Austin: Libertarian BLM Protester Shot Dead

[ClaytonB]

Yea, pretty much all his private correspondence was "extracted" just as a matter of standard policy. He got arrested and his phone was "extracted" without subpoena, without search warrant. And this is "fine" because the device was in his pocket therefore its fair game

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23777334-daniel-perry-court-filing-unsealed-031423

Lesson to be learned here:

ENCRYPT YOUR PHONES

Not exactly. The real lesson is DO NOT USE PHONES.

The most secure configuration you can have in today's environment (while using mobile tech at all) is: (a) a flip-phone for daily use/carry and (b) a smartphone with no SIM card connected to Wifi for other uses (e.g. Maps). Encryption can add a layer of protection against simple loss/theft, and that is pretty much it (it provides no security whatsoever against cops/Feds).

An encrypted phone is not really encrypted because the keys are accessible through the system and telco layers -- Apple, Google and your carrier all have 100% access to anything on your phone and the Feds are never more than one gagging subpoena away from that same access. Assuming you aren't already just being auto-siphoned into Bluffdale due to being on some "list" (as every RPF poster should assume they are).

To do even better, you should "un-bundle" as many smartphone functions as you can. Do not use your phone's built-in camera, rather, buy a discrete digital camera. GPS. Alarm clock. Etc. Same for all the other functions in the phone. Yes, that means you will have a little clutter in your desk drawer, but is avoiding having several discrete devices in your desk drawer really worth giving 100% access and visibility to all Federal agencies to inspect every single detail of your day-to-day life? And yes, that is in fact what they have access to.

 

[TheTexan]

. But we weren't even talking about if he killed Garrett Foster but why he killed Garrett Foster. It got to a question of "state of mind."

What case were they trying to make here anyway, with including the racist stuff? Like "bag a negro". Last I checked Garrett was white

 

[TheTexan]

Not exactly. The real lesson is DO NOT USE PHONES.

Ya, not really an option though.

And by encrypt your phone,I mean do it in a way that actually works... not just the out of the box stuff that is provided by default. Ofc that shit ain't gonna work

 

[TheTexan]

They wouldn't need to assert that at this point. Part of the data from the cell phone was already admitted. If there was no warrant then that issue should have already been raised and then brought up again in the motion for a new trial to preserve it for appeal.



Admitting that data in court is not common practice. If the state didn't have a warrant and his lawyers aren't raising that issue on their motion for a new trial that's legal malpractice.

Ok then how can I go about finding the court document that explains how it was admitted?

 

[ClaytonB]

Admitting that data in court is not common practice. If the state didn't have a warrant and his lawyers aren't raising that issue on their motion for a new trial that's legal malpractice.

Oh, but there are so many clever tricks to get around all that noise. Most people will immediately consent to a search of their vehicle if an officer simply asks. Once they say "yes", everything that flows from that search is 100% admissible. The same goes for cell phone searches. "Do you mind if I take a quick look at your phone? I'll give it right back." Once you surrender it, you have legally consented to search of everything on that device, no matter if you understood the officer to be only checking something specific and returning the device to you immediately. There is a field device that can just "plug and image" the entire phone right then and there, and I'm sure these devices are very widely deployed. So, "Can I take a quick look at your phone, I'll give it right back?", plug siphoning device, BOOM, the PD now has a 100% legally admissible image of every single byte on your phone. Every image, every GPS location, every SMS, every encryption key, every email cached on the phone, every "encrypted" message, etc. Very few people have the fortitude to go all 4A-"I will only speak with advice of legal counsel". Perry's situation is exactly the kind of situation where this matters most, but again, he's following the "upstanding transparent citizen" mindset so that's how the prosecutor (which is absolutely not of the "upstanding citizen" view, no matter who is on the docket) gets full access to this stuff.

 

[TheTexan]

This is interesting, if I dig deeper into this case how much more of this type of stuff will I find?

https://context-cdn.washingtonpost....024/note/8e4e8804-3867-453f-8edd-746e84d77b99.

I am the lead investigating detective in the above referenced case.
2. Prior to the grand jury presentation in this case, I had several
conversations with the District Attorney's Office regarding the
presentation of exculpatory evidence related to Daniel Perry. It became
clear to me that the District Attorney's Office did not want to present
evidence to the grand jury that would be exculpatory• to Daniel Perry
and/or to show that witness statements obtained by the family of Garrett
Foster and/ or their attorneys were inconsistent with prior interviews such
"witnesses" gave the police and/or the video of the incident in question.

 

[ClaytonB]

Ya, not really an option though.

And by encrypt your phone,I mean do it in a way that actually works... not just the out of the box stuff that is provided by default. Ofc that $#@! ain't gonna work

No, I'm specifically repudiating your second sentence. NOTHING works, period.

As for "not an option", there are always options. It's just a matter of breaking down the device into its separate functions. Do you really need instant access to every single app on your phone at all times? Of course not. For some people with work requirements, the cost may be maintaining two subscriber lines. An extra $100/mo. to not be spied on 24x7 by the Feds? Sign me up.

I cannot emphasize strongly enough..... NOTHING is truly secure on a smartphone platform, it is fundamentally compromised, at root.

 

[jmdrake]

Ok then how can I go about finding the court document that explains how it was admitted?

Well some courts have all of their court files online that you can access for a fee. That's true for all federal courts and some state courts. Looks like Austin is online.

https://www.traviscountytx.gov/district-clerk/case-information-records#onlineCaseRecordsSearch

Have fun! Looking forward to seeing what you find.

 

[jmdrake]

Oh, but there are so many clever tricks to get around all that noise. Most people will immediately consent to a search of their vehicle if an officer simply asks. Once they say "yes", everything that flows from that search is 100% admissible. The same goes for cell phone searches. "Do you mind if I take a quick look at your phone? I'll give it right back." Once you surrender it, you have legally consented to search of everything on that device, no matter if you understood the officer to be only checking something specific and returning the device to you immediately. There is a field device that can just "plug and image" the entire phone right then and there, and I'm sure these devices are very widely deployed. So, "Can I take a quick look at your phone, I'll give it right back?", plug siphoning device, BOOM, the PD now has a 100% legally admissible image of every single byte on your phone. Every image, every GPS location, every SMS, every encryption key, every email cached on the phone, every "encrypted" message, etc. Very few people have the fortitude to go all 4A-"I will only speak with advice of legal counsel". Perry's situation is exactly the kind of situation where this matters most, but again, he's following the "upstanding transparent citizen" mindset so that's how the prosecutor (which is absolutely not of the "upstanding citizen" view, no matter who is on the docket) gets full access to this stuff.

Yeah...if you accidentally consent to search you can screw yourself and the courts won't save you.

 

[TheTexan]

Well some courts have all of their court files online that you can access for a fee. That's true for all federal courts and some state courts. Looks like Austin is online.

https://www.traviscountytx.gov/district-clerk/case-information-records#onlineCaseRecordsSearch

Have fun! Looking forward to seeing what you find.

I don't see anything in the case events about a warrant or subpoena for a cell phone extraction.

https://odysseyweb.traviscountytx.g...B1C265DB59DC54E69582E45900CD/anon/portalembed

 

[jmdrake]

I don't see anything in the case events about a warrant or subpoena for a cell phone extraction.

https://odysseyweb.traviscountytx.g...B1C265DB59DC54E69582E45900CD/anon/portalembed

Hmmm....they list the case events but you can't download anything. I saw a CAPIAS/WARRANT event but that's likely just for his arrest. I also saw a states motion to seal. Daniel did a couple of motions for discovery and ultimately a motion to compel. (The state was being slow turning stuff over).

 

[TheTexan]

After reading the defense's letter to the pardon board... I am convinced at this point he was railroaded for the simple crime of being racist online.

https://www.scribd.com/document/638134391/Pardon-Letter-From-Daniel-Perry-Defense-Team

One thing I would note [MENTION=849]jmdrake[/MENTION] is that the witness interview who said that Garrett did point the weapon at Perry, was not allowed to be admitted into evidence. Any "legal justification" for that? ...

 

[dannno]

I never said Perry didn't have a right to arm himself or that this wasn't a dangerous situation so don't put words in my mouth.

I never put words in your mouth, I was building a case from the ground-up with full context. Quite the opposite, I was actually responding to a statement I read earlier from you that said the rioter had just as much of a right to be armed as Perry. I agree with all that, I was trying to find common agreement on that point.

I'm not trying to say everything you've said is wrong, I'm just trying to provide more context on the situation as a whole so that you can see that no matter what, this guy was falsely convicted. I think the text messages and whole thing about motivation was a total distraction. I agree that these messages were attained illegally and shouldn't have been, but even with their release I don't think it should have had any impact.

I don't care if he was mad at BLM/antifa, I don't care if he was racist against certain races, I don't think that matters at all in this particular instance. I'll get to the "why" soon.

But as an example, if a black person wanted to go into an area with white supremacists wearing tactical armor and a sidearm, and wait to be lynched, then shoot the lynchers, I don't think I would have a problem with that either.

Also I can see a reasonable jury acquitting Perry. I can also see a reasonable jury convicting Perry. At the end of the day this came down to witness credibility over a vey simple question. Did Garrett Foster point his gun at Daniel Perry or did he not?

Irrelevant. There is no law that says somebody has to point a gun at you before you shoot them. In all 50 states, if somebody says, "I'm going to shoot you!" and they reach for their gun, you can shoot them before they point their gun at you. That's not exactly what happened in this case, but it is analogous.

Here is the context you and everyone else trying to argue me down keep ignoring. Perry's cop "expert" would have likely shot Kyle Rittenhouse based on how Kyle was carrying his rifle.

....which is missing the context that I put forward. There is a different standard for shooting a lawful citizen carrying a gun than there is for shooting a criminal who is carrying a gun. I'm not saying you can shoot anybody committing a crime who is carrying a gun, just that there is a different standard for when you could do it. So since Kyle was not committing any crimes or engaging in criminal conduct, nor was he part of a group that was doing so, then no, there would be no justification to shoot Kyle. Whereas this guy was part of a mob of people who were unlawfully blocking a street and unlawfully threatening somebody who was lawfully driving down said street.

But we weren't even talking about if he killed Garrett Foster but why he killed Garrett Foster. It got to a question of "state of mind."

Probably the same state of mind a police officer who puts out a decoy car in a bad neighborhood for criminals to steal. I have no problem with that.

Additionally, I don't think I would have a problem with an armed person who put on a bullet proof vest and walked down a dark alley at night to see if somebody would rob them with a gun, then they could shoot them. If that is such a big problem in their community that they feel the need to risk their lives to do so, I don't think I see any issue with that. If somebody came by the dark alley ten minutes later and was robbed at gunpoint, they would have the right to defend themselves as well.

I think the lawyers were taking advantage of the fake narrative being set around these "protests". Antifa and BLM were burning down businesses and destroying things and hurting people all over the country. It is perfectly reasonable to be upset about that. It's perfectly reasonable to have bad feelings about these rioters, the ones are destroying people's lives. Additionally, while I disavow racism, it is not a crime. Racists still have the right to defend themselves.

Earlier you said something about his text message about what he could "get away with" as far as shooting somebody legally. That's sort of a weasel word way of saying he was looking up the ways he could legally defend himself in his particular jurisdiction.

So basically, he knew there were going to be riots, he knew he might be at these riots. I don't think it matters whether he put himself there on purpose, like Kyle Rittenhouse did, or whether he thought that as an Uber driver he might end up having to go there for occupational purposes.

 

[TheTexan]

And the prosecution's narrative that the protestors swarmed his car because they were intimidated by his car, is just patently ridiculous.

And that was the prosecution's whole main argument hinged on.

 

[jmdrake]

After reading the defense's letter to the pardon board... I am convinced at this point he was railroaded for the simple crime of being racist online.

https://www.scribd.com/document/638134391/Pardon-Letter-From-Daniel-Perry-Defense-Team

One thing I would note [MENTION=849]jmdrake[/MENTION] is that the witness interview who said that Garrett did point the weapon at Perry, was not allowed to be admitted into evidence. Any "legal justification" for that? ...

That's a well written motion for a new trial. Note that they don't say anything in the motion about an illegal search of his cell phone. Feel free to tell them what you think they've missed.

 

[TheTexan]

That's a well written motion for a new trial. Note that they don't say anything in the motion about an illegal search of his cell phone. Feel free to tell them what you think they've missed.

If I thought honestly they would take me seriously, and they would actually pursue it, I would.

But they likely know as well as I do, that it would be a lost cause. The 4th has been trampled. The fact that cell phone extractions occur as standard practice before a warrant is issued is proof of this.

Add on top of the fact the known and understood fact that search warrants are rubber stamped with zero cause on a regular basis across the country, and why would I bother?

The search warrant for the cell phone is so insignificant to the courts that they don't even bother listing it in their case events.

So excuse me, if I don't take your sarcastic suggestions seriously.

 

[TheTexan]

https://www.upturn.org/work/mass-extraction/

 

[ClaytonB]

https://www.upturn.org/work/mass-extraction/

That link is amazing! I was aware of much of the contents of it, but it's a super-accessible, all-in-one summary!

 

[ClaytonB]

https://www.upturn.org/work/mass-extraction/

One way that MDFTs access account-based information is by copying the account credentials that the phone stores in order to remain logged in, essentially pretending to be the user’s phone. This gives investigators access to any cloud data that the user has access to from their phone, like social media data, emails, or backups of photos and other data. For the most part, this data is not encrypted. For example, an MDFT may be able to pull a remote backup of the phone from Apple’s iCloud service by copying information it finds in the phone’s password management system.30 And because many services allow users to download all of their data (e.g., Google’s Takeout), MDFTs can access even more sources of data, some of which are shown in Figure 2.3. Figures 2.4 to 2.6 show the process of retrieving account-based cloud data in Magnet’s AXIOM software.

^^^THIS is one of the biggest issues that most people are not aware of. If you're on a routine traffic stop, an officer asks to "look at your phone", takes a snapshot of it using an MDFT (there are mobile versions out there, I've read about this), he now has full access to practically any account your phone is currently able to access... email, chat, cloud drives, you name it. That access will persist until you reset the password and clear cookies (reset app credentials, on mobile)! Of course, in that time, the PD could (and just might) download all accessible data from those online locations.

This is why I keep pounding my fist and screaming that the phone is the single biggest security vulnerability in modern life and most of us are (still) completely unaware of it.

 

[ClaytonB]

Oh that's from a sealed indictment from 2015? Weird how they just let him continue for almost a decade before arresting him.

Kinda weird like Austin DA's office which left the "murder" of Garret Foster un-charged for 2 years (EDIT: 1 year) before a Soros-backed DA suddenly realized that it was actually murder, despite no new evidence or testimony. Justice moves in mysterious ways...