Liberty Safe gives passcode to federal authorities

[twinin]

My opinion is that Liberty is a brand that makes good-quality, American-made gun safes. A good part of the brand is security and dependability.

For this instance, I would have liked Liberty as a company to require the subpoena. I understand the end result and the other possibilities that could/would have happened. I would never expect the company or an employee to do anything wrong or illegal, but they should have respected their customer and required the subpoena if that is what the customer wanted and was legal. Once compelled by law enforcement, I understand. I think it was a bad decision on their part and definitely hurt the brand.

However, I also appreciate Liberty's response-whether it was due to outrage or not. They understood where people were coming from and will make it right in the future. That means a lot to me. I would buy a safe from Liberty in the future.

 

[twinin]

Is there any reason Mike Ward's Liberty Safes updated their Facebook logo to MW Gun safes? I didn't know if that was old or planned.

 

[hotbiggun]

That's funny. Are you trolling here?

Apple's argument was that no back door existed and they would not create a backdoor. Liberty cannot use that argument. They can't say "you can't make us create a back door" because they already had a back door in place, one they had made voluntarily without being compelled by the government. Liberty's situation is pretty much the exact opposite of Apple's situation. To attempt to shoehorn Apple's excuse into Liberty's situation is laughable.

So really, with your joke excuse now out of the way, what actual, applicable grounds would you use to fight the subpoena?

Like arguing with a democrat. Point is you can fight a subpeona for any reason, in the meantime the FBI will crack the safe leavin the reputation of liberty intact.

A person commanded to respond to a subpoena duces tecum may within fifteen days after service of the subpoena or before the time specified for compliance, if such time is less than fifteen days after service, send to the party or attorney designated in the subpoena written objections, with supporting reasons, to any or ...

 

[GunRelated]

Don't forget the donation list in the screenshot you posted, numerous donations to liberals...some very radical liberals.

You definitely got me there. I guess I was limiting my view on the matter to the public actions. Good point.

 

[GunRelated]

Like arguing with a democrat. Point is you can fight a subpeona for any reason, in the meantime the FBI will crack the safe leavin the reputation of liberty intact.

A person commanded to respond to a subpoena duces tecum may within fifteen days after service of the subpoena or before the time specified for compliance, if such time is less than fifteen days after service, send to the party or attorney designated in the subpoena written objections, with supporting reasons, to any or ...

I have to agree. If I owned a safe company, or any other company that involves customer privacy, ect, I would fight any government intrusion that involves direct action from the company. My fictional company makes a harmless and useful product. After I sell said product, I am no longer responsible for what is contained inside of it, nor am i responsible for helping anyone, for any reason, to break into it. The only reason I can think of not fighting a subpoena is if there is a strong reason to believe that it might directly save someone's life and even then, this can be abused as an excuse / workaround.

The best thing these companies can do, is exactly what apple did, like what has already been said; either don't have a backdoor / master code, or encrypt them in such a way that is only accessible to the customer.

 

[thperez1972]

Like arguing with a democrat.

Attacking the person rather than the facts is a logical fallacy called ad hominem. It is frequently used to distract from the facts when the user does not have sufficient facts to back their claim.

A person commanded to respond to a subpoena duces tecum may within fifteen days after service of the subpoena or before the time specified for compliance, if such time is less than fifteen days after service, send to the party or attorney designated in the subpoena written objections, with supporting reasons, to any or ...

I'm very familiar with a subpoena duces tecum. You did a good job quoting google but, again, you provided no real information to address the question. The party being subpoenaed may very well object. Usually, the supporting reason for the objection would need to be more than "I don't want to." I'm beginning to believe you don't have any real grounds to fight the subpoena.

 

[thperez1972]

I have to agree. If I owned a safe company, or any other company that involves customer privacy, ect, I would fight any government intrusion that involves direct action from the company. My fictional company makes a harmless and useful product. After I sell said product, I am no longer responsible for what is contained inside of it, nor am i responsible for helping anyone, for any reason, to break into it. The only reason I can think of not fighting a subpoena is if there is a strong reason to believe that it might directly save someone's life and even then, this can be abused as an excuse / workaround.

The best thing these companies can do, is exactly what apple did, like what has already been said; either don't have a backdoor / master code, or encrypt them in such a way that is only accessible to the customer.

I'm not sure if you understand how most subpoenas work. The request is usually for specific information. The scope is narrow and must be justified to the courts. In this case, it the government had a search warrant for the safe, the courts would have theoretically agreed they have the right to search the safe and should have had to articulate what they they were looking for and how it would impact their investigation. In that case, a duces tecums would be presented to Liberty compelling the codes for that one safe. In reality, Liberty saved them the trouble and provided the code to that one safe without a subpoena. I have not seen any information showing they gave the government all the keys to the kingdom.

This is no different than asking a cell phone company for the location of the last towers a phone pinged off of. The phone company isn't responsible for why the person was at the location but that doesn't matter. The request would have been approved by the courts already.

As far as having the back door, that was a mistake. If they wanted to have something like that, it should have been an opt-in thing with a chip or something added to the safes whose owner requested that service. They could have designed a chip that would store the back door code just in case. A safe without the chip would not have that feature. And the chip could be designed so that its removal irreversibly removed the back door.

 

[GunRelated]

I'm not sure if you understand how most subpoenas work. The request is usually for specific information. The scope is narrow and must be justified to the courts. In this case, it the government had a search warrant for the safe, the courts would have theoretically agreed they have the right to search the safe and should have had to articulate what they they were looking for and how it would impact their investigation. In that case, a duces tecums would be presented to Liberty compelling the codes for that one safe. In reality, Liberty saved them the trouble and provided the code to that one safe without a subpoena. I have not seen any information showing they gave the government all the keys to the kingdom.

This is no different than asking a cell phone company for the location of the last towers a phone pinged off of. The phone company isn't responsible for why the person was at the location but that doesn't matter. The request would have been approved by the courts already.

As far as haning the back door, that was a mistake. If they wanted to have something like that, it should have been an opt-in thing with a chip or something added to the safes whose owner requested that service. They could have designed a chip that would store the back door code just in case. A safe without the chip would not have that feature. And the chip could be designed so that its removal irreversibly removed the back door.

I may be wrong here, I am no lawyer, but to me, comparing the request for the code for a vault and the ping location for a cell phone is off base.
In my eyes, a cell phone is not much different than a vault, they both contain private personal items and information and they both can be locked in such a manner that only the owner can access them, with a code, or password, ect.

 

[thperez1972]

I may be wrong here, I am no lawyer, but to me, comparing the request for the code for a vault and the ping location for a cell phone is off base.
In my eyes, a cell phone is not much different than a vault, they both contain private personal items and information and they both can be locked in such a manner that only the owner can access them, with a code, or password, ect.

It's not the best comparison but it fits. If the police ask you where you were at a certain time on a certain day, you can choose to tell them or to not tell them. If your location is critical to the investigation, they can see about getting the location from the phone company. That location does not show what you were doing, just where you were. Just like the code to the safe does not show what's in the safe.

The contents of the safe are akin to the contents of the phone. The police can obtain a search warrant for either one. If either is locked, the police will try to get in. I don't believe they can subpoena you for your password. I think I remember a decision that said giving your password is compelling speech and that's a 1st amendment thing. Some courts have said the password, and your fingerprints to unlock a device, are 5th amendment issues as well. But compelling a 3rd party for that information isn't a 5th amendment issue. If the 3rd party were somehow involved in the case, they would be a 3rd party.

 

[hotbiggun]

Attacking the person rather than the facts is a logical fallacy called ad hominem. It is frequently used to distract from the facts when the user does not have sufficient facts to back their claim.



I'm very familiar with a subpoena duces tecum. You did a good job quoting google but, again, you provided no real information to address the question. The party being subpoenaed may very well object. Usually, the supporting reason for the objection would need to be more than "I don't want to." I'm beginning to believe you don't have any real grounds

I typically dont like to argue on scial media but your Troll comment sucked me in.
Again i will refer you to the Apple case. If you dont see the similaraties then move on.

 

[thperez1972]

I typically dont like to argue on scial media but your Troll comment sucked me in.
Again i will refer you to the Apple case. If you dont see the similaraties then move on.

Did you even listen to the audio? After listing to the audio, the huge differences in the situations should be obvious.

"This fight's been brewing for more than a year, since the fall of 2014 when Apple rolled out a new operating system for the iPhone with encryption so good that even Apple wouldn't be able to open it without the owner's password."
-In the Liberty situation, they do not need the owner's code for their code to work.

"He says the FBI is just asking Apple to write a piece of custom software that'll keep the phone from wiping its data while the feds use their own methods to try to hack in."
-In the Liberty situation, the information is already there and there's nothing to create.

In the Apple situation, Apple did not have a password that would work nor did they have the ability to get that password. In the Liberty situation, Liberty had the codes before any request was made. In the Apple case, the government was trying to compel Apple to create something where nothing previously existed for the purpose of assisting with breaking into the phone. In the Liberty situation, nothing needed to be created because Liberty had the information before the request was made.

So, again, the Liberty situation is close to the exact opposite of the Apple situation.
Liberty........................................................Apple
had the code..............................................had no way to produce the password
had the information prior to request.......was asked to create something that did not yet exist

I'm not sure how much clearer the differences could be.

 

[dantheman]

Ya'll just let it go .

 

[DBMJR1]

Liberty did not produce the locks on their safes. Those came from a vendor with the codes already built in.
It's my understanding that this is common practice for manufacturers of digital locks.
If you want security, buy a dial type lock that you can change the combination on yourself.

 

[AK shooter]

This is an option.

 

[Manimal]

This is an option.

I might need to get one for fiance's shoes, she'd love that.

 

[krotsman]

Did we ever figure out if there's a back door master code or they just have the default code?

 

[twinin]

Did we ever figure out if there's a back door master code or they just have the default code?

A lot of electronic locks have this. It’s not the same for every safe but they keep a record with the serial number. It also usually comes with the paper documents

 

[krotsman]

A lot of electronic locks have this. It’s not the same for every safe but they keep a record with the serial number. It also usually comes with the paper documents

Have what? A master code or recorded serial # and default "leaving the factory" code?

 

[twinin]

Have what? A master code or recorded serial # and default "leaving the factory" code?

A backup code with the serial number

 

[thperez1972]

Ya'll just let it go .

I will point out the errors when they are posted. We are having a discussion about liberty giving out the pass code in a thread about liberty giving out the pass code posted in the discussion group. At the top right of the page, you can click unwatch if notifications about the thread are bothering you. You also have the option of scrolling past the thread in the list of threads.