Liberty Safe’s gives FBI safe code

[Bassat]

I added that to my previous post. Sorry.

 

[Goodcat]

BTW, further google fu shows they raided this guys house on a search warrant for his suspected role in Jan 6, and also turned off his security cams.

 

[Leadeye]

I would imagine that these days regardless, if the feds want it, they will get it. It's really just a matter of time.

 

[Expat]

BTW, further google fu shows they raided this guys house on a search warrant for his suspected role in Jan 6, and also turned off his security cams.

Probably didnt want people to see them going through the wife's underwear drawer.

 

[MrSmitty]

My safe is cheap, so it would only slow down a thief, but might stall a 5 year old girl…. No I don’t open carry..,,

 

[shootersix]

I added that to my previous post. Sorry.

That’s not fun!…make it interesting say you found something odd…like a bottle of chloroform, some duct tape and a drivers license that says “jimmy hoffa”

Or a stuffed hamster, or a grilled cheese sandwich… make people go “wtf?”

 

[kawtech87]

I own a Liberty safe. Mine has an electronic lock. I'm pretty sure the master code is in the paperwork that comes with the safe. It's the code you have to use to change the combo. Unless I'm mistaken.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I'm not a lawyer. What legal ramifications would Liberty have faced if they told the FBI to go pound sound?

Nothing if the request was voluntary, which it sounds like it was. The search warrant was for the safe, not for Liberty's records.

I'm surprised it compels 3rd parties to hand over combinations unless they're named in the warrant.

It doesn't.

 

[bobzilla]

While the end result would be the same, I would have hoped to see LS tell the feebs to stuff it. If this is more of their Jan 6 witch hunt than **** those ********. **** them all to ****

 

[TheGrumpyGuy]

I own a Liberty safe. Mine has an electronic lock. I'm pretty sure the master code is in the paperwork that comes with the safe. It's the code you have to use to change the combo. Unless I'm mistaken.

You're probably thinking of the default code (0000 or similar) that allows you to then input your own code.

 

[Ingomike]

Sounds like much ado about nothing. If they have a valid warrant, they are going to open it anyway. These "safes" are simply residential security containers which won't long-resist a grinder anyway.

I'm all for outrage about warrantless searches and seizures (which happen with alarming frequency and seemingly little oversight.) But if the authorities have a proper warrant, Liberty did nothing wrong (and in fact there is a possible argument that they can be compelled to provide this code). If the warrant was improperly executed or signed based on invalid information, the accused's opportunity is to suppress any evidence in court.

A valid warrant does not apply to Liberty. There is a constitutional procedure, this was not it.

I agree with the practical nature of things but that does not change the procedures.

As I understand this situation:

A proper warrant was issued.

The subject refused to open safe.

Liberty DID DO WRONG to all customers by giving access without a subpoena. The proper procedure as I understand it.

 

[printcraft]

Yeah, that’s a dick stepping move on their part. The negative press of complying with the feebs is going to cost them sales.
Who do they think their customers are?
A simple “nah, make us” would have solved both issues.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Yeah, that’s a dick stepping move on their part. The negative press of complying with the feebs is going to cost them sales.
Who do they think their customers are?
A simple “nah, make us” would have solved both issues.

Yeah. One could say something like "yes, sir officer. We'll be glad to cooperate but let's do this constitutionally. Get a court order and protect all peoples' rights".

 

[KMaC]

I recall Apple refusing to provide the FBI the access code to a Cali terrorist mass shooter's i-phone several years ago. FBI "said" they couldn't open it but did get it open years later.
Apple said it would destroy their customers' confidence in the security of their phones if they gave up the code, even for a dead terrorist's phone.
I guess Apple had more to lose than Liberty.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I recall Apple refusing to provide the FBI the access code to a Cali terrorist mass shooter's i-phone several years ago. FBI "said" they couldn't open it but did get it open years later.
Apple said it would destroy their customers' confidence in the security of their phones if they gave up the code, even for a dead terrorist's phone.
I guess Apple had more to lose than Liberty.

Wonder if the same thing to happen today but with J6 suspects instead. My guess is they'd bend over backwards to help the investigation of insurrectionists.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I recall Apple refusing to provide the FBI the access code to a Cali terrorist mass shooter's i-phone several years ago. FBI "said" they couldn't open it but did get it open years later.

Not exactly. There is no 'master code' for Apple phones. The case hinged on compelling Apple to *actively assist in breaking their own encryption*, quite a different matter than turning over codes. Apple complies with court orders to provide information that exists, such as the contents of an icloud account.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Yeah. One could say something like "yes, sir officer. We'll be glad to cooperate but let's do this constitutionally. Get a court order and protect all peoples' rights".

Show me what's unconstitutional about their voluntary compliance. Not "I don't like it". What's actually unconstitutional.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Show me what's unconstitutional about their voluntary compliance. Not "I don't like it". What's actually unconstitutional.

Is it constitutional for a private company/individual, who no longer has any material interest in a piece of property to hand over sensitive information to a government agent without the current owner's permission? Did the LS maintain, as a condition of sale, the right to disseminate any information pertaining to your safe to whomever they wish, whenever they wish?

Let's keep the state on as short a leash as possible. It should take more than a phone call to hand out what ought to be private information.

 

[Ingomike]

Show me what's unconstitutional about their voluntary compliance. Not "I don't like it". What's actually unconstitutional.

It is not, GFGT seems to be saying the company should, for the sake of their reputation and customers expectations require the constitutional procedure not give it up voluntarily…

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Not exactly. There is no 'master code' for Apple phones. The case hinged on compelling Apple to *actively assist in breaking their own encryption*, quite a different matter than turning over codes.

Not exactly. Technologically, maybe but philosophically/morally not a dime's worth of difference.