dudeami0

To add to this spending some time in custody is inconvenient, but losing your rights being convicted of something you didn’t even do is more inconvenient. You think you know what to say until you say the wrong thing and start digging a hole.

This is good to know, but adds an additional step to simply requiring a passcode to unlock on screen lock.

Just the act of refusing makes the act of seizing your phone legal or not. If you legally give them your phone by your own will, they are able to use all evidence they find in the courts. If you deny to give them your phone, and they seize it anyways and access it you have a valid path to throw the evidence they discover out as an illegal search and seizure of your property. I’m not a lawyer but that is the general thought process on denying them access to your property.

Edit: Just want to say this mostly pretains to United States law and similar legal structures. This advice is not applicable everywhere and you should research your countries rights and legal protections.

I personally rather trust that my device isn’t able to be unlocked without my permission, rather than hope I am able to do some action to disable it in certain situations. The availability of such features is nice, but I would assume I would be incapable of performing such actions in the moment.

My other thought is, how guilty is one perceived if they immediately attempt to lock their phones in such a matter, by a jury of their peers? I rather go the deniability route of I didn’t want to share my passcode vs I locked my phone down cause the cops were grabbing me.

To add to this, don’t use bio-metrics to lock your devices. Cops will “accidentally” use these to unlock devices when they are forcibly seized.

The quotation marks did most of the lifting there, and it’s more of an anecdote of their own projections against themselves. They assume these “welfare queens” are driving around in high end cars and living luxurious lifestyles on the governments dollar, while they are the ones doing such. Sorry if there was any confusion. I agree with all the statements you have stated against Brett Farve though, they are the scum of the system they wish to project onto others.

Despite texts that show Favre sought to keep his receipt of the funds confidential, Favre has said he didn’t know the money came from federal funds intended for poor people. He’s paid the money back, but he’s being sued by the state of Mississippi for hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest that accrued on the money he received. Favre hasn’t been accused of any criminal wrongdoing.

Source: (Yahoo News)

So they could easily of have funded this themselves, but just rather steal public funds because “free money”? Sounds like a so called “welfare queen” to me.

Sadly it wasn’t a bid to open source the AI, rather than a bid for payment.