Liberty Safe gives passcode to federal authorities

[Mitch Dufour]

...You also have the option of scrolling past the thread in the list of threads.

And yet another option:

I love Bayou Shooter.

 

[Xenon]

They are also doing something about it now. They now give an option to remove the master code from their database. Link

The MO AG is opening an investigation Link

 

[Core]

I watched his speech, he called for "peace". That said, it didn't matter if there was peace or not. It was a setup, and as far as I'm concerned, Trump was a player in the game.

Trump wanted the protest to be peaceful. A million + citizens were standing by to arm up and convoy DC. Trump communicated everyone to standby and not to go down armed: shortly after Trump recommended that they had enough numbers and for the rest not to go down to DC. Jan 6 could have easily been the beginning of a revolution. I hope Congress keeps playing games with the democratic process, (sarcasm) because it wont be long before it kicks off (reality). We know they got the process rigged (81 million votes for Biden is unbelievable). DC leaders prefer a civil war but the truth is a revolution is coming. So expect lots of leaders enacting unconstitutional gun laws: they know they are on thin ice. Do not comply: and understand you do not need to silence citizens when they question the results of an election unless it's actually rigged.

 

[jdindadell]

Might I suggest a suitable workaround.

Should you have a liberty safe, and worry that you may be raided or otherwise relieved of your property, place items in said safe that would be "undesireable" to anyone who would open the safe. Ill let you use your imagination on what to put in there. Perhaps it is toxic cleaning supplies, your roach and beetle collection, maybe you have changes your diet and are keeping your feces for later examination. The safe then becomes a sort of decoy. Put your valuables in a safe location, which is usually more hidden than secure.

So if and when the time comes, and the liberty guys roll on you, at least you will have the satisfaction of knowing that the thieves (that's the word for people who take stuff that does not belong to them) won't be happy when they do get the liberty safe open.

 

[Magdump]

No correction is needed because no erroneous information was presented. Rather, a knowledgeable question was asked. When the police need/want information from a private business, there are a few methods they can use. The first, and easiest, would be to ask for the information. In most cases, the business is under no legal obligation to cooperate. They can but they don't have to. If the business doesn't provide the information when asked, the police can provide the business with a court approved subpoena. That's just a letter from the court instructing the business to provide the information.

The questions in the post you replied to stems from the fact that the media is really good at being bad at reporting all of the facts, especially in the early stages after a newsworthy event. In this case, we knew the police had a warrant that allowed them to open the safe and we knew liberty provided the police with information. We didn't know what the warrant was specifically for and we didn't know why liberty provided information to the police. The question in the post you replied to was an inquiry regarding the latter unknown. There's a huge difference, especially in appearance, between liberty voluntarily providing the information and liberty being compelled to provide the information. With the lack of information as to which one it was, a knowledgeable person would see those questions as reasonable and appropriate.

But even the first reports stated that law enforcement only had a warrant for the guy in question. There was no subpoena. No court order. I guess I cleared it up. Thanks anyway.

 

[Magdump]

The only similarities I see between liberty, bud light, target, ect, is the poor business model that will cost them in sales. I do not see the liberal connection. The right wing will trample your rights just as quickly as the left will.

I’m trying to make sense of this. Some lefties bought Liberty safe company. That’s the liberal connection. They aren’t government entities, just owners of a business. I’m a right wing conservative and I don’t trample anyone’s rights. Again, not a government entity.

 

[GunRelated]

I’m trying to make sense of this. Some lefties bought Liberty safe company. That’s the liberal connection. They aren’t government entities, just owners of a business. I’m a right wing conservative and I don’t trample anyone’s rights. Again, not a government entity.

People were posting the safe full of budlight memes well before the financial connections were made, so I already had that thought in mind. Never tied it together until it was pointed out by manimal. Just how my brain works sometimes.


As far as the rest of that post, it really was irrelevant to bolt heads post. I see it all the time, taking one side vs the other, when it's all just the same turd wrapped differently; it's come to be a knee jerk response.

ETA - actually, it wasn't totally irrelevant. Liberty sh*t on the privacy "rights" of their customers by handing over codes to their safe without permission or legal obligation. While they turned out to be owned by lefties, it's safe to say that a company owned by righties would likely do the same because, at the end of the day, both sides bow down to the crown, especially if it means taking a jab at the other side.

 

[GunRelated]

Ya'll just let it go .

You should have known Perez was gonna take that to heart and give you the complete rundown of why you are in the wrong for saying such things.

 

[GunRelated]

Trump wanted the protest to be peaceful. A million + citizens were standing by to arm up and convoy DC. Trump communicated everyone to standby and not to go down armed: shortly after Trump recommended that they had enough numbers and for the rest not to go down to DC. Jan 6 could have easily been the beginning of a revolution. I hope Congress keeps playing games with the democratic process, (sarcasm) because it wont be long before it kicks off (reality). We know they got the process rigged (81 million votes for Biden is unbelievable). DC leaders prefer a civil war but the truth is a revolution is coming. So expect lots of leaders enacting unconstitutional gun laws: they know they are on thin ice. Do not comply: and understand you do not need to silence citizens when they question the results of an election unless it's actually rigged.

He played his part well enough. Just my opinion. Get back at me when he "drains the swamp".

 

[Magdump]

Ya'll just let it go .

I was actually finding it comical. The similarities are that the feds wanted a company to give them a workaround. Probably the only pertinent fact in the entire discussion. None of the differences seemed pertinent at all except for one. Apple would not give it up and apparently Liberty was happy to. What else does anyone really need to know? LMAO!

 

[WeldonHunter]

Don't know if this has been posted but it's an interesting take on this and he explains why their choice to require a subpoena is just about as bad as what they did, maybe worse. Plus there's info. about Liberty Safes some may not have known about, like who now owns them and why they're donating money to anti-2nd Amendment groups.

 

[thperez1972]

But even the first reports stated that law enforcement only had a warrant for the guy in question. There was no subpoena. No court order. I guess I cleared it up. Thanks anyway.

You're suggesting that we should view first reports published by the news as accurate and complete. I would guess that most people here would disagree with you. Therefore, questions asking about their completeness would be reasonable.

 

[thperez1972]

I was actually finding it comical. The similarities are that the feds wanted a company to give them a workaround. Probably the only pertinent fact in the entire discussion. None of the differences seemed pertinent at all except for one. Apple would not give it up and apparently Liberty was happy to. What else does anyone really need to know? LMAO!

What else does anyone really need to know? For starters, they need to know that saying Apple would not give up a workaround is inaccurate. Apple was unable to give up a workaround as none existed at the time. That was part of the basis for them fighting the subpoena. That difference must be rectified in order to reasonably suggest Liberty could use Apple's reasoning as the basis for fighting any subpoena presented to Liberty.

 

[WeldonHunter]

If Liberty were my company and im selling product to protect your privacy and valuables i would tell the FBI to get a subpoena then after the proper paperwork was filed i would fight the subpeona in court. It would tie things up for months and the FBI would break the safe before then(if they indeed had a warrant for the contents) my company's reputation would remain intact and the FBI would still be able to go full jack boot thug on the protester.

This /\ The warrant didn't name Liberty Safe or the parent company Monomoy Capital so Liberty had no obligation or need to provide what the FBI was asking for and a subpoena can be fought. Case closed. Plus some have said the FBI will get in to the safe anyway but will most likely damage or destroy the safe getting into it so why not give them the codes so they don't tear it up. If the owner was worried about that he'd have given them the code.

 

[thperez1972]

This /\ The warrant didn't name Liberty Safe or the parent Company Monomoy Capital so Liberty had no obligation or need to provide what the FBI was asking for and a subpoena can be fought. Case closed. Plus some have said the FBI will get in to the safe anyway but will most likely damage or destroy the safe getting into it so why not give them the codes so they don't tear it up. If the owner was worried about that he'd have given them the code.

I mostly agree. There are no real legal grounds that I've heard anyone mention that they could use to successfully fight any subpoena but they should have certainly waited for a subpoena. They shouldn't have given the information based on a warrant they were not a direct part of.

 

[WeldonHunter]

I mostly agree. There are no real legal grounds that I've heard anyone mention that they could use to successfully fight any subpoena but they should have certainly waited for a subpoena. They shouldn't have given the information based on a warrant they were not a direct part of.

How about Liberty isn't the owner of the safe and being such shouldn't be made to be a party to any of this. I'm no lawyer but the point would be for Liberty or any other company that might find themselves in this situation to try to stay out of this if for no other reason it's pissing their customers off in a big way. I'm sure Liberty has plenty of well paid lawyers that can come up with grounds to fight any subpoena and as mentioned by someone else the FBI would find another means to gain access instead of waiting the 15 days for the decision about the subpoena to be made. If they want in they will get in, legally or not and if destroying the safe were an issue the owner was even worried about he'd have given them the combination. I posted this video above but in case you didn't watch it this guy touches on the subpoena aspect and he is a lawyer. I've set it to the part where he talks about subpoenas.

 

[T-boy]

They shouldn't have given the information based on a warrant they were not a direct part of.

My thoughts as well.

 

[John_]

I mostly agree. There are no real legal grounds that I've heard anyone mention that they could use to successfully fight any subpoena but they should have certainly waited for a subpoena. They shouldn't have given the information based on a warrant they were not a direct part of.

Perez, you still a cop in BR, or did you successfully earn your JD?

 

[thperez1972]

How about Liberty isn't the owner of the safe and being such shouldn't be made to be a party to any of this. I'm no lawyer but the point would be for Liberty or any other company that might find themselves in this situation to try to stay out of this if for no other reason it's pissing their customers off in a big way. I'm sure Liberty has plenty of well paid lawyers that can come up with grounds to fight any subpoena and as mentioned by someone else the FBI would find another means to gain access instead of waiting the 15 days for the decision about the subpoena to be made. If they want in they will get in, legally or not and if destroying the safe were an issue the owner was even worried about he'd have given them the combination. I posted this video above but in case you didn't watch it this guy touches on the subpoena aspect and he is a lawyer. I've set it to the part where he talks about subpoenas.

Yes, I'm aware subpoenas can be challenged. But not every challenge will be successful. Providing a reason to challenge a subpoena does not make that reason valid. Apple's challenge was valid. They did not have the passcode, they could not get the pass code, they did not have the software the feds wanted, and they were, for the sake of their customers, morally against creating for the feds a piece of software that the feds could use on an unknown number of phones moving forward. None of those reasons applied to Liberty. They already had the code in their possession and it could only be used on the one safe. So while the Apple subpoena asked for, in essence, an unknown amount of information for an unknown length of time, a subpoena to Liberty would be very limited in scope with respect to time and information. Sure, Liberty could challenge the subpoena but any win would come from taking time before the court ordered them to reveal the one code to the one safe. If the feds were not in a hurry to get the safe open, they could just wait it out.

If the feds were asking for the entire database, some concerns mentioned in this thread would be valid. But, as I said, if the scope of the subpoena was made narrow enough, it would be extremely difficult to come up with a valid reason to not comply.

 

[thperez1972]

Perez, you still a cop in BR, or did you successfully earn your JD?

Where I work or what I may have or have not earned does not change the accuracy or inaccuracy of the information I'm providing.