We get it you're using a computer from the 90s, but even a modern personal computer is damn loud when the GPU kicks in and does actual work. Now put 20,000 of them next to each other and you end up with "a building" that generates considerable noise, uses considerable amount of land, and consumes a shitton of power raising prices for everyone.

Why don't we build a datacentre next to your home and see how you like it.

You're being fatalist. The story here is that someone got charged with a crime, but an administration that has charged multiple people and failed spectacularly to prove their cases in court.

There's no reason to think he's going to jail. The most likely outcome is he's tied up in court for a short while the government gets embarrassed yet again by lawyers who can't even spell the name of their own country correctly on the court document (look it up, I'm not joking. Also they listed the wrong department on the court docket, that's the kind of prosecutors we're dealing with, if they had any fewer braincells they'd be pronounced braindead.)

Not pleasant, but also not jail.

They actually don't. The issue here is that we're long past a period where government prosecutors are presumed to be competent. They have now brought one case after the other forward which has failed miserably and spectacularly. I suspect this one will be no different if you look at what they need to do to prove obstruction.

The legal system is such that you can be sued or charged with anything. That doesn't mean you will actually end up punished for it. The outcome here will be an embarrassing defeat to the government in court. It's just a pity the current government has no shame.

The American Citizen should be legislating that alright. By threatening to vote every motherfucker out of office who dares to forget THAT long-held rule over 200 years old.

In practice over 50% of voters will vote for an insurrectionist and about 35% will vote for him literally no matter what he does. So yeah, the majority of your population don't give a flying fuck about the constitution.

Don't live your life reading only headlines. You quoted a headline, not the actual law. The actual law includes things such as "lawful authority to take into custody", "property". Those bits are key. A random search does not imply lawful authority over any specific property.

The government needs to prove they knew what was on the phone (define the property) and that they had reason to take it into lawful possession (there's a reason obstruction normally applies to warrants).

No need to write any legislature. The government these days has staffed prosecutors with incompetent numbskulls (they ones who misspelled their own country and also listed the wrong government agency on official court documents).

Also there's a legal grey area of who did the destroying here. But the case will fail before that even comes under discussion.

I think you're arguing the wrong case there. You can have legally-encumbered property without a court order. US vs Plavcak ruled that already. But you do need to have suspicion that specific evidence was being destroyed.

The big reason the government will lose this case is that they don't know what was on the phone. You can't obstruct the government by destroying something they don't know about. This isn't even a constitutional case. This case will fall flat on its face because obstruction in general won't apply the way 18 USC 2232 is written.

Incidentally you didn't just make a logical point, but a very specific legal one. Obstruction requires that a defendant destroy specific property that is being attempted to be taken into lawful custody. You can't take into lawful custody something you don't know exists. Also the defendant didn't destroy anything. That's a more grey legal area.

Quite the opposite. The government needs to prove that they were taking into possession specific data (they need to know what was destroyed), lawfully (they need to show they had reason to take possession of that data), and that the person destroyed the evidence (that is an edge case here since he was not in possession of the phone at the time, and lying isn't a crime).

The government has a hell of a case to prove, and the US attorneys who are trying to prove it both listed the wrong agency Customs and Border Patrol (not the people who took the phone, that's Customs and Border Protection) as well as misspelled their own fucking country "Untied" States in the court filings.

At this point the government is arguing a complex case and is doing so with people who you wouldn't trust to get your McDonalds order right.

I will eat my fucking hat if this guy loses his case.

Yes, very. If the police show up at your door without a warrant and you flush your drugs down the toilet then you didn't obstruct anything.

You actually touched on a very core issue of the case: A warrant is a lawful search for particular property with suspicion. A border search is not, it's effectively a fishing expedition. The obstruction law covers taking lawful custody. This has been in the past ruled to specifically to mean you need to have a warrant or other lawful reason to search for the particular property you're looking for.

The government needs to prove that they knew what was on the phone and that they had lawful authority to take *the data* not just the phone in order to prove obstruction here. Good luck to them.

He did nothing. He was pressed under duress to give a password. And yes you very much are legally allowed to lie to the police. You are absolutely NOT under oath when being questioned by any federal agent.

To prove obstruction the government needs to show they knew what was on the phone and had an intention of taking into possession the specific data they were looking for (also there's a lawfulness clause which we'll ignore, but courts have ruled that obstruction only applies when executing a warrant). If the government can't prove they knew what data they were trying to seize (a simple search rather than attempting to take "particular property") then all they can prove is that they took possession of was a phone. Which they did, and had and weren't obstructed from doing.

This is a complex and interesting case.

A very in depth analysis is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

He did so REPEATEDLY.

No they don't. The thing is, even without the constitution there's many reasons this case will fail. For one, it's not automatically obstructing law enforcement by destroying something.

To prove their case the government needs to prove the person was authorised to search and seize the particular property, and saying "We're the police" isn't sufficient. Also particular property means they need to have a reasonable suspicion on what was destroyed.

Secondly the *defendant* needs to destroy the evidence, he didn't even touch his phone.

Oh and the big one, the obstruction only applies if the person prevents "lawful authority" from siezing evidence. There's existing case law that shows this only applies when executing a warrant. In order to do that it ties into the first point, you need to know what you're trying to take into possession.

So the government needs to argue that they were taking into possession data they knew existed, not just a phone. Good luck to them. This is a hell of an uphill battle, and a complex case to prove, and it's worth noting that the people who need to do this are the same people who both misspelled the name of the country "Untied States" as well as listed the wrong agency "Customs and Border Patrol" (instead of Customs and Border Protection) being obstructed on their official court docket. I wouldn't trust these people to get a McDonalds order right let alone be able to argue a legal case.

No the argument is far more complicated than that. Like really really complicated. It goes beyond the constitution as well, and given he handed over a password that wiped the phone the 5th isn't relevant.

The question now is if the government had a right to see the evidence. Simply having a right to search doesn't make destruction of something evidence. Destroying something isn't obstruction. They can be, but only if there was something to point to there being evidence on that phone in the first place. For all they know he just wiped his own dick picks right now which isn't obstruction.

Even without the constitution this lawsuit will fail.

Since you're keen to solve this problem you will agree with funding free mental health clinics? Social services to the poor and homeless? Education? I mean all those three are directly and causally linked to reduced homicide rates (and violent crime in general).

Why do you default to surveillance?

I really need to attached a generator to Benjamin Franklin or something. The free energy from him spinning in his grave every time someone uses that quote could power Amazon's new datacentre.

The "essential liberty" Benjamin Franklin was talking about was the ability to levy taxes to build your own army, nothing to do with surveillance or freedom.

"Benjamin Franklin has got to be one of the most misquoted people on the internet." - Abraham Lincoln.

I haven't seen any recent story about what Linus Torvalds uses for this workstation, but he certainly has a history of using Intel graphics cards.