Liberty Safe gives passcode to federal authorities

[bigtattoo79]

In other words, if you believe you had information that might help get a dangerous person off the street, you would keep that information to yourself so you didn't have to get involved by contacting the police. Do I have that right?

If I owned a store and that person was on video in a open place of my store I would share the video because why would the person expect me to keep it private.
If that person gave me personal info during a transaction “expecting its private” I would NOT share it without paperwork.

Let me ask you this without using these extreme examples: Do you think the safe company is gonna lose money because they helped without the paperwork?
AND
Do you think them waiting for the paperwork before giving the code was gonna cause anyone harm while waiting?

My question is, Honestly in this case what was the rush?

I agree. It would be nice if the public and the political climate didn't make the job so hitty on occasion.

It may be a location thing. My friends definitely don’t work in horrible areas so I can admit that may be the difference…..

 

[dantheman]

It's relevant because it's information owned by the business that the police frequently request. I'm just trying to find out where the line if, if there is even a line, between when it's ok to cooperate with police without a subpoena and when a business should demand a subpoena.

A business doesn't have to be compelled by the court to cooperate with the police. (For example, surveillance video.) And the FBI had a search warrant. While I haven't seen the warrant, in almost all cases, they search warrant lists the item(s) being looked for so it's rarely a fishing expedition. And Liberty didn't give out anyone's personal property. It didn't even give out any personal information. The code was put in place by the company. The company owned the backup code.

You don't get it and I can't make you get it . You support what Liberty did and your justification is all over the map .
Yes , a business SHOULD demand a Court Order when it involves property( the safe) that they neither own or are in possession of . Owning the backup code did not give them the right to disseminate it to a third party no matter who it was . Dude , you're scary .. And we're done .

 

[thperez1972]

If I owned a store and that person was on video in a open place of my store I would share the video because why would the person expect me to keep it private.
If that person gave me personal info during a transaction “expecting its private” I would NOT share it without paperwork.

Let me ask you this without using these extreme examples: Do you think the safe company is gonna lose money because they helped without the paperwork?
AND
Do you think them waiting for the paperwork before giving the code was gonna cause anyone harm while waiting?

My point honestly in this case what was the rush?

In order to share the video in my example, you would have to get involved without the proper paperwork by proactively contacting the police, even if it's just to share the privately owned video of common areas.

I think liberty is going to lose money. I think they should have waited for a subpoena, partly because of the agency asking for the information. The FBI has frequently been used as a political tool. I think that should have played a part in whether to require a subpoena or not.

It may be a location thing. My friends definitely don’t work in horrible areas so I can admit that may be the difference.

It may be. Look at area with large defund the police initiatives. They could easily be proud of the work they do and they could easily have a shitty job.

 

[thperez1972]

You don't get it and I can't make you get it . You support what Liberty did and your justification is all over the map .
Yes , a business SHOULD demand a Court Order when it involves property( the safe) that they neither own or are in possession of . Owning the backup code did not give them the right to disseminate it to a third party no matter who it was . Dude , you're scary .. And we're done .

I don't support liberty. I think they should have waited for a subpoena before giving the information to the FBI. The court order that would have been given to liberty would have been a subpoena. It would have demanded liberty provide information, the code. Liberty would not have been required to provide any property, the safe. That was already in the FBI's possession. As far as what rights liberty had with regards to the information they created and maintained, that may depend on their customer agreement.

 

[bigtattoo79]

In order to share the video in my example, you would have to get involved without the proper paperwork by proactively contacting the police, even if it's just to share the privately owned video of common areas.

If I walk into a store I know they probably have cameras, I don’t expect privacy.

If I buy a car and have to provide my DL, I expect they will protect my privacy.

I have no problem telling LEO that I may have video of a suspect with clear pictures and sharing it. But if they say hey we see that guy looks he bought a car can you show us his legal name? No I can’t without paperwork.

I’m not against helping LEOs but if it’s so easy to get paperwork why should I destroy my business to save them a little work?

I think liberty is going to lose money. I think they should have waited for a subpoena, partly because of the agency asking for the information. The FBI has frequently been used as a political tool. I think that should have played a part in whether to require a subpoena or not.

I agree 100%

It may be. Look at area with large defund the police initiatives. They could easily be proud of the work they do and they could easily have a shitty job.

I don’t know LEOs that work in those areas. Again I base my experience on what I know for a fact and people I personally deal with. I don’t base my opinion off of assumptions or logic.

 

[thperez1972]

If I walk into a store I know they probably have cameras, I don’t expect privacy.

If I buy a car and have to provide my DL, I expect they will protect my privacy.

I have no problem telling LEO that I may have video of a suspect with clear pictures and sharing it. But if they say hey we see that guy looks he bought a car can you show us his legal name? No I can’t without paperwork.

I’m not against helping LEOs but if it’s so easy to get paperwork why should I destroy my business to save them a little work?

I understand. But your blanket statement was you see no reason a private business should get involved without the proper paperwork being provided. I made up an extreme, but plausible, scenario where that stance hurt the public more than it helped them. If the stance is not giving out personal info without paperwork, that's fine but can also be easily questioned. The backup code for the safe is linked to the serial number of the safe, not the owner. That backup code does not change depending on who buys the safe. That code was not supplied by the owner of the save. The code is the property of liberty. If a safe owner sells their safe, nothing about the backup code changes.

I believe liberty should have required a subpoena for a few reasons. If they are going to have one policy, it should be a policy based on the "worst case." The FBI has been used as a political tool. A subpoena obtained by the FBI takes the perception of cooperating based on a political view out of the equation. More important than the need for the subpoena, in my opinion, is that this is even possible. I own a liberty safe. I cannot recall at any point reading or being told they had and would be keeping a backup method of entering the safe.

I agree 100%

I don’t know LEOs that work in those areas. Again I base my experience on what I know for a fact and people I personally deal with. I don’t base my opinion off of assumptions or logic.

Even local departments have issues like an unsupportive command structure. Again, someone can be proud of their law enforcement career while working for a shitty department. Sometimes it's the officer's pride in their career that motivates them to get up and go to work at less than ideal departments.

 

[bigtattoo79]

I understand. But your blanket statement was you see no reason a private business should get involved without the proper paperwork being provided. I made up an extreme, but plausible, scenario where that stance hurt the public more than it helped them. If the stance is not giving out personal info without paperwork, that's fine but can also be easily questioned. The backup code for the safe is linked to the serial number of the safe, not the owner. That backup code does not change depending on who buys the safe. That code was not supplied by the owner of the save. The code is the property of liberty. If a safe owner sells their safe, nothing about the backup code changes.

I believe liberty should have required a subpoena for a few reasons. If they are going to have one policy, it should be a policy based on the "worst case." The FBI has been used as a political tool. A subpoena obtained by the FBI takes the perception of cooperating based on a political view out of the equation. More important than the need for the subpoena, in my opinion, is that this is even possible. I own a liberty safe. I cannot recall at any point reading or being told they had and would be keeping a backup method of entering the safe.

My stance is I will not share personal info without paperwork. My stance will not change to protect the public or any other reason. I’m not saying it’s right or ideal for others to follow but as of now it’s still my right to feel the way I do.

Would I buy a safe from liberty today absolutely not.
Is it because they shared the code? (NO). I wouldn’t personally boycott them for that reason alone but I understand why some would/will and I respect their choice.

However after seeing who they support I can honestly say I’ll never buy their products. will I ask others to boycott them? (NO). Will I judge people who buy from them? (NO).

Even local departments have issues like an unsupportive command structure. Again, someone can be proud of their law enforcement career while working for a shitty department. Sometimes it's the officer's pride in their career that motivates them to get up and go to work at less than ideal departments.

I know a lot of LEOs most are employed at one of 3 Departments, I’ve never heard one say they have a shitty job. I’ve had at least 2 say it offends them when people say “I know you have a shitty job….etc”. I’m sure you know more LEOs than me and your knowledge may be different but all I have to go on is what I know personally.



Thanks for the conversation, I’m a open minded person and love getting different viewpoints.

 

[AustinBR]

If I walk into a store I know they probably have cameras, I don’t expect privacy.

If I buy a car and have to provide my DL, I expect they will protect my privacy.

I have no problem telling LEO that I may have video of a suspect with clear pictures and sharing it. But if they say hey we see that guy looks he bought a car can you show us his legal name? No I can’t without paperwork.

I’m not against helping LEOs but if it’s so easy to get paperwork why should I destroy my business to save them a little work?

I agree 100%

I don’t know LEOs that work in those areas. Again I base my experience on what I know for a fact and people I personally deal with. I don’t base my opinion off of assumptions or logic.

I hear where you are coming from, but I think that your expectation for privacy may be a little jaded. In the world we live in, information and data on customers is worth a LOT of money and unless a company explicitly states that they are keeping your information private, I would assume that they are not.

In this Liberty case, they absolutely should have waited for a court order (in my opinion). I think that ethically, they are still on the "side of right" by proactively wanting to help the FBI out, but they are majorly on the "side of wrong" by not telling their customers that they have this information that could be handed over to LE with or without a court order.

 

[bigtattoo79]

I hear where you are coming from, but I think that your expectation for privacy may be a little jaded. In the world we live in, information and data on customers is worth a LOT of money and unless a company explicitly states that they are keeping your information private, I would assume that they are not.

Just because I say I expect something doesn’t say I’m going to the extreme of boycotting them for not doing it (it’s just disappointing). The conversation took a turn by ask what I would do, I then explained the strong stance I have and what I would do with peoples info.

In this Liberty case, they absolutely should have waited for a court order (in my opinion). I think that ethically, they are still on the "side of right" by proactively wanting to help the FBI out, but they are majorly on the "side of wrong" by not telling their customers that they have this information that could be handed over to LE with or without a court order.

My original point was just that:
We/I don’t know for a fact what the judge ordered because it wasn’t made public. We/I don’t know for a fact what the judge would have ordered because they didn’t wait for him sign off on it. (That’s my opinion and I don’t expect everyone to agree with it).


Unfortunately for liberty this situation shed light on their current owners and who they support politically, that may cause them the most harm in the long run.

 

[Magdump]

But there was NO subpoena in this situation . NONE . Liberty willingly complied with the request .

There was also no murder and likely no crime whatsoever. Just because it was the feds arresting this guy doesn’t mean he committed any crime.

 

[thperez1972]

There was also no murder and likely no crime whatsoever. Just because it was the feds arresting this guy doesn’t mean he committed any crime.

I would not be surprised if you were pretty close to the mark with this.

 

[Fordfella]

Unfortunately for liberty this situation shed light on their current owners and who they support politically, that may cause them the most harm in the long run.

I'm not an attorney and nothing I say should be construed as legal advice

Louisiana law on redhibition:

Art. 2520. Warranty against redhibitory defects
The seller warrants the buyer against redhibitory defects, or vices, in the thing sold.
A defect is redhibitory when it renders the thing useless, or its use so inconvenient that it must be presumed that a buyer would not have bought the thing had he known of the defect. The existence of such a defect gives a buyer the right to obtain rescission of the sale.
A defect is redhibitory also when, without rendering the thing totally useless, it diminishes its usefulness or its value so that it must be presumed that a buyer would still have bought it but for a lesser price. The existence of such a defect limits the right of a buyer to a reduction of the price.
Acts 1993, No. 841, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 1995.

A security device that isn't secure could be construed as a redhibitory defect. Liberty has opened themselves up to a class action suit from every Liberty safe owner in the state for return/refund or re-negotiation of purchase price.

I'm surprised an attorney isn't already on this.
​

 

[WhereIsIt?]

I'm not an attorney and nothing I say should be construed as legal advice

Louisiana law on redhibition:

Art. 2520. Warranty against redhibitory defects
The seller warrants the buyer against redhibitory defects, or vices, in the thing sold.
A defect is redhibitory when it renders the thing useless, or its use so inconvenient that it must be presumed that a buyer would not have bought the thing had he known of the defect. The existence of such a defect gives a buyer the right to obtain rescission of the sale.
A defect is redhibitory also when, without rendering the thing totally useless, it diminishes its usefulness or its value so that it must be presumed that a buyer would still have bought it but for a lesser price. The existence of such a defect limits the right of a buyer to a reduction of the price.
Acts 1993, No. 841, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 1995.

A security device that isn't secure could be construed as a redhibitory defect. Liberty has opened themselves up to a class action suit from every Liberty safe owner in the state for return/refund or re-negotiation of purchase price.

I'm surprised an attorney isn't already on this.
​

But it's not a defect.. It's on their website that they can send you the combination to your lock if you lost it... Ie... "we have a list of combinations". That right there should be enough to know that you should change out the lock if you aren't comfortable with them having a list.

 

[thperez1972]

I'm not an attorney and nothing I say should be construed as legal advice

Louisiana law on redhibition:

Art. 2520. Warranty against redhibitory defects
The seller warrants the buyer against redhibitory defects, or vices, in the thing sold.
A defect is redhibitory when it renders the thing useless, or its use so inconvenient that it must be presumed that a buyer would not have bought the thing had he known of the defect. The existence of such a defect gives a buyer the right to obtain rescission of the sale.
A defect is redhibitory also when, without rendering the thing totally useless, it diminishes its usefulness or its value so that it must be presumed that a buyer would still have bought it but for a lesser price. The existence of such a defect limits the right of a buyer to a reduction of the price.
Acts 1993, No. 841, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 1995.

A security device that isn't secure could be construed as a redhibitory defect. Liberty has opened themselves up to a class action suit from every Liberty safe owner in the state for return/refund or re-negotiation of purchase price.

I'm surprised an attorney isn't already on this.​

I'm not. It's a feature, not a defect.

 

[dantheman]

I'm going to throw this out there , and forgive me if it's already been mentioned . Knowing what we know now about the political leanings of Liberty's owners , if this had been anything other than Jan . 6th related would they have been so quick to turn over the combination ?

 

[AustinBR]

I'm going to throw this out there , and forgive me if it's already been mentioned . Knowing what we know now about the political leanings of Liberty's owners , if this had been anything other than Jan . 6th related would they have been so quick to turn over the combination ?

Probably - my guess is that they have done this quite a few times in less-public cases.

 

[Jstudz220]

The backdoor isn't really a big deal. A lot of products have manufacturer override codes associated with them. The big deal is not making explicitly clear to customers that these codes exist.

It sounds like the idea was to keep these codes in case a customer is locked out of their safe - so they can provide proof of ownership and then be given a way to get back into the safe without breaking the safe or the lock.

In hindsight, Liberty definitely should have waited an hour for a subpoena. But, playing nice with the FBI isn't really the end of the world (in my opinion). We have played nice with the FBI and the ATF on this forum multiple times since I have been here. We even had a guy post pictures of illegal drugs + firearms who ended up being a felon in possession of drugs & firearms who was subsequently arrested.

I didn't really follow the whole back and forth with Perez...but...what grounds would Liberty have to fight the court order? And why would they? Now they'd be a company who is publically known for not playing nice with the courts.

It sounds like they have random codes assigned per serial number that are "use in case of owner being locked out" codes.


They also had a warrant to search the safe. My question was specifically if the public knew (at the time, which we know now) if there was a warrant or court order specifically towards Liberty that they complied with. It turns out that is not the case. It turns out that Liberty was forthcoming with the FBI and didn't ask that they get a court order to provide the backup code.


The whole Apple thing is silly. The FBI would have had no problems getting into that phone - with or without Apple's help. Good for Apple for publically standing their ground, but the whole thing was stupid from the beginning.

I even seem to remember John McAffey (sp?) offering to open the phone for free.

The guy who posted his gun for sale with his pot and baggie of pills visible in the picture? I had to look at it several times and thought maybe my eyes were playing tricks on me lol.

 

[AustinBR]

The guy who posted his gun for sale with his pot and baggie of pills visible in the picture? I had to look at it several times and thought maybe my eyes were playing tricks on me lol.

Yupppp - he was a convicted felon who wasn't supposed to have drugs or guns. Plus it was just a dumb decision in general.

 

[Franco1990]

Do we know if Liberty did this under subpoena? Or was it under a request for assistance from one of the federal LEAs involved?

I've read a couple of articles that stated it was NOT under a subpoena!!!

 

[Fordfella]

I'm not. It's a feature, not a defect.

You should do marketing for Hyundai. Those cars that are so easy to steal because of the "feature" included with the automobile. Then maybe once people realize it's a feature and not a defect, then insurance rates will go down!