Mediaboss Marketing

A warrant allowed FBI agents in Tennessee to force a suspect to unlock his encrypted Amazon messaging app, Wickr, with his face. It's an unprecedented move by the feds.

In November last year, an undercover agent with the FBI was inside a group on Amazon-owned messaging app Wickr, with a name referencing young girls. The group was devoted to sharing child sexual abuse material (CSAM) within the protection of the encrypted app, which is also used by the U.S. government, journalists and activists for private communications. Encryption makes it almost impossible for law enforcement to intercept messages sent over Wickr, but this agent had found a way to infiltrate the chat, where they could start piecing together who was sharing the material.

As part of the investigation into the members of this Wickr group, the FBI used a previously unreported search warrant method to force one member to unlock the encrypted messaging app using his face. The FBI has previously forced users to unlock an iPhone with Face ID, but this search warrant, obtained by Forbes, represents the first known public record of a U.S. law enforcement agency getting a judges permission to unlock an encrypted messaging app with someones biometrics.

According to the warrant, the FBI first tracked down the suspect by sending a request for information, via an unnamed foreign law enforcement partner, to the cloud storage provider hosting the illegal images. That gave them the Gmail address the FBI said belonged to Christopher Terry, a 53-year-old Knoxville, Tennessee resident, who had prior convictions for possession of child exploitation material. It also provided IP addresses used to create the links to the CSAM. From there, investigators asked Google and Comcast via administrative subpoenas (data requests that dont have the same level of legal requirements as search warrants) for more identifying information that helped them track down Terry and raid his home.

When they apprehended Terry, the FBI obtained his unlocked phone as well. But there was a problem: His Wickr account was locked with Apples Face ID facial recognition security. By the time it was made known to the FBI that facial recognition was needed to access the locked application Wickr, Terry had asked for an attorney, the FBI noted in its warrant. Therefore, the United States seeks this additional search warrant seeking Terrys biometric facial recognition to complete the search of Terrys Apple iPhone 11.

Most courts are going to find they can force you to use your face to unlock your phone because it's not compelling you to speak or incriminate yourself...

After the FBI successfully forced Terry to use his face to unlock his Wickr account, Terry was charged in a criminal complaint with distribution and possession of CSAM, but has not yet offered a plea. His lawyer did not respond to a request for comment at the time of publication.

Amazons Wickr hadnt provided comment at time of publication. The FBI, Google and Comcast did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Forcing people to unlock encrypted messaging with their biometrics is unprecedented and controversial. Thats because of an illogical quirk in U.S. law: Courts across the U.S. have not allowed investigators to compel people to hand over a passcode for phones or apps, but they have allowed them to repeatedly unlock phones using biometrics. Thats despite the obvious fact that the result is the same.

Jerome Greco, a public defender in the Digital Forensics Unit of the Legal Aid Society in New York City, says this is because American law hasnt caught up with the technology. Passcodes, unlike biometric information, are legally considered testimonial, and citizens are not obliged to provide such testimony because the Fifth Amendment protects you from self-incrimination. But body parts are, by their nature, not as private as a persons thoughts, Greco notes.

Most courts are going to find they can force you to use your face to unlock your phone because it's not compelling you to speak or incriminate yourself... similar to fingerprints or DNA, Greco says.

But he believes there will soon be enough diverging case law for the Supreme Court to have to decide whether or not compelled facial recognition unlocks are lawful. We're trying to apply centuries-old constitutional law that no one could have envisioned would have been an issue when the laws were written, he says. I think the fight is coming.

There has been some pushback over such biometric unlocks from judges in some states. That includes two 2019 cases in California and Idaho, where the police wanted to force open phones inside properties relevant to the investigations. The judges in those cases declared biometric data was, in fact, testimonial, and law enforcement couldnt force the owners of those phones to use their faces to unlock them.

But last year, Forbes revealed the Justice Department was continuing to carry out such searches. It had also adopted new language in its warrants that said suspects have a legal right to decline to tell law enforcement whether its your face, your finger, or your eye that unlocks your phone. But even if you dont say what will unlock your phone, the DOJ said investigators could unlock your device by simply holding it up to your face or pressing your finger to it.

The search also comes after years of campaigning by the FBI to have tech giants provide more assistance in providing access to encrypted data. Since the 2015 San Bernardino terrorist attack, where the Justice Department demanded Apple open the shooters iPhone, that debate has intensified. The warrant, however, shows the government does have some techniques it can use to find criminals using the likes of Wickr and its encrypted data.

For now, Greco says the best way a person can protect themselves from such searches is to lock a device with a complex passcode rather than a face. Its possible to do the same with Wickr by disabling Touch ID or Face ID.

Continue reading here:
The FBI Forced A Suspect To Unlock Amazon's Encrypted App Wickr With Their Face - Forbes

A federal judge has put a six-month hold on civil proceedings in a lawsuit centered on the 2019 death of John Neville. A trial has been continued until October 2023, according to an order filed Tuesday.

Sean Neville, John Nevilles son and the executor of his estate, filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court on Sept. 28, 2021 against five former detention officers at the Forsyth County Jail, a former nurse at the jail, Sheriff Bobby Kimbrough Jr., Forsyth County and WellPath LLC, the jails former medical provider.

Neville

The lawsuit alleges that the nurse and the detention officers ignored John Nevilles medical distress and that the detention officers had him pinned on his stomach, hands behind his back, for nearly an hour while he said numerous times that he could not breathe.

Neville died at Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center on Dec. 4, 2019, three days after he was first brought to the Forsyth County Jail. Kimbrough did not publicly acknowledge Nevilles death until he was questioned by the Winston-Salem Journal six months later. News of Nevilles death prompted protests during the summer of 2020, resulting in 55 arrests, and a 49-day occupation of Bailey Park by Triad Abolition Project.

People are also reading

In July 2020, Forsyth County District Attorney Jim ONeill announced charges of involuntary manslaughter against the nurse, Michelle Heughins, and the five detention officers Lt. Lavette Maria Williams, Cpl. Edward Joseph Roussel, Officer Sarah Elizabeth Poole, Officer Antonio Woodley Jr. and Officer Christopher Bryan Stamper. But in April, a Forsyth County grand jury declined to indict any of the detention officers.

Heughins, 46, was indicted on a charge of involuntary manslaughter.

A trial date on Heughins criminal charge has not been set. Her criminal defense attorneys have filed 12 different motions, including a motion to dismiss the indictment, that will likely be heard in early fall.

Sean Neville told the News & Observer that he holds all six defendants equally responsible for his fathers death.

Through his attorney, Richard Keshian, Sean Neville has declined any additional comments. Keshian could not be reached Wednesday for comment about the judges ruling.

Heughins and Wellpath are also the only remaining defendants in the pending wrongful death lawsuit after a $3 million settlement was reached with the detention officers, Forsyth County and Kimbrough. A trial had been set for the week of April 3, 2023. Attorneys for Heughins and Wellpath sought a delay of civil proceedings and asked for the trial to be continued.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Eagles partially granted that request. She ruled that for the next six months, Heughins cannot be asked specifically about her role in Nevilles death, which would preserve, for now, her constitutional rights against self-incrimination while she is still facing a criminal charge.

But Eagles made clear that she would be opposed to any indefinite stay in civil proceedings or any more significant delays in the trial.

Given the nature of the plaintiffs claims, the plaintiff and the public have a substantial interest in the prompt resolution of this case and learning more about the relevant facts, Eagles wrote in her order. The Court also has an interest in prompt resolution and a firm trial date so it can manage scheduling of this and other matters with some degree of confidence.

On Dec. 1, 2019, Neville, 56, of Greensboro, was arrested by Kernersville police officers on an outstanding warrant for misdemeanor assault. The officers took him to the Forsyth County Jail. Twenty-four hours later, detention officers and Heughins went into Nevilles cell after his cellmate pushed a call button. Neville had fallen from his top bunk 4 feet from the floor after having seizure-like symptoms. He was found sweating with vomit on his clothes and blood around his mouth.

The lawsuit alleges that Heughins and the detention officers ignored Nevilles medical distress and failed to immediately send him to the hospital. He was pinned in his jail cell, placed in a restraint chair with handcuffs and ankle restraints and taken to a multipurpose room where Heughins tried a second time to get a pulse. Then, he was taken to another cell.

According to the lawsuit, officers had Neville get face down on a mattress in another cell on another floor while detention officers piled on top of him in an attempt to take off his handcuffs and ankle restraints.

The ankle restraints were removed and his legs were folded toward his buttocks. The detention officers broke one handcuff key and found that another one wouldnt work. They got a bolt cutter that also failed and then waited for another bolt cutter that did work. During that time, the lawsuit said, Neville told officers 30 times that he could not breathe.

By the time the handcuffs were removed, Neville had been in a prone position, sometimes referred to as a hog-tie position, for 12 minutes. Detention officers stripped Neville of his blue jumpsuit and left him alone in his cell. They went back in and started trying to save his life after Heughins noticed Neville wasnt breathing.

Nearly 20 minutes after Neville was first placed in the prone position, Heughins started CPR. He was revived several times, both at the jail and at the hospital, before he went into a coma.

An autopsy report said Neville died from a brain injury caused when his heart stopped and his brain was deprived of oxygen. He asphyxiated while being restrained with his arms behind his back and his legs folded.

Eagles pointed out that, by the time the civil case comes to trial in October 2023, Neville would have been dead four years.

Ms. Heughins has known for many months that she was facing criminal charges and civil claims over Mr. Nevilles death, she said. If she is not willing to waive her Fifth Amendment rights by December 2022, three years after Mr. Nevilles death, there is nothing to indicate she ever will. And if she will never waive her Fifth Amendment rights, then further delay serves little purpose.

Get the latest in local public safety news with this weekly email.

View original post here:
Former jail nurse's civil trial postponed as criminal case proceeds. She is charged in the 2019 death of John Neville. - Winston-Salem Journal

By Dr. Roger H. HullFor The Daily Gazette

If 100 people were asked to describe the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, the overwhelming majority could state it is the right against self-incrimination.

(Among those who have taken the Fifth recently is a long line of Trump acolytes, who, apparently, have forgotten 45 said, innocent people dont plead the Fifth.)

Suppose now those 100 people were asked to state the premise of the Sixth Amendment. Very few could.

Every day one reads articles about whether our 45th president should be indicted for his words and actions regarding the transfer of power following his loss to Joe Biden.

That decision will be made by Attorney General Merrick Garland.

Will Garland seek to indict a former president, something that has not been done before in our nations history?

Presumably that decision will be made (relatively) shortly.

Pundits in the press and on television comment daily on what Garland will do.

Assuming he makes the decision to indict and gets the indictment, would he, or a special prosecutor appointed by him, get a conviction?

Here the Sixth Amendment enters the calculation. As the Sixth Amendment states, every person in a criminal proceeding is entitled to a trial by jury.

Since nearly two-thirds of Republicans and one-third of independents still believe the election was stolen from Trump, a jury trial would appear to inure to his benefit.

Why? A criminal jury trial requires a unanimous decision.

Given the fact a significant percentage of those selected to serve on a jury might well feel Trumps actions were justified on January 6 and thereafter, Trump would ostensibly benefit from a jury trial.

Importantly, potential jurors are asked whether they have formed an opinion about the case they are about to hear. Trump supporters clearly have.

Would they answer those questions forthrightly? I have my doubts.

The decision, therefore, becomes a bit more complicated for the Attorney General. After all, while no one is (or should be) above the law, should the Attorney General bring charges when he is uncertain about the outcome? (Most prosecutors would not seek an indictment if they felt they could not get a conviction.)

To complicate matters further, if 45 is indicted and not convicted, will his standing among Americans go up? Presumably so. And, if that is the case, would Garland, in effect, end up enhancing 45s chances for re-election in 2024 by seeking an indictment?

On the first day of law school, students learn to argue a case both ways.

When I taught law, I went a step further: I had students argue a position orally and then write a paper espousing the opposite side of that which they had stated in their oral presentation.

The Garland/Trump scenario can easily be argued both ways.

No, I am not saying I believe 45 did not commit a crime. In fact, I believe he has committed several crimes.

Instead, the argument that can be made both ways is whether a former president, who might be a future president, has his path for re-election made smoother by an indictment on which he is not convicted and, if so, whether the indictment should therefore not be pursued.

No one is above the law, including a sitting or former president.

Yet, if an indictment but not a conviction is obtained, and the former presidents position is politically enhanced by the failure to convict, should the indictment have been sought in the first place?

Doing the right thing usually bears consequences.

In this particular case, those consequences are far higher than usual, since passions have not been this high since the Civil War.

If you were Garland, what would you do?

Dr. Roger H. Hull of Schenectady is president emeritus of Union College and president of Help Yourself Win Foundation.

Categories: Guest Column, Opinion

Here is the original post:
GUEST COLUMN: Weigh consequences of indicting Trump The Daily Gazette - The Daily Gazette

Published: 6/29/2022 5:46:23 PM

GREENFIELD Two witnesses in the case against a former western Massachusetts man apprehended in Florida a month after being added to the Massachusetts State Polices list of most-wanted fugitives will not have to testify at his trial, a Franklin County Superior Court judge ruled on Wednesday.

Judge Mark Mason spoke face to face with both individuals, who invoked their Fifth Amendment privileges to not incriminate themselves on the stand, and decided they had satisfied him in arguing their privileges were proper in these circumstances. They could be forced to testify if they accept immunity in exchange for their testimonies. One of the individuals is the complaining witness against Jeffrey Cancel-Muniz, 42, who faces charges of strangulation or suffocation, kidnapping, rape and aggravated rape as a result of a sexual assault that allegedly occurred in Deerfield in May 2020.

Cancel-Muniz appeared at Wednesdays motion hearing with attorney Thomas P. Glynn, who has replaced attorney Isaac Mass. Mass requested to be removed from the case due to a conflict.

Attorney Tyler Ingraham, representing the complaining witness, referred to by only her initials, explained his client was willing to enter the courtroom to speak with Mason, but insisted she not be in the same room with Cancel-Muniz. Mason said every defendant has the right to be physically present in a courtroom and asked Glynn to persuade Cancel-Muniz to go into a cell outside the courtroom. Cancel-Muniz agreed and the witness entered the room, where she was sworn in and spoke with Mason. Cancel-Muniz was ushered back into the room after the woman left and the next witness was sworn in to talk with Mason.

The majority of people in the courtroom were then ordered to leave for what is called a Martin hearing, named after the state Supreme Judicial Court case Commonwealth v. Martin in 1996. This allows the witness to make his or her case for Fifth Amendment privileges in private. The courtroom reopened after about 10 minutes and Mason informed the second witness, represented by attorney John Godleski, that he was free to go.

The case is being prosecuted by Assistant District Attorney Sandra Staub of the Northwestern District Attorneys Office.

Cancel-Muniz, a Level 3 sex offender, is being held at the Franklin County Jail and House of Correction in Greenfield. His trial is expected to be held in November.

He was arrested in Florida in April 2021 after a hotel clerk had an issue with him, searched his name online and saw his face on a poster the State Polices Violent Fugitive Apprehension Section had released to news media outlets. Deputies with the Osceola County Sheriffs Office responded to the Travelodge Suites by Wyndham Kissimmee Orange after the lodging facility notified them that Cancel-Muniz was a guest there, according to a statement from Massachusetts State Police spokesperson David Procopio at the time. Deputies verified the warrants against Cancel-Muniz and arrested him as a fugitive from justice.

Reach Domenic Poli at: dpoli@recorder.com or 413-772-0261, ext. 262.

See original here:
Two witnesses invoke Fifth Amendment rights in former fugitive's Deerfield case - The Recorder

Whats Quickly? Its where readers sound off on the issues of the day. Have a quote, question or quip? Call Quickly at 312-222-2426 or email quickly@post-trib.com.

Even though most Americans do not agree with the radical actions being taken by the Supreme Court, they are still pushing their agenda in defiance of our democracy. I see this as a last-ditch effort for the religious sect to try and control and hold onto any influence they had on people.

Republicans know that they cannot possibly win in November on their practically non-existent policies, so they are counting on two other things: gerrymandering and voter suppression. So far, courts packed with partisan Republican judges are giving them permission to do both of these things as often as they like.

More of Trumps side of the story might come out if so many of his former lawyers and staff didnt always plead the Fifth Amendment. They know that if they actually did tell Trumps side of the story theyd be in very deep trouble.

Abortion is such a hot-button issue. I have never had an abortion but I would never judge someone for making that decision. There are many people who should have had one rather than bringing a child into this world and then allowing them to be assaulted, physically and sexually or to go hungry. That is the kind of abuse that is not understandable. Not everyone is meant to be a parent, and everyone knows someone that has kids that shouldnt have them.

After initially saying that she wanted to clear things up, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomass wife, Ginni Thomas, has said that she does not want to meet with the Select Committee because she doesnt think that she has much information to share. How funny, she planned and helped pay for the insurrection, and she pestered Republican lawmakers to push for overturning the election, yet she thinks she doesnt have much to share?

A little bit about this Mr. Ornato who they claim is disputing Miss Hutchinsons account of Trumps behavior in the Beast that he relayed to her. Mr. Ornato was reassigned to Secret Service Training because he was not trusted to protect President Biden, as he had become very close to Donald Trump.

Twice-weekly

News updates from Northwest Indiana delivered every Monday and Wednesday

Did you ever think that oil companies are keeping gas prices high to help Republicans get elected in exchange for more tax breaks?

On July 23, 2017, 39 immigrants were found dead in the back of a trailer in a Wal-Mart parking lot in San Antonio, Texas. Republicans were silent then as they are now about that because Trump was President and Abbott was Texas governor. This also happened in 2003 when Bush was President. You cant pick and choose when something horrific is really bad, depending on who is in power.

Rep. Lauren Boebert says she is tired of separation of church and state. How about the Quran or Buddhists or possibly the Wiccan religion could guide us?

Remember that you can still be a Republican if you do not vote for Trump. You just know he is not in his right mind; he lost the election and it was a riot.

Never fails that when I want to know what the left is thinking, and up to, I just read the Quicklys. Im sure this wont ever make it for others to view, because thats how the left works, they are all about silencing dissenting views or opinions of their agenda. And I now know that the P-T is a far left leaning propaganda pusher of fake news. Prove me wrong! If this never makes it to the public, then you just did!

After the abortion ruling, the Vatican said that anti-abortion activists should be concerned with other issues that threaten life, such as easy access to guns, poverty, and rising maternity rates. If you are really pro-life, you dont get to cherry-pick only one issue and focus on that while the others are ignored.

Read more at http://www.post-trib.com/opinion.

Follow this link:
Quickly: Readers sound off on the issues of the day - Chicago Tribune