! When a private company or individual acts as an agent of any law enforcement agency, then the government is also an actor.
if Liberty had called up the FBI and volunteered the information, then you'd have a point. But when they were asked for the code and willingly handed it over without a subpoena, they were acting in the same capacity as any other officer helping to execute a warrant on the subject's home.
Ever watch shows like Law & Order? i've seen many movies, TV shows and episodes in which a cop talked a third party into doing what they could not do themselves -- like searching an apartment the third party is the maintenance guy or landlord for. The evidence gets thrown out because the third party was only looking for the evidence at the request of the police. That's all it takes to become an agent of the government. And if the agent violates someone's constitutional rights, the government is responsible.
The truth lies in the weeds. If the FBI called up Liberty safe and said, please help us break into the safe, then yes, they would be considered acting as an agent of the government. If the FBI asked if there is a backdoor code to unlock a safe and Liberty Safe provided that information then it would be hard to make the case that Liberty Safe is acting as an agent of the government. Between that those two ends is lots of gray area.
Regardless, even if Liberty Safe physically participated in the opening of the safe, at the direction of the FBI, and would therefore be considered agents of the government, Liberty Safe would not be guilty of an improper search. The results of the search might get tossed out as fruits of the poisonous tree of course.
According to the video by Brandon Hererra there was a search warrant to look into the safe. Furthermore he stated that according to Liberty Safe's statement, they received proof that the FBI had a valid search warrant. So at this point, I don't see much of a legal issue. If the FBI did the traditional thing and hired a locksmith, they would not need an extra subpoena to order the locksmith to do his thing. Yes the locksmith would be acting as an agent of the government but the search is legal if there is a warrant. The difference here is that they asked the company about a back door means of opening the safe and the company provided them with it. Now if the FBI asked LS for the specific code to Flapp's safe and LS provided it, you could argue that it was your personal information and that you had an expectation of privacy to said information. However if LS just had a master key or master code that worked on all safes you would have a hard time claiming that code as your personal information and therefore subject to an additional search warrant.
-
If feds broke into the safe and had to return all items, then wouldn't they also have to pay for repair or replacement? Now they can just give it back and always have that backdoor code until the locking mechanism is changed.
The big issue is that a company is complying with an agency who doesn't have the best track record. And it's supposed to be a pro 2a company as they make gun safes. I say supposed because we found out who they are owned by.
-
The truth lies in the weeds. If the FBI called up Liberty safe and said, please help us break into the safe, then yes, they would be considered acting as an agent of the government. If the FBI asked if there is a backdoor code to unlock a safe and Liberty Safe provided that information then it would be hard to make the case that Liberty Safe is acting as an agent of the government. Between that those two ends is lots of gray area.
Regardless, even if Liberty Safe physically participated in the opening of the safe, at the direction of the FBI, and would therefore be considered agents of the government, Liberty Safe would not be guilty of an improper search. The results of the search might get tossed out as fruits of the poisonous tree of course.
According to the video by Brandon Hererra there was a search warrant to look into the safe. Furthermore he stated that according to Liberty Safe's statement, they received proof that the FBI had a valid search warrant. So at this point, I don't see much of a legal issue. If the FBI did the traditional thing and hired a locksmith, they would not need an extra subpoena to order the locksmith to do his thing. Yes the locksmith would be acting as an agent of the government but the search is legal if there is a warrant. The difference here is that they asked the company about a back door means of opening the safe and the company provided them with it. Now if the FBI asked LS for the specific code to Flapp's safe and LS provided it, you could argue that it was your personal information and that you had an expectation of privacy to said information. However if LS just had a master key or master code that worked on all safes you would have a hard time claiming that code as your personal information and therefore subject to an additional search warrant.
Once again, you trying to mince words is not an argument.
Do you really believe Liberty would say, "Why yes, we keep master codes of safes. Would you like one?"
Ridiculous. Liberty was told by the FBI, "We have a search warrant and need to access one of your safes. Can we get any combos you have in your database for serial number 12345?"
At that point, Liberty has the option to say no, but they chose to be agents of the government by assisting with executing a search warrant.
You're making up crap that doesn't fit the reported facts.
-
Once again, you trying to mince words is not an argument.
In your opinion.
Do you really believe Liberty would say, "Why yes, we keep master codes of safes. Would you like one?"
Ridiculous. Liberty was told by the FBI, "We have a search warrant and need to access one of your safes. Can we get any combos you have in your database for serial number 12345?"
At that point, Liberty has the option to say no, but they chose to be agents of the government by assisting with executing a search warrant.
Lets go with that assumption as being correct for the sake of discussion. So what is the problem if Liberty Safe acted as an agent of the government as long as the FBI had a search warrant to open the safe?
-
In your opinion.
Lets go with that assumption as being correct for the sake of discussion. So what is the problem if Liberty Safe acted as an agent of the government as long as the FBI had a search warrant to open the safe?
You're very dense.
The Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) found that the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy against governmental intrusion via penumbras located in the founding text.
The FBI did not have a search warrant to open the safe, only to search his property. They were permitted to search the safe if it was open since it was in his home, but he was under no obligation to incriminate himself or to assist the FBI in their search by divulging the combo - 5th Amendment protection.
Liberty, by acting on behalf of the FBI, violated the man's 5th Amendment rights. They used private information they stored on him and his safe to help the FBI search for evidence against him.
How would you like it if the FBI told you to unlock your cell so they can see every call, text, picture and site in your browser history, and when you refused, your carrier volunteered to unlock it for them? Without a subpoena compelling their cooperation, they are violating your right to privacy protecting your ability to avoid self-incrimination.
-
How would you like it if the FBI told you to unlock your cell so they can see every call, text, picture and site in your browser history, and when you refused, your carrier volunteered to unlock it for them? Without a subpoena compelling their cooperation, they are violating your right to privacy protecting your ability to avoid self-incrimination.
Gotta fix this: Add in FBI had a warrant for you to show them your phone. But no warrant for the phone company to open it.
This is also why you don't let LEO's into your home without a warrant. Anything they "see" can be used against you to get a warrant or additional charges. Don't even open the door.
-
You're very dense.
The Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) found that the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy against governmental intrusion via penumbras located in the founding text.
The FBI did not have a search warrant to open the safe, only to search his property. They were permitted to search the safe if it was open since it was in his home, but he was under no obligation to incriminate himself or to assist the FBI in their search by divulging the combo - 5th Amendment protection.
Liberty, by acting on behalf of the FBI, violated the man's 5th Amendment rights. They used private information they stored on him and his safe to help the FBI search for evidence against him.
How would you like it if the FBI told you to unlock your cell so they can see every call, text, picture and site in your browser history, and when you refused, your carrier volunteered to unlock it for them? Without a subpoena compelling their cooperation, they are violating your right to privacy protecting your ability to avoid self-incrimination.
I have to dense be with you.
I rewatched the video from Brandon Herera just to make sure I didn't make a mistake and mishear something. He clearly stated that the FBI had a warrant to search the safe at about the 45 second mark. Dense enough for you?
-
I have to dense be with you.
I rewatched the video from Brandon Herera just to make sure I didn't make a mistake and mishear something. He clearly stated that the FBI had a warrant to search the safe at about the 45 second mark. Dense enough for you?
So who's name was on the warrant? The owner, Liberty, etc...? Or do warrants work like a blanket and they can show it to anyone they need to, to accomplish what the warrant states?
By Liberty's statement, it doesn't sound like the warrant was addressed to Liberty.
-
I have to dense be with you.
I rewatched the video from Brandon Herera just to make sure I didn't make a mistake and mishear something. He clearly stated that the FBI had a warrant to search the safe at about the 45 second mark. Dense enough for you?
Go read the actual warrant instead of depending on second- and third-hand information you got from a YouTuber.
How about a statement from the Missouri Attorney general who just launched an investigation into Liberty Safe's decision to help the FBI?
The state Attorney General Andrew Bailey, a Republican, announced on Tuesday that his
office was launching an investigation into the company's release of its customer's safe code
to federal investigators, saying that the FBI "did not have a court order ordering Liberty Safe
to provide the safe's combination."
https://www.newsweek.com/liberty-safe-facing-investigation-customer-code-sharing-backlash-1826604
Liberty Safe's own statement, and the subsequent change to their policy, shows they didn't have a warrant FOR THE SAFE SPECIFICALLY, but rather to the property being searched -- as in buildings, grounds and vehicles on the property. Liberty at least twice used the word "property" in their statement referring to this warrant and warrants in general. The new policy says they must receive a subpoena for the SAFE itself before they give the codes up if they have them, now that they allow customers to have the information deleted.
Once again, while a safe is "property," it was not spelled out like you seem to think (you: "He clearly stated that the FBI had a warrant to search the safe"). Nope. The FBI had a warrant to search the property, which in common English legal terms means the location -- i.e. grounds and buildings.
Here's a source that describes how the warrant specifies a location (property) and what they are allowed to seize:
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/search-warrant-basics-29742.html
(https://i.imgur.com/ZgNwKRQ.png)
-
Liberty Safe: You gave us your money, but we still own your stuff. >:D
-
Liberty Safe: You gave us your money, but we still own your stuff. >:D
They are being investigated for possibly failing to inform customers in no uncertain terms (not in vague EEF language) that they not only store your codes, but they will give them u;p if LE ever comes knocking with any old kind of warrant.
One would think in todays litigious society, a company as big and popular as Liberty would ask a lawyer if their policies are legally sound.
Guess they used that money for their holiday parties.
-
So who's name was on the warrant? The owner, Liberty, etc...? Or do warrants work like a blanket and they can show it to anyone they need to, to accomplish what the warrant states?
By Liberty's statement, it doesn't sound like the warrant was addressed to Liberty.
There are different issues at play here. Warrants do not need to name specific individuals but they do need to name specific property being searched. An address for example or a specific piece of property, ie bag, cell phone, etc. I think the only time you would need to name an individual is if it was either a body cavity search or it was property in possession of a certain individual.
The first is the issue of whether there was a valid warrant and what it covered. Warrants don't just say go search CMO's house, they go into a lot of detail telling law enforcement what they are to look for and where they can look. The warrant can even mention just part of the house. Warrants usually go into further detail by saying not just a room/house but specific things within the rooms, such as "all closed containers within". Sometimes it may specify only certain containers based on what is being looked for. For example if cops are searching for a stolen TV, the warrant might only allow them to look in closed containers big enough for a TV. Depending on the actual wording of the warrant the safe could be mentioned specifically or it could be mentioned indirectly by something like the specifying of closed containers within.
The second issue is requesting Liberty Safe's assistance. If they requested LS to actively assist in opening the safe then that makes LS an agent of the government. LS does not have to comply just because they ask or even if they have a warrant. If the warrant doesn't cover the safe then the opening of the safe by the FBI or by LS would be inadmissible. If there was a valid search warrant then the search is legal whether LS complied voluntarily or provided the information based on a subpoena. Consider if cops got a warrant to search an apartment. They could either kick down the door or they could ask the landlord to use his spare/master key to unlock the door. The landlord can say no or he can use his key to unlock the door, both would be fine as long as the warrant was valid. The cops would not need a separate court order in order to ask the landlord for his help.
-
Go read the actual warrant instead of depending on second- and third-hand information you got from a YouTuber.
How about a statement from the Missouri Attorney general who just launched an investigation into Liberty Safe's decision to help the FBI?
https://www.newsweek.com/liberty-safe-facing-investigation-customer-code-sharing-backlash-1826604
Liberty Safe's own statement, and the subsequent change to their policy, shows they didn't have a warrant FOR THE SAFE SPECIFICALLY, but rather to the property being searched -- as in buildings, grounds and vehicles on the property. Liberty at least twice used the word "property" in their statement referring to this warrant and warrants in general. The new policy says they must receive a subpoena for the SAFE itself before they give the codes up if they have them, now that they allow customers to have the information deleted.
Once again, while a safe is "property," it was not spelled out like you seem to think (you: "He clearly stated that the FBI had a warrant to search the safe"). Nope. The FBI had a warrant to search the property, which in common English legal terms means the location -- i.e. grounds and buildings.
Here's a source that describes how the warrant specifies a location (property) and what they are allowed to seize:
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/search-warrant-basics-29742.html
(https://i.imgur.com/ZgNwKRQ.png)
The statement from LS you posted does not say whether the safe was included in the search warrant, it only says search of property. It would be a non sequitur to conclude based on that information that the safe was not covered by the warrant. The statement does not contain enough information to know whether the safe was included as the property to be searched or not. If LS changed their policies that is all fine and good but that doesn't change anything about the initial case/
The discussion was started with a youtuber commentary. If he was wrong, get mad at him, not at me.
Did you even read the actual warrant?
-
so dumb. Most of you don't have a safe let alone guns that you use or NVGs...but you have a relative's cousin's friend's uncle's brother who knows someone who has a Liberty safe
-
The statement from LS you posted does not say whether the safe was included in the search warrant, it only says search of property. It would be a non sequitur to conclude based on that information that the safe was not covered by the warrant. The statement does not contain enough information to know whether the safe was included as the property to be searched or not. If LS changed their policies that is all fine and good but that doesn't change anything about the initial case/
The discussion was started with a youtuber commentary. If he was wrong, get mad at him, not at me.
Did you even read the actual warrant?
Once again, they programmed you. LS is well aware of the backlash and didn't post "Liberty Safe was provided a warrant making us provide..." or "We were address specifically in the warrant to provide..." or "Liberty Safe was given a warrant to provide the access code...".
Because they were never named in any warrant is why they never stated anything like the above. But I understand why you give them the benefit of the doubt.
-
so dumb. Most of you don't have a safe let alone guns that you use or NVGs...but you have a relative's cousin's friend's uncle's brother who knows someone who has a Liberty safe
Correct, I own no safe or guns, or ammo, or reloading supplies, or NVGs, or comms, or preps, or bodyarmor.
-
what a coincidence!
me too!!!
Correct, I own no safe or guns, or ammo, or reloading supplies, or NVGs, or comms, or preps, or bodyarmor.
-
what a coincidence!
me too!!!
Please clarify your "me too". Do you own a pink hat?
-
The statement from LS you posted does not say whether the safe was included in the search warrant, it only says search of property. It would be a non sequitur to conclude based on that information that the safe was not covered by the warrant. The statement does not contain enough information to know whether the safe was included as the property to be searched or not. If LS changed their policies that is all fine and good but that doesn't change anything about the initial case/
The discussion was started with a youtuber commentary. If he was wrong, get mad at him, not at me.
Did you even read the actual warrant?
Of course i did, but i can't post it on a public server.
:geekdanc:
-
Liberty Safes have a new policy. Bascially,need a specific warrant. And if customer op'd out of them storing the code, then still no can help LEO's.
-
i got a new policy too. fuck liberty safe.
-
Liberty Safe is not owned by the person who started Liberty Safe company. It is now owned by a conglomerate who only makes campaign donations to Democrats and anti gun Democrats at that!
https://youtu.be/AAceuQE-51o?si=kLxjsIkgcfvJfNOg