In the face of intense public opposition, the city’s Chamber of Commerce has gone to unusual lengths to promote Musk’s xAI facility: sending out a mailer, for the first time in recent memory, that includes misleading facts.
Lithuania's broadcasting regulator (LRTK) challenges the accuracy of data reported by piracy tracking firm MUSO, which is the main input for key EUIPO reports. Citing flaws such as the inclusion of legal sites and an inability to track VPN or IPTV use, LRTK argues that its country is being unfairly portrayed as a piracy leader. In response, MUSO says the LRTK's statements are themselves misleading and the company demands a correction.
Going in circles: Trump sets new deadline for peace in Ukraine — Ukraine to mass produce long-range Flamingo missile in winter — Video shows aftermath of Ukrainian drone strikes on oil pumping station in Russia’s Bryansk Oblast — Where is Crimea? And othe
Medical Supplies for Ukraine’s Hospitals. Partnering for global health equity.
Russia’s war against Ukraine
Olga (L) and Zabit (R), Ukrainian citizens of Azerbaijani origin who fled Soviet crackdowns during Azerbaijan’s independence uprising in 1990, harvest potatoes in their garden plot on Aug. 21, in Sloviansk, Ukraine. Sloviansk is the city where the war began in 2014, marked by its occupation by Russian militias led by Igor Strelkov, also known as Girkin. The town is located in Donetsk Oblast, a Ukrainian region cited in peace-talk discussions involving U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin over a potential front-line freeze and territorial exchanges. (Pierre Crom/Getty Images)
Going around in circles — Trump setsnew deadlinefor peace in Ukraine, Graham again threatens with tough legislation. We will know in within two weeks whether there will be peace in Ukraine. After that we will have to maybe take a different tact,” U.S. President Donald Trump told conservative commentator Todd Starnes.
Russia wouldtake 4 yearsto fully occupy Donbas, Zelensky says. “I explained to (U.S. President Donald Trump) that the talks about them (Russia) occupying our Donbas by the end of (2025) are all just chatter,” said President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Ukraineregains controlof most of Tovste in Donetsk Oblast, military says. Tovste is a front-line village southwest of the Russian-occupied city of Donetsk and near the key town of Vuhledar.
Russian attack hitsUS electronics plantin western Ukraine. “This was an ordinary civilian facility with American investment. They produced everyday household items, such as coffee machines,” President Volodymyr Zelensky said.
Video shows aftermath of Ukrainian drone strikes onoil pumping stationin Russia’s Bryansk Oblast. Ukrainian drones struck the Unecha oil pumping station in Russia’s Bryansk Oblast on Aug. 21, the commander of Ukraine’s Unmanned Systems Forces, Robert “Madyar” Brovdi, announced in a video published to social media.
Ukraine to mass producelong-range Flamingo missilein winter, Zelensky says. President Volodymyr Zelensky claimed that Flamingo had undergone successful tests, describing it as “the most successful” missile Ukraine currently has.
Russiaopposes European troopsin Ukraine under Trump-backed security guarantees, Lavrov says. Sending European troops to Ukraine as part of security guarantees would amount to “foreign military intervention,” which Moscow won’t support, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Aug. 21.
Zelensky urges ‘strong response‘ from US if Putin rejects talks with Ukraine.
“We are ready for the bilateral meeting. If the Russians are not, then we would like to see a strong response from the United States,” Zelensky said, adding that he asked Trump to impose additional sanctions on Moscow if it rejects talks with Ukraine.
Read our exclusives
Ukraine regains control of most of Tovste in Donetsk Oblast
The 5th Separate Heavy Mechanized Brigade pushed Russian troops from the settlement through coordinated operations involving infantry, drone units, and artillery, according to the military.
Photo: Pierre Crom / Getty Images
Learn more Where is Crimea? And other things you (and US presidents) should know
U.S. President Donald Trump referred to Crimea as a piece of land “right in the ocean” that is “the size of Texas” while talking on the Mark Levin Show, a right-wing talk radio program, on Aug. 20.
From Crimea to Donbas, Russia’s “peace” has always meant more war. We’re here in Ukraine to give the world a reality check. Support independent journalism in this critical moment.
Massive Russian drone, missile attackkills 1, injures 26in Ukrainian cities far from front line despite peace talks. The attack caused fires at a large electronics plant in Mukachevo, with damage also reported in other cities, including Lviv.
General Staff: Russia has lost1,029,660 troopsin Ukraine since Feb. 24, 2022.
The number includes 830 casualties that Russian forces suffered over the past day.
The ground drone revolution in Ukraine
International response
Switzerland, Austria ready togive Putin immunityfor peace talks. Switzerland is prepared to grant Russian President Vladimir Putin immunity from arrest if he travels to Geneva for peace negotiations, Swiss Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis said in an interview on Aug. 19.
Lithuaniacloses airspace near Belarus ahead of joint Russian-Belarusian military drills. The closure comes ahead of the “Zapad-2025” military drills, scheduled to take place in Belarus from Sept. 12 to 16. Minsk said the joint exercises with Russia are intended to test both countries’ ability to ensure security and repel possible aggression.
Ukrainian detained in Italy for allegedNord Stream sabotage, media report. Italian police have arrested a Ukrainian national under a European arrest warrant in connection with the 2022 Nord Stream pipeline explosions, German prosecutors announced on Aug. 21.
Kim Jong Un reportedlyawards troopswho fought for Russia. At a ceremony in Pyongyang, Kim Jong Un praised the overseas troops and said their participation demonstrated “the power of the heroic (North Korean) army.”
Trump’s intelligence chief ordered halt tointelligence sharingon Russia-Ukraine peace talks among ‘Five Eye’ allies, CBS reports. U.S. intelligence sources told CBS News that Gabbard signed a directive barring the sharing of information with the Five Eye alliance, which includes the U.S., Canada, U.K., Australia, and New Zealand.
In other news
Trump administrationescalates purgeof senior US intelligence officials, Economist reports. The officer, who served as the CIA’s top Russia and Eurasia analyst during the 2016 election and helped produce the report detailing Moscow’s interference on behalf of Donald Trump, was among the most senior career officials targeted.
Ex-defense official charged withabuse of powerafter awarding himself bonuses, extra payments. A former acting director general of a state-owned defense enterprise has been charged under suspicion that the official abuse his power in awarding himself 700,000 UAH ($17,000) in bonuses and extra payment during his service, the city of Kyiv’s Prosecutor’s Office announced on Aug. 21.
This newsletter is open for sponsorship. Boost your brand’s visibility by reaching thousands of engaged subscribers. Click here for more details.
Today’s Ukraine Daily was brought to you by Toma Istomina, Kateryna Denisova, Daria Shulzhenko, Yuliia Taradiuk, Oleksiy Sorokin, Anna Fratsyvir, Dmytro Basmat, and Olena Goncharova.
If you’re enjoying this newsletter, consider joining ourmembership program. Start supporting independent journalism today.
A former acting director general of a state-owned defense enterprise has been charged under suspicion that the official abuse his power in awarding himself 700,000 UAH ($17,000) in bonuses and extra payment during his service, the city of Kyiv's Pros…
Microsoft AI chief says it’s ‘dangerous’ to study AI consciousness: People will start to believe in the AIs as conscious entities that they’ll advocate for AI rights, model welfare and AI citizenship
Microsoft AI chief says it’s ‘dangerous’ to study AI consciousness: People will start to believe in the AIs as conscious entities that they’ll advocate for AI rights, model welfare and AI citizenship
The problem with ABC news in my experience is they assume their audience are familiar with the geopolitical situation in Asia and of course most westerners aren't.
Like the whole toilet paper thing during the pandemic. The way they reported it made it sound like it was a global issue rather than an Australia issue. The situation that arose to create that problem simply doesn't exist in other parts of the world, but because of the way they reported it, they made people think that it was an international problem. Then it actually became an international problem. Now granted, a certain amount of brainlessness has to be considered on the behalf of the people reading this stuff but still, it demonstrates the issue.
I read an article that suggests classified ads used to support newspapers and hard journalism, and the Internet and sites like Craigslist took away that revenue to pay reporters.
Yep that's pretty much how it went. Also print ads have lost against digital ads, which pay way less money to publishers and keep paying less each year
I was confused there for a second but apparently the BBC has introduced a paywall only for US users. Site is still completely free to read anywhere else, which is why I didnt even realize that there is a paywall.
Which of course means that US Americans could simply VPN their way around it..
This is a little surprising to me because I read it on a daily basis and haven't seen sign of the paywall yet. I don't know if Ublock Origin is simply squashing that as well, or I'm somehow lucky.
The BBC has been run as a business now and it's absolutely stupid. It was never meant to make a profit that was never really the point. It was supposed to be a public service and a projection of soft power, that seems to have gone out to the window now.
I suspect a lot of the work at the BBC don't actually agree with this, but management don't listen to anyone.
I forgot about the paywall and assumed this was due to their international reputational damage, over things like their pro-Israel “reporting” of the occupations in Palestine.
I'll say it again. Stop tracking me and I'll look at your ads. I look at physical mailers, like I literally look through them, more than I look at Internet ads.
Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson sent letters today to more than a dozen prominent technology companies reminding them of their obligations to protect the privacy and data security of American consumers despite pressure from foreign governments to weaken such protections. He also warned them that censoring Americans at the behest of foreign powers might violate the law.
The letters were sent to companies that provide cloud computing, data security, social media, messaging apps and other services and include: Akamai, Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Cloudflare, Discord, GoDaddy, Meta, Microsoft, Signal, Snap, Slack and X.
The letters noted that companies might feel pressured to censor and weaken data security protections for Americans in response to the laws, demands, or expected demands of foreign powers. These laws include the European Union’s Digital Services Act and the United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act, which incentivize tech companies to censor worldwide speech, and the UK’s Investigatory Powers Act, which can require companies to weaken their encryption measures to enable UK law enforcement to access data stored by users.
“I am concerned that these actions by foreign powers to impose censorship and weaken end-to-end encryption will erode Americans’ freedoms and subject them to myriad harms, such as surveillance by foreign governments and an increased risk of identity theft and fraud,” Chairman Ferguson wrote.
The letter noted that as companies consider how to comply with foreign laws and demands, they are still required to comply with the FTC Act’s prohibition against unfair and deceptive practices in the marketplace. For example, if a company promises consumers that it encrypts or secures online communications but then adopts weaker security in response to demands from a foreign government, such an action could be considered a deceptive practice under the FTC Act, the letter noted.
The FTC has brought dozens of cases over the past two decades against companies that have failed to keep their promises to consumers to deploy reasonable safeguards to protect consumer data.
FTC Warns Companies(Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Discord, Meta, Microsoft, Signal, Snap, X and more) Against Censoring or Weakening the Data Security of Americans at the Behest of Foreign Powers
Republished here under Public Domain.
Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson sent letters today to more than a dozen prominent technology companies reminding them of their obligations to protect the privacy and data security of American consumers despite pressure from foreign governments to weaken such protections. He also warned them that censoring Americans at the behest of foreign powers might violate the law.
The letters were sent to companies that provide cloud computing, data security, social media, messaging apps and other services and include: Akamai, Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Cloudflare, Discord, GoDaddy, Meta, Microsoft, Signal, Snap, Slack and X.
The letters noted that companies might feel pressured to censor and weaken data security protections for Americans in response to the laws, demands, or expected demands of foreign powers. These laws include the European Union’s Digital Services Act and the United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act, which incentivize tech companies to censor worldwide speech, and the UK’s Investigatory Powers Act, which can require companies to weaken their encryption measures to enable UK law enforcement to access data stored by users.
“I am concerned that these actions by foreign powers to impose censorship and weaken end-to-end encryption will erode Americans’ freedoms and subject them to myriad harms, such as surveillance by foreign governments and an increased risk of identity theft and fraud,” Chairman Ferguson wrote.
The letter noted that as companies consider how to comply with foreign laws and demands, they are still required to comply with the FTC Act’s prohibition against unfair and deceptive practices in the marketplace. For example, if a company promises consumers that it encrypts or secures online communications but then adopts weaker security in response to demands from a foreign government, such an action could be considered a deceptive practice under the FTC Act, the letter noted.
The FTC has brought dozens of cases over the past two decades against companies that have failed to keep their promises to consumers to deploy reasonable safeguards to protect consumer data.
reminding them of their obligations to protect the privacy and data security of American consumers despite pressure from foreign governments to weaken such protections
Yeah, but that mostly goes the other way around. If it comes to privacy, Europe isn't the best but the US is a laughing stock.
Yeah, europe yet again is trying to get this law to break encryption but don't act as if the US hasn't been trying the same since forever
Max (stylized in all uppercase; Russian: Макс, [ˈmaks] MAKS) is a Russian messenger released by VK in 2025. As of July 2025, it is in beta-testing stage. By analogy with the Chinese platform WeChat, a universal mobile application ("superapp") is being developed on the basis of Max, which allows, in addition to using the functions of the messenger, to also receive electronic Gosuslugi, verify identity through a digital ID, use a strengthened electronic signature, and also make payments. :::
Russia’s new state-backed messaging app Max will come pre-installed on all devices sold in the country starting on Sept. 1, the government announced Thursday.
Max (stylized in all uppercase; Russian: Макс, [ˈmaks] MAKS) is a Russian messenger released by VK in 2025. As of July 2025, it is in beta-testing stage. By analogy with the Chinese platform WeChat, a universal mobile application ("superapp") is being developed on the basis of Max, which allows, in addition to using the functions of the messenger, to also receive electronic Gosuslugi, verify identity through a digital ID, use a strengthened electronic signature, and also make payments. :::
Russia’s new state-backed messaging app Max will come pre-installed on all devices sold in the country starting on Sept. 1, the government announced Thursday.
FYI, there isn't much difference between this and mandatory encryption backdoors. Both are fundamentally authoritarian... So when your gov's push for encryption backdoors, they are a domestic enemy en par with Putin and all other dictatorships.
Whether or not that's a defense depends on the details of the French legal system. In most countries, there are rights you're not allowed to sign away. No idea whether security of the person is one of those rights in France.
Hosted by the Brooklyn Public Library, this Burner Phone 101 workshop introduced participants to phone-related risk modeling, privacy-protective smartphone practices, the full spectrum of burner phone options, and when to leave phones behind entirely.
Hosted by the Brooklyn Public Library, this Burner Phone 101 workshop introduced participants to phone-related risk modeling, privacy-protective smartphone practices, the full spectrum of burner phone options, and when to leave phones behind entirely…
so I thought it wouldn't be available because it needs connection to MS servers I think? anyway, I was looking at the sites on the megathread and MS flight simulator is available on several websites, like fitgirl repacks, steamrip etc (I assume that's the 2020 version but there is a 2024 one as well on gamebounty). so now I'm actually curious, has anyone tried it? does it work well?
The Fitgirl Repack is the 2020 version. There is a portable version released by Digitalzone (Archive size 9.49GB, based on the online-fix.me p2p release), which works online, but still needs a microsoft account according to release notes (so a burner account is preferable). Haven't tried it, but the Digitalzone portables i did try in the past all worked well so i expect the same here.
If you want to play airplane simulation and you want to really fly and enjoy flying then I still recommend you to buy the X-plane 12, because it is much closer to flying than the FS. x-plane.com/
A central Japan city said Thursday it will seek to pass an ordinance recommending all residents limit smartphone use to two hours a day outside of work and school amid concerns over the impact of excessive technology exposure, though there will be no penalties proposed.
The ordinance drafted by the city of Toyoake in Aichi Prefecture is likely to be the first such municipal regulation in Japan that targets a limit on the use of smartphones and other electronic devices, according to the city. If passed by the local assembly, the ordinance will come into effect on Oct. 1.
A central Japan city said Thursday it will seek to pass an ordinance recommending all residents limit smartphone use to two hours a day outside of work and school amid concerns over the impact of excessive technology exposure, though there will be no…
Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson sent letters today to more than a dozen prominent technology companies reminding them of their obligations to protect the privacy and data security of American consumers despite pressure from foreign governments to weaken such protections. He also warned them that censoring Americans at the behest of foreign powers might violate the law.
The letters were sent to companies that provide cloud computing, data security, social media, messaging apps and other services and include: Akamai, Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Cloudflare, Discord, GoDaddy, Meta, Microsoft, Signal, Snap, Slack and X.
The letters noted that companies might feel pressured to censor and weaken data security protections for Americans in response to the laws, demands, or expected demands of foreign powers. These laws include the European Union’s Digital Services Act and the United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act, which incentivize tech companies to censor worldwide speech, and the UK’s Investigatory Powers Act, which can require companies to weaken their encryption measures to enable UK law enforcement to access data stored by users.
“I am concerned that these actions by foreign powers to impose censorship and weaken end-to-end encryption will erode Americans’ freedoms and subject them to myriad harms, such as surveillance by foreign governments and an increased risk of identity theft and fraud,” Chairman Ferguson wrote.
The letter noted that as companies consider how to comply with foreign laws and demands, they are still required to comply with the FTC Act’s prohibition against unfair and deceptive practices in the marketplace. For example, if a company promises consumers that it encrypts or secures online communications but then adopts weaker security in response to demands from a foreign government, such an action could be considered a deceptive practice under the FTC Act, the letter noted.
The FTC has brought dozens of cases over the past two decades against companies that have failed to keep their promises to consumers to deploy reasonable safeguards to protect consumer data.
Max (stylized in all uppercase; Russian: Макс, [ˈmaks] MAKS) is a Russian messenger released by VK in 2025. As of July 2025, it is in beta-testing stage. By analogy with the Chinese platform WeChat, a universal mobile application ("superapp") is being developed on the basis of Max, which allows, in addition to using the functions of the messenger, to also receive electronic Gosuslugi, verify identity through a digital ID, use a strengthened electronic signature, and also make payments. :::
Russia’s new state-backed messaging app Max will come pre-installed on all devices sold in the country starting on Sept. 1, the government announced Thursday.
A Chinese national was sentenced today to four years in prison and three years of supervised release for writing and deploying malicious code on his then-employer’s network.
Wired, Business Insider, Index on Censorship magazine and more outlets got tricked into publishing AI-Generated, fabricated articles that feature people who do not seem to exist.
Tra le molte raffigurazioni ritrovate in Egitto della dea Iside, l’importante figura del pantheon egiziano compare talvolta seduta in meditazione, tra le grandi e inconfondibili fronde di quello che poteva essere soltanto un albero di banano.
Police did not act improperly when an officer gained access to the phone of an individual detained for kidnapping, sex assault, and other serious charges after watching the man enter his cellphone passcode and committing it to memory, a New Jersey appeals court ruled Tuesday.
Tyrone Ellison, who was arrested and convicted after kidnapping a minor with substance abuse issues from a Newark hospital, had no reasonable expectation of privacy when he unlocked his phone while in police custody and under the supervision of a detective, the court ruled.
“There was no violation of defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination where defendant voluntarily requested his cell phone, was not compelled to provide the passcode and voluntarily entered the passcode in the officer’s presence,” the judges wrote.
Police could not leave Ellison unattended with his phone without risking him deleting evidence, the ruling adds.
The judges said prior case law that found an arrestee maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy when making a call from a police station without being told that call may be monitored or recorded does not apply to Ellison’s case.
Ellison, the judges wrote, was aware of the detective’s presence when entering his passcode, did not attempt to conceal his password, and was not stopped from concealing his passcode from police.
“There was no deception or trickery used to obtain defendant’s passcode. Nor did the police orchestrate the situation to induce defendant to reveal the passcode,” the court wrote.
In effect, Ellison’s expectation of privacy vanished when he chose to unlock his phone in the presence of police, the court found.
A divided New Jersey Supreme Court in 2020 ruled in Andrews v. New Jersey that while the Fifth Amendment presumptively protects individuals’ passcodes, they can be compelled to reveal them under the foregone conclusion exception to the amendment. That exception allows the compelled disclosure of documents and passcodes as long as authorities know they exist and the individual subject to the warrant knows and possesses them.
Tuesday’s ruling says another doctrine that allows authorities to use improperly obtained information if it would have inevitably come into their possession through proper channels would have allowed police to use the passcode even if it was initially obtained improperly.
Police obtained a communications data warrant to search the phone and could have obtained an order to compel Ellison to disclose his passcode, the judges wrote.
“Once the passcode was compelled, law enforcement would have been able to access the contents of the phone,” the judges wrote.
The New Jersey Office of the Public Defender represented Ellison. Alison Perrone, deputy of the office’s appellate section, called the ruling concerning and said her office will ask the New Jersey Supreme Court to review the case.
“The ability of law enforcement to observe and later use a person’s private phone passcode while in custody presents serious questions about constitutional rights in the digital era,” Perrone said in a statement.
New Jersey Monitor is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Terrence T. McDonald for questions: info@newjerseymonitor.com.
Police did not act improperly when an officer gained access to the phone of an individual detained for kidnapping, sex assault, and other serious charges after watching the man enter his cellphone passcode and committing it to memory, a New Jersey appeals court ruled Tuesday.
Tyrone Ellison, who was arrested and convicted after kidnapping a minor with substance abuse issues from a Newark hospital, had no reasonable expectation of privacy when he unlocked his phone while in police custody and under the supervision of a detective, the court ruled.
“There was no violation of defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination where defendant voluntarily requested his cell phone, was not compelled to provide the passcode and voluntarily entered the passcode in the officer’s presence,” the judges wrote.
Police could not leave Ellison unattended with his phone without risking him deleting evidence, the ruling adds.
The judges said prior case law that found an arrestee maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy when making a call from a police station without being told that call may be monitored or recorded does not apply to Ellison’s case.
Ellison, the judges wrote, was aware of the detective’s presence when entering his passcode, did not attempt to conceal his password, and was not stopped from concealing his passcode from police.
“There was no deception or trickery used to obtain defendant’s passcode. Nor did the police orchestrate the situation to induce defendant to reveal the passcode,” the court wrote.
In effect, Ellison’s expectation of privacy vanished when he chose to unlock his phone in the presence of police, the court found.
A divided New Jersey Supreme Court in 2020 ruled in Andrews v. New Jersey that while the Fifth Amendment presumptively protects individuals’ passcodes, they can be compelled to reveal them under the foregone conclusion exception to the amendment. That exception allows the compelled disclosure of documents and passcodes as long as authorities know they exist and the individual subject to the warrant knows and possesses them.
Tuesday’s ruling says another doctrine that allows authorities to use improperly obtained information if it would have inevitably come into their possession through proper channels would have allowed police to use the passcode even if it was initially obtained improperly.
Police obtained a communications data warrant to search the phone and could have obtained an order to compel Ellison to disclose his passcode, the judges wrote.
“Once the passcode was compelled, law enforcement would have been able to access the contents of the phone,” the judges wrote.
The New Jersey Office of the Public Defender represented Ellison. Alison Perrone, deputy of the office’s appellate section, called the ruling concerning and said her office will ask the New Jersey Supreme Court to review the case.
“The ability of law enforcement to observe and later use a person’s private phone passcode while in custody presents serious questions about constitutional rights in the digital era,” Perrone said in a statement.
New Jersey Monitor is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Terrence T. McDonald for questions: info@newjerseymonitor.com.
The target of a State narcotics investigation, Quincy Lowery, advised detectives that defendant Robert Andrews, a former Essex County, New Jersey Sheriff’s Officer, had provided him with information about the investigation and advice to avoid crimina…
Police did not act improperly when an officer gained access to the phone of an individual detained for kidnapping, sex assault, and other serious charges after watching the man enter his cellphone passcode and committing it to memory, a New Jersey appeals court ruled Tuesday.
Tyrone Ellison, who was arrested and convicted after kidnapping a minor with substance abuse issues from a Newark hospital, had no reasonable expectation of privacy when he unlocked his phone while in police custody and under the supervision of a detective, the court ruled.
“There was no violation of defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination where defendant voluntarily requested his cell phone, was not compelled to provide the passcode and voluntarily entered the passcode in the officer’s presence,” the judges wrote.
Police could not leave Ellison unattended with his phone without risking him deleting evidence, the ruling adds.
The judges said prior case law that found an arrestee maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy when making a call from a police station without being told that call may be monitored or recorded does not apply to Ellison’s case.
Ellison, the judges wrote, was aware of the detective’s presence when entering his passcode, did not attempt to conceal his password, and was not stopped from concealing his passcode from police.
“There was no deception or trickery used to obtain defendant’s passcode. Nor did the police orchestrate the situation to induce defendant to reveal the passcode,” the court wrote.
In effect, Ellison’s expectation of privacy vanished when he chose to unlock his phone in the presence of police, the court found.
A divided New Jersey Supreme Court in 2020 ruled in Andrews v. New Jersey that while the Fifth Amendment presumptively protects individuals’ passcodes, they can be compelled to reveal them under the foregone conclusion exception to the amendment. That exception allows the compelled disclosure of documents and passcodes as long as authorities know they exist and the individual subject to the warrant knows and possesses them.
Tuesday’s ruling says another doctrine that allows authorities to use improperly obtained information if it would have inevitably come into their possession through proper channels would have allowed police to use the passcode even if it was initially obtained improperly.
Police obtained a communications data warrant to search the phone and could have obtained an order to compel Ellison to disclose his passcode, the judges wrote.
“Once the passcode was compelled, law enforcement would have been able to access the contents of the phone,” the judges wrote.
The New Jersey Office of the Public Defender represented Ellison. Alison Perrone, deputy of the office’s appellate section, called the ruling concerning and said her office will ask the New Jersey Supreme Court to review the case.
“The ability of law enforcement to observe and later use a person’s private phone passcode while in custody presents serious questions about constitutional rights in the digital era,” Perrone said in a statement.
New Jersey Monitor is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Terrence T. McDonald for questions: info@newjerseymonitor.com.
Police did not act improperly when an officer gained access to the phone of an individual detained for kidnapping, sex assault, and other serious charges after watching the man enter his cellphone passcode and committing it to memory, a New Jersey appeals court ruled Tuesday.
Tyrone Ellison, who was arrested and convicted after kidnapping a minor with substance abuse issues from a Newark hospital, had no reasonable expectation of privacy when he unlocked his phone while in police custody and under the supervision of a detective, the court ruled.
“There was no violation of defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination where defendant voluntarily requested his cell phone, was not compelled to provide the passcode and voluntarily entered the passcode in the officer’s presence,” the judges wrote.
Police could not leave Ellison unattended with his phone without risking him deleting evidence, the ruling adds.
The judges said prior case law that found an arrestee maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy when making a call from a police station without being told that call may be monitored or recorded does not apply to Ellison’s case.
Ellison, the judges wrote, was aware of the detective’s presence when entering his passcode, did not attempt to conceal his password, and was not stopped from concealing his passcode from police.
“There was no deception or trickery used to obtain defendant’s passcode. Nor did the police orchestrate the situation to induce defendant to reveal the passcode,” the court wrote.
In effect, Ellison’s expectation of privacy vanished when he chose to unlock his phone in the presence of police, the court found.
A divided New Jersey Supreme Court in 2020 ruled in Andrews v. New Jersey that while the Fifth Amendment presumptively protects individuals’ passcodes, they can be compelled to reveal them under the foregone conclusion exception to the amendment. That exception allows the compelled disclosure of documents and passcodes as long as authorities know they exist and the individual subject to the warrant knows and possesses them.
Tuesday’s ruling says another doctrine that allows authorities to use improperly obtained information if it would have inevitably come into their possession through proper channels would have allowed police to use the passcode even if it was initially obtained improperly.
Police obtained a communications data warrant to search the phone and could have obtained an order to compel Ellison to disclose his passcode, the judges wrote.
“Once the passcode was compelled, law enforcement would have been able to access the contents of the phone,” the judges wrote.
The New Jersey Office of the Public Defender represented Ellison. Alison Perrone, deputy of the office’s appellate section, called the ruling concerning and said her office will ask the New Jersey Supreme Court to review the case.
“The ability of law enforcement to observe and later use a person’s private phone passcode while in custody presents serious questions about constitutional rights in the digital era,” Perrone said in a statement.
New Jersey Monitor is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Terrence T. McDonald for questions: info@newjerseymonitor.com.
The target of a State narcotics investigation, Quincy Lowery, advised detectives that defendant Robert Andrews, a former Essex County, New Jersey Sheriff’s Officer, had provided him with information about the investigation and advice to avoid crimina…
Police did not act improperly when an officer gained access to the phone of an individual detained for kidnapping, sex assault, and other serious charges after watching the man enter his cellphone passcode and committing it to memory, a New Jersey appeals court ruled Tuesday.
Tyrone Ellison, who was arrested and convicted after kidnapping a minor with substance abuse issues from a Newark hospital, had no reasonable expectation of privacy when he unlocked his phone while in police custody and under the supervision of a detective, the court ruled.
“There was no violation of defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination where defendant voluntarily requested his cell phone, was not compelled to provide the passcode and voluntarily entered the passcode in the officer’s presence,” the judges wrote.
Police could not leave Ellison unattended with his phone without risking him deleting evidence, the ruling adds.
The judges said prior case law that found an arrestee maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy when making a call from a police station without being told that call may be monitored or recorded does not apply to Ellison’s case.
Ellison, the judges wrote, was aware of the detective’s presence when entering his passcode, did not attempt to conceal his password, and was not stopped from concealing his passcode from police.
“There was no deception or trickery used to obtain defendant’s passcode. Nor did the police orchestrate the situation to induce defendant to reveal the passcode,” the court wrote.
In effect, Ellison’s expectation of privacy vanished when he chose to unlock his phone in the presence of police, the court found.
A divided New Jersey Supreme Court in 2020 ruled in Andrews v. New Jersey that while the Fifth Amendment presumptively protects individuals’ passcodes, they can be compelled to reveal them under the foregone conclusion exception to the amendment. That exception allows the compelled disclosure of documents and passcodes as long as authorities know they exist and the individual subject to the warrant knows and possesses them.
Tuesday’s ruling says another doctrine that allows authorities to use improperly obtained information if it would have inevitably come into their possession through proper channels would have allowed police to use the passcode even if it was initially obtained improperly.
Police obtained a communications data warrant to search the phone and could have obtained an order to compel Ellison to disclose his passcode, the judges wrote.
“Once the passcode was compelled, law enforcement would have been able to access the contents of the phone,” the judges wrote.
The New Jersey Office of the Public Defender represented Ellison. Alison Perrone, deputy of the office’s appellate section, called the ruling concerning and said her office will ask the New Jersey Supreme Court to review the case.
“The ability of law enforcement to observe and later use a person’s private phone passcode while in custody presents serious questions about constitutional rights in the digital era,” Perrone said in a statement.
New Jersey Monitor is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Terrence T. McDonald for questions: info@newjerseymonitor.com.
Police did not act improperly when an officer gained access to the phone of an individual detained for kidnapping, sex assault, and other serious charges after watching the man enter his cellphone passcode and committing it to memory, a New Jersey appeals court ruled Tuesday.
Tyrone Ellison, who was arrested and convicted after kidnapping a minor with substance abuse issues from a Newark hospital, had no reasonable expectation of privacy when he unlocked his phone while in police custody and under the supervision of a detective, the court ruled.
“There was no violation of defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination where defendant voluntarily requested his cell phone, was not compelled to provide the passcode and voluntarily entered the passcode in the officer’s presence,” the judges wrote.
Police could not leave Ellison unattended with his phone without risking him deleting evidence, the ruling adds.
The judges said prior case law that found an arrestee maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy when making a call from a police station without being told that call may be monitored or recorded does not apply to Ellison’s case.
Ellison, the judges wrote, was aware of the detective’s presence when entering his passcode, did not attempt to conceal his password, and was not stopped from concealing his passcode from police.
“There was no deception or trickery used to obtain defendant’s passcode. Nor did the police orchestrate the situation to induce defendant to reveal the passcode,” the court wrote.
In effect, Ellison’s expectation of privacy vanished when he chose to unlock his phone in the presence of police, the court found.
A divided New Jersey Supreme Court in 2020 ruled in Andrews v. New Jersey that while the Fifth Amendment presumptively protects individuals’ passcodes, they can be compelled to reveal them under the foregone conclusion exception to the amendment. That exception allows the compelled disclosure of documents and passcodes as long as authorities know they exist and the individual subject to the warrant knows and possesses them.
Tuesday’s ruling says another doctrine that allows authorities to use improperly obtained information if it would have inevitably come into their possession through proper channels would have allowed police to use the passcode even if it was initially obtained improperly.
Police obtained a communications data warrant to search the phone and could have obtained an order to compel Ellison to disclose his passcode, the judges wrote.
“Once the passcode was compelled, law enforcement would have been able to access the contents of the phone,” the judges wrote.
The New Jersey Office of the Public Defender represented Ellison. Alison Perrone, deputy of the office’s appellate section, called the ruling concerning and said her office will ask the New Jersey Supreme Court to review the case.
“The ability of law enforcement to observe and later use a person’s private phone passcode while in custody presents serious questions about constitutional rights in the digital era,” Perrone said in a statement.
New Jersey Monitor is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Terrence T. McDonald for questions: info@newjerseymonitor.com.
The target of a State narcotics investigation, Quincy Lowery, advised detectives that defendant Robert Andrews, a former Essex County, New Jersey Sheriff’s Officer, had provided him with information about the investigation and advice to avoid crimina…
Police did not act improperly when an officer gained access to the phone of an individual detained for kidnapping, sex assault, and other serious charges after watching the man enter his cellphone passcode and committing it to memory, a New Jersey appeals court ruled Tuesday.
Tyrone Ellison, who was arrested and convicted after kidnapping a minor with substance abuse issues from a Newark hospital, had no reasonable expectation of privacy when he unlocked his phone while in police custody and under the supervision of a detective, the court ruled.
“There was no violation of defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination where defendant voluntarily requested his cell phone, was not compelled to provide the passcode and voluntarily entered the passcode in the officer’s presence,” the judges wrote.
Police could not leave Ellison unattended with his phone without risking him deleting evidence, the ruling adds.
The judges said prior case law that found an arrestee maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy when making a call from a police station without being told that call may be monitored or recorded does not apply to Ellison’s case.
Ellison, the judges wrote, was aware of the detective’s presence when entering his passcode, did not attempt to conceal his password, and was not stopped from concealing his passcode from police.
“There was no deception or trickery used to obtain defendant’s passcode. Nor did the police orchestrate the situation to induce defendant to reveal the passcode,” the court wrote.
In effect, Ellison’s expectation of privacy vanished when he chose to unlock his phone in the presence of police, the court found.
A divided New Jersey Supreme Court in 2020 ruled in Andrews v. New Jersey that while the Fifth Amendment presumptively protects individuals’ passcodes, they can be compelled to reveal them under the foregone conclusion exception to the amendment. That exception allows the compelled disclosure of documents and passcodes as long as authorities know they exist and the individual subject to the warrant knows and possesses them.
Tuesday’s ruling says another doctrine that allows authorities to use improperly obtained information if it would have inevitably come into their possession through proper channels would have allowed police to use the passcode even if it was initially obtained improperly.
Police obtained a communications data warrant to search the phone and could have obtained an order to compel Ellison to disclose his passcode, the judges wrote.
“Once the passcode was compelled, law enforcement would have been able to access the contents of the phone,” the judges wrote.
The New Jersey Office of the Public Defender represented Ellison. Alison Perrone, deputy of the office’s appellate section, called the ruling concerning and said her office will ask the New Jersey Supreme Court to review the case.
“The ability of law enforcement to observe and later use a person’s private phone passcode while in custody presents serious questions about constitutional rights in the digital era,” Perrone said in a statement.
New Jersey Monitor is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Terrence T. McDonald for questions: info@newjerseymonitor.com.
Police did not act improperly when an officer gained access to the phone of an individual detained for kidnapping, sex assault, and other serious charges after watching the man enter his cellphone passcode and committing it to memory, a New Jersey appeals court ruled Tuesday.
Tyrone Ellison, who was arrested and convicted after kidnapping a minor with substance abuse issues from a Newark hospital, had no reasonable expectation of privacy when he unlocked his phone while in police custody and under the supervision of a detective, the court ruled.
“There was no violation of defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination where defendant voluntarily requested his cell phone, was not compelled to provide the passcode and voluntarily entered the passcode in the officer’s presence,” the judges wrote.
Police could not leave Ellison unattended with his phone without risking him deleting evidence, the ruling adds.
The judges said prior case law that found an arrestee maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy when making a call from a police station without being told that call may be monitored or recorded does not apply to Ellison’s case.
Ellison, the judges wrote, was aware of the detective’s presence when entering his passcode, did not attempt to conceal his password, and was not stopped from concealing his passcode from police.
“There was no deception or trickery used to obtain defendant’s passcode. Nor did the police orchestrate the situation to induce defendant to reveal the passcode,” the court wrote.
In effect, Ellison’s expectation of privacy vanished when he chose to unlock his phone in the presence of police, the court found.
A divided New Jersey Supreme Court in 2020 ruled in Andrews v. New Jersey that while the Fifth Amendment presumptively protects individuals’ passcodes, they can be compelled to reveal them under the foregone conclusion exception to the amendment. That exception allows the compelled disclosure of documents and passcodes as long as authorities know they exist and the individual subject to the warrant knows and possesses them.
Tuesday’s ruling says another doctrine that allows authorities to use improperly obtained information if it would have inevitably come into their possession through proper channels would have allowed police to use the passcode even if it was initially obtained improperly.
Police obtained a communications data warrant to search the phone and could have obtained an order to compel Ellison to disclose his passcode, the judges wrote.
“Once the passcode was compelled, law enforcement would have been able to access the contents of the phone,” the judges wrote.
The New Jersey Office of the Public Defender represented Ellison. Alison Perrone, deputy of the office’s appellate section, called the ruling concerning and said her office will ask the New Jersey Supreme Court to review the case.
“The ability of law enforcement to observe and later use a person’s private phone passcode while in custody presents serious questions about constitutional rights in the digital era,” Perrone said in a statement.
New Jersey Monitor is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Terrence T. McDonald for questions: info@newjerseymonitor.com.
The target of a State narcotics investigation, Quincy Lowery, advised detectives that defendant Robert Andrews, a former Essex County, New Jersey Sheriff’s Officer, had provided him with information about the investigation and advice to avoid crimina…
Police did not act improperly when an officer gained access to the phone of an individual detained for kidnapping, sex assault, and other serious charges after watching the man enter his cellphone passcode and committing it to memory, a New Jersey appeals court ruled Tuesday.
Tyrone Ellison, who was arrested and convicted after kidnapping a minor with substance abuse issues from a Newark hospital, had no reasonable expectation of privacy when he unlocked his phone while in police custody and under the supervision of a detective, the court ruled.
“There was no violation of defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination where defendant voluntarily requested his cell phone, was not compelled to provide the passcode and voluntarily entered the passcode in the officer’s presence,” the judges wrote.
Police could not leave Ellison unattended with his phone without risking him deleting evidence, the ruling adds.
The judges said prior case law that found an arrestee maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy when making a call from a police station without being told that call may be monitored or recorded does not apply to Ellison’s case.
Ellison, the judges wrote, was aware of the detective’s presence when entering his passcode, did not attempt to conceal his password, and was not stopped from concealing his passcode from police.
“There was no deception or trickery used to obtain defendant’s passcode. Nor did the police orchestrate the situation to induce defendant to reveal the passcode,” the court wrote.
In effect, Ellison’s expectation of privacy vanished when he chose to unlock his phone in the presence of police, the court found.
A divided New Jersey Supreme Court in 2020 ruled in Andrews v. New Jersey that while the Fifth Amendment presumptively protects individuals’ passcodes, they can be compelled to reveal them under the foregone conclusion exception to the amendment. That exception allows the compelled disclosure of documents and passcodes as long as authorities know they exist and the individual subject to the warrant knows and possesses them.
Tuesday’s ruling says another doctrine that allows authorities to use improperly obtained information if it would have inevitably come into their possession through proper channels would have allowed police to use the passcode even if it was initially obtained improperly.
Police obtained a communications data warrant to search the phone and could have obtained an order to compel Ellison to disclose his passcode, the judges wrote.
“Once the passcode was compelled, law enforcement would have been able to access the contents of the phone,” the judges wrote.
The New Jersey Office of the Public Defender represented Ellison. Alison Perrone, deputy of the office’s appellate section, called the ruling concerning and said her office will ask the New Jersey Supreme Court to review the case.
“The ability of law enforcement to observe and later use a person’s private phone passcode while in custody presents serious questions about constitutional rights in the digital era,” Perrone said in a statement.
New Jersey Monitor is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Terrence T. McDonald for questions: info@newjerseymonitor.com.
Police did not act improperly when an officer gained access to the phone of an individual detained for kidnapping, sex assault, and other serious charges after watching the man enter his cellphone passcode and committing it to memory, a New Jersey appeals court ruled Tuesday.
Tyrone Ellison, who was arrested and convicted after kidnapping a minor with substance abuse issues from a Newark hospital, had no reasonable expectation of privacy when he unlocked his phone while in police custody and under the supervision of a detective, the court ruled.
“There was no violation of defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination where defendant voluntarily requested his cell phone, was not compelled to provide the passcode and voluntarily entered the passcode in the officer’s presence,” the judges wrote.
Police could not leave Ellison unattended with his phone without risking him deleting evidence, the ruling adds.
The judges said prior case law that found an arrestee maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy when making a call from a police station without being told that call may be monitored or recorded does not apply to Ellison’s case.
Ellison, the judges wrote, was aware of the detective’s presence when entering his passcode, did not attempt to conceal his password, and was not stopped from concealing his passcode from police.
“There was no deception or trickery used to obtain defendant’s passcode. Nor did the police orchestrate the situation to induce defendant to reveal the passcode,” the court wrote.
In effect, Ellison’s expectation of privacy vanished when he chose to unlock his phone in the presence of police, the court found.
A divided New Jersey Supreme Court in 2020 ruled in Andrews v. New Jersey that while the Fifth Amendment presumptively protects individuals’ passcodes, they can be compelled to reveal them under the foregone conclusion exception to the amendment. That exception allows the compelled disclosure of documents and passcodes as long as authorities know they exist and the individual subject to the warrant knows and possesses them.
Tuesday’s ruling says another doctrine that allows authorities to use improperly obtained information if it would have inevitably come into their possession through proper channels would have allowed police to use the passcode even if it was initially obtained improperly.
Police obtained a communications data warrant to search the phone and could have obtained an order to compel Ellison to disclose his passcode, the judges wrote.
“Once the passcode was compelled, law enforcement would have been able to access the contents of the phone,” the judges wrote.
The New Jersey Office of the Public Defender represented Ellison. Alison Perrone, deputy of the office’s appellate section, called the ruling concerning and said her office will ask the New Jersey Supreme Court to review the case.
“The ability of law enforcement to observe and later use a person’s private phone passcode while in custody presents serious questions about constitutional rights in the digital era,” Perrone said in a statement.
New Jersey Monitor is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Terrence T. McDonald for questions: info@newjerseymonitor.com.
The target of a State narcotics investigation, Quincy Lowery, advised detectives that defendant Robert Andrews, a former Essex County, New Jersey Sheriff’s Officer, had provided him with information about the investigation and advice to avoid crimina…
People in the USA do have more rights than people here on Airstip One.
Though we are both under the big black boot of government friendly fascism.
Since October 2007, we have had Section 49 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 or RIPA.
We cannot refuse to give up a password or access to an encrypted device.
Section 53 of RIPA makes it a criminal offence to not comply with a Section 49 notice, carrying a sentence of up to two years in prison, and up to five years in cases involving national security, terrorism or child indecency.
We have no Fifth Amendment covering self-incrimination laws to protect us from over zealous police and state.
Who in society is going to argue against laws that are sold to us to protect our children?
I am an old retired psychotherapist. I remember the introduction of the CRB (criminal records bureau) check, here on Airstrip one in the early 2000's. Now called a DBS check.
The CRB scanned the Police National Computer for any criminal offences that you had committed, this also included juvenile, aged under 17 offences. Which empowered all employers to use the CRB checks to get rid of staff and refuse to employ certain people. Discrimination was rife.
You were now judged, not on your competence to do your job, but whether you had a criminal record.
I would not have minded so much if they solely searched for any offence that were linked to child abuse, terrorism or national security, but they provided your entire life criminal offences.
My enhanced CRB check showed that I had gotten fined £3 for riding my bicycle on a pavement in the mid 60's when I was 11 years old. My mum had to pay. My dad earned about £10 per week as a lorry driver.
What a danger to society I was! An employer could refuse to employ me just because of that little bit of information.
Sold to the UK population as a means to protect our children from sexual predators. Of course no one complained.
Yet, forward just a few years and you needed a CRB check to work at:
The airport, the local supermarket, as a gardener in a school, as a handyman sweeping the car park of the local doctors practice.
you needed to have a CRB check if you came within 100M of a child or vulnerable adult.
Even University students now have to have a CRB checks if they are on a psychology, counselling or psychotherapy course, because they may come into contact with children and or vulnerable adults.
This is the slow creep of government policies expanding, with no oversight, sold to us under the guise that they are protecting children and vulnerable adults.
fear is a great driver for change. scare someone enough and they will give up their granny.
I think this is also linked to Airstrip One's governments, continually attempting to remove all encryption from devices by using child protection as a reason
Airstrip One was the name of Britain in George Orwell's book 1984.
Airstrip One is a part of Oceania.
In 1984, Oceania formed after the United States merged with the British Empire.
Its just my way of saying that my country is heading deeper into totalitarianism and fascism.
CCTV, facial recognition, the militarism of our police, police powers to kill people without facing criminal charge, the constant monitoring of its people, the uncontrolled power of big tech, big pharma, big agro and the rich. To me anyway, seems to indicate we are on the road to totalitarianism and fascism.
Just watch out for the emergence of a charismatic person who "others" people like immigrants, homeless folks, poor people, disabled folks, or people different races/religion. I am in the US and it is scary here. I would leave but am trapped, and honestly Canada and the EU are not looking much better despite their constant judgements.
The anti-immigrant right wing fascists have been out in force in my area.
They have been having get togethers in my local high street. Big muscles, shaven heads, tattoos, anabolic steroid body building users, standing with their legs apart to intimidate those walking past them, wankers. They have serious male identity issues.
I went out for a drive this morning down to my local river for a long walk.
All the mini roundabouts in my local area, there are about 10 of them on the way to the river, have been painted red with the George Cross.
I remember the skinheads from the Mid 70's. Gangs of short haired boys, with Doc marten boots and Ben Sherman shirts, travelling around in cars, beating up anyone with a black or brown skin.
I knew quite a few of them and I always thought they were wankers, Absolutely useless on a "one on one" fist fight, but in gang they would attack any single male. Brave bastards they were.
The most frustrating thing of all is that they considered themselves pure bloods. Pure blood english. There is no such thing. simple minded wankers.
They have not even thought about our history, with everyone in Europe invading and occupying us at one time or other. The Romans, The Vikings, The Normans, the Jutes and Anglo-Saxons etc etc, they were not english. Pure bloods they say.
This Reminds me of your ICE teams over there.
You can see the similarities in Nineteen Eighty-Four:
Each state is self-supporting and self-enclosed: emigration and immigration are forbidden, as are international trade and the learning of foreign languages
Police did not act improperly when an officer gained access to the phone of an individual detained for kidnapping, sex assault, and other serious charges after watching the man enter his cellphone passcode and committing it to memory, a New Jersey appeals court ruled Tuesday.
Tyrone Ellison, who was arrested and convicted after kidnapping a minor with substance abuse issues from a Newark hospital, had no reasonable expectation of privacy when he unlocked his phone while in police custody and under the supervision of a detective, the court ruled.
“There was no violation of defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination where defendant voluntarily requested his cell phone, was not compelled to provide the passcode and voluntarily entered the passcode in the officer’s presence,” the judges wrote.
Police could not leave Ellison unattended with his phone without risking him deleting evidence, the ruling adds.
The judges said prior case law that found an arrestee maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy when making a call from a police station without being told that call may be monitored or recorded does not apply to Ellison’s case.
Ellison, the judges wrote, was aware of the detective’s presence when entering his passcode, did not attempt to conceal his password, and was not stopped from concealing his passcode from police.
“There was no deception or trickery used to obtain defendant’s passcode. Nor did the police orchestrate the situation to induce defendant to reveal the passcode,” the court wrote.
In effect, Ellison’s expectation of privacy vanished when he chose to unlock his phone in the presence of police, the court found.
A divided New Jersey Supreme Court in 2020 ruled in Andrews v. New Jersey that while the Fifth Amendment presumptively protects individuals’ passcodes, they can be compelled to reveal them under the foregone conclusion exception to the amendment. That exception allows the compelled disclosure of documents and passcodes as long as authorities know they exist and the individual subject to the warrant knows and possesses them.
Tuesday’s ruling says another doctrine that allows authorities to use improperly obtained information if it would have inevitably come into their possession through proper channels would have allowed police to use the passcode even if it was initially obtained improperly.
Police obtained a communications data warrant to search the phone and could have obtained an order to compel Ellison to disclose his passcode, the judges wrote.
“Once the passcode was compelled, law enforcement would have been able to access the contents of the phone,” the judges wrote.
The New Jersey Office of the Public Defender represented Ellison. Alison Perrone, deputy of the office’s appellate section, called the ruling concerning and said her office will ask the New Jersey Supreme Court to review the case.
“The ability of law enforcement to observe and later use a person’s private phone passcode while in custody presents serious questions about constitutional rights in the digital era,” Perrone said in a statement.
New Jersey Monitor is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Terrence T. McDonald for questions: info@newjerseymonitor.com.
The target of a State narcotics investigation, Quincy Lowery, advised detectives that defendant Robert Andrews, a former Essex County, New Jersey Sheriff’s Officer, had provided him with information about the investigation and advice to avoid crimina…
The diamond sensor works by detecting magnetic tracer fluid (iron oxide nanoparticles) that is introduced into the patient during or before breast cancer surgery. The tracer fluid is injected into the tumour and then travels to the lymph nodes alongside metastasized cancer cells. A magnetic field sensor based on a diamond can then locate the tracer fluid and pinpoint the lymph nodes to be surgically removed to stop the cancer spread.
Its compact design is achieved by using a tiny diamond (0.5 mm3) and a small permanent magnet that is attached to the probe head. This eliminates the need for bulky electronics allowing for a handheld versatile tool.
The diamond sensor works by detecting magnetic tracer fluid (iron oxide nanoparticles) that is introduced into the patient during or before breast cancer surgery. The tracer fluid is injected into the tumour and then travels to the lymph nodes alongside metastasized cancer cells. A magnetic field sensor based on a diamond can then locate the tracer fluid and pinpoint the lymph nodes to be surgically removed to stop the cancer spread.
Its compact design is achieved by using a tiny diamond (0.5 mm3) and a small permanent magnet that is attached to the probe head. This eliminates the need for bulky electronics allowing for a handheld versatile tool.
The Vera Rubin Observatory is ready to revolutionize astronomy: To answer big cosmic questions, “you need something like Rubin. There is no competition.”
SAN FRANCISCO – August 19, 2025 – Fastly, Inc. (NYSE: FSLY), a leader in global edge cloud platforms, today released its Q2 2025 Threat Insights Report, exposing a striking shift in the nature and scale of automated web traffic.
SAN FRANCISCO – August 19, 2025 – Fastly, Inc. (NYSE: FSLY), a leader in global edge cloud platforms, today released its Q2 2025 Threat Insights Report, exposing a striking shift in the nature and scale of automated web traffic.
Pro
in reply to lafranz • • •TORFdot0
in reply to lafranz • • •