Liberty Safe gives passcode to federal authorities

[WeldonHunter]

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

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

I never compared this to what happened with Apple. The main point I made was regardless of the fact that Liberty has a way in to the safe with some of them they do not own the safe and that's a valid reason to challenge any subpoena asking them to give it up. Just because they have a way to open one doesn't mean the courts have a right to make them give it to any agency. The other point is in all likelihood while the subpoena is being challenged the FBI or any other agency asking for this would call a locksmith to open it if the warrant they have grants them access. They aren't in all likelihood going to wait around for a decision on a subpoena when there's other avenues they can take to open a safe. That wasn't the case with the Apple situation.

 

[thperez1972]

I never compared this to what happened with Apple.

Yes...I was covering it because others have brought up Apple. And I was providing an example of a valid claim.

The main point I made was regardless of the fact that Liberty has a way in to the safe with some of them they do not own the safe and that's a valid reason to challenge any subpoena asking them to give it up.

They can challenge any subpoena. And while the safe is owned by someone else, they wouldn't be asked for the safe. They would be asked for the code. And they do own that information.

Just because they have a way to open one doesn't mean the courts have a right to make them give it to any agency.

It wouldn't be to give it to any agency. It would be to give that one code for that one safe to one agency.

The other point is in all likelihood while the subpoena is being challenged the FBI or any other agency asking for this would call a locksmith to open it if the warrant they have grants them access. They aren't in all likelihood going to wait around for a decision on a subpoena when there's other avenues they can take to open a safe. That wasn't the case with the Apple situation.

I agree. Unless the challenge is heard and decided by the court immediately, the would likely end up in the safe through other means. Interestingly, that's also what happened in the Apple case. The FBI used the help of an Australian company to gain access. That company found a bug that allowed them to do what the FBI had asked Apple to do. But the bug was quickly patched by Mozilla so the exploit was not useful for too long.

 

[AustinBR]

It is because #1 they installed backdoors into peoples safes then #2 had no issues handing over that info to a rogue law enforcement agency.

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

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

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

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

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

Did we ever figure out if there's a back door master code or they just have the default code?

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Magdump]

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

Well looks like you understood all along what happened. “Playing nice” with the feds as you call it is not the sort of thing most people who treasure liberty can accept and for Liberty Safes To be so eager to oblige (when the warrant had absolutely nothing to do with them) was the offense that so many disagree with.
I guess you either get why that pisses off a whole bunch of people are you don’t. If you do, then you can count yourself among the millions of freedom loving patriotic people who call themselves Americans. If you don’t see the big deal then I’m guessing you can’t.

 

[Magdump]

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

Even the first reports, and all that followed prior to that post. And even the latest news on the matter…
If I ever suggested the news was gospel I’d expect everyone here to disagree with me..even myself. I never said anything posted here was unreasonable.

 

[Magdump]

Why Attorney General Bill Barr is mad at Apple

The FBI didn’t need Apple’s help to crack a suspected terrorist’s iPhone, but it’s demanding it anyway.

www.vox.com

I know folks have conveniently short memories but when you actually live through a piece of history you become a historian of that era to an extent. One day many of us may be asked about the big Covid 19 epidemic and lockdowns, mask mandates, etc. I wonder how many of us will say that it didn’t happen?
Apple flat out refused to satisfy the Feds when it came to giving up the goods. Not because they were unable, but just no. It was likely because they’re a big corporation and feel empowered more than it is just looking out for the little guy, but who am I to say. That’s just my opinion. I just remember that they refused.

 

[bigtattoo79]

I'm going to be the odd one out on this...but...I don't particularly care about Liberty proactively working with the FBI to get a safe open. It's clear that the FBI knew that Liberty had the means to easily and non-destructively open the safe. They've probably worked together before. Knowing that Liberty has backup codes to safes, the FBI would have immediately asked a court to compel the company to provide the codes.

If the FBI wants to get into a safe, they are getting into the safe. In this case, Liberty complying saved the FBI guys some time to prepare a warrant or it prevented them from breaking the safe open.

What I don't like is that Liberty had not (to my knowledge) made it publically known that they kept backup/master codes to all safes that they made. That's not cool.

Aside from the above, it's my understanding that Liberty makes best in class safes at different price points. I imagine they'll still get plenty of business.

But we don’t know for a fact that the feds would/could have gotten a warrant. A judge may have said no way y’all shouldn’t be in the safe. We also don’t know for a fact they would have broken into the safe.

 

[thperez1972]

But we don’t know for a fact that the feds would/could have gotten a warrant. A judge may have said no way y’all shouldn’t be in the safe. We also don’t know for a fact they would have broken into the safe.

But it seems we may know the judge would have said they were allowed to be in the safe because the feds had a warrant, signed by a judge(?), saying they were allowed to be in the safe.

 

[thperez1972]

I know folks have conveniently short memories but when you actually live through a piece of history you become a historian of that era to an extent. One day many of us may be asked about the big Covid 19 epidemic and lockdowns, mask mandates, etc. I wonder how many of us will say that it didn’t happen?
Apple flat out refused to satisfy the Feds when it came to giving up the goods. Not because they were unable, but just no.

I believe that Apple actually gave up everything they had when the request was made which happened to be nothing.

It was likely because they’re a big corporation and feel empowered more than it is just looking out for the little guy, but who am I to say. That’s just my opinion. I just remember that they refused.

They refused to create something new for the feds because the scope of the tool the feds were asking them to create was larger than the task they were being asked to assist with. The feds wanted to get into one phone so they demanded Apple write a program to assist with getting into every phone. Apple refused because they didn't think they could be compelled to create something new, especially if the scope of that thing extended far beyond the current case. I feel like this may have been covered before.

 

[bigtattoo79]

But it seems we may know the judge would have said they were allowed to be in the safe because the feds had a warrant, signed by a judge(?), saying they were allowed to be in the safe.

I did not realize the warrant included the safe and was made public so I definitely apologize for missing that.

I still think Liberty should have told the Feds to drill it.

But we shall let the public decide how they feel, let’s look at Liberty’s sales in the next 2 years and decide.

​

Edit to ask: thperez1972 how can I find/view the actual warrant?

 

[AustinBR]

Well looks like you understood all along what happened. “Playing nice” with the feds as you call it is not the sort of thing most people who treasure liberty can accept and for Liberty Safes To be so eager to oblige (when the warrant had absolutely nothing to do with them) was the offense that so many disagree with.

I didn't understand all along what happened - the information I was seeking was not public at the time that I asked the question which you quoted above. I don't understand why this is so difficult to comprehend...

In your bolded point, you are speaking on behalf of an entire group of people with your opinion.

I guess you either get why that pisses off a whole bunch of people are you don’t. If you do, then you can count yourself among the millions of freedom loving patriotic people who call themselves Americans. If you don’t see the big deal then I’m guessing you can’t.

I can get why it pisses off people and still count myself among the "freedom loving patriots."

I can also see the value in cooperating with law enforcement without requesting warrants and court orders.

Do you have a problem with us on this forum cooperating with both the ATF and the FBI without warrants when we knew that folks were up to illegal activities on here?

But we don’t know for a fact that the feds would/could have gotten a warrant. A judge may have said no way y’all shouldn’t be in the safe. We also don’t know for a fact they would have broken into the safe.

The FBI had a warrant to access the safe. Had Liberty not provided a code to open it, they would have physically broken into the safe.

I did not realize the warrant included the safe and was made public so I definitely apologize for missing that.

I still think Liberty should have told the Feds to drill it.

But we shall let the public decide how they feel, let’s look at Liberty’s sales in the next 2 years and decide.

​

Edit to ask: thperez1972 how can I find/view the actual warrant?

What Liberty should have done is make its customers aware that they hold backup codes to their safes. If it was public knowledge that Liberty had this information, things would have been way different.

 

[bigtattoo79]

The FBI had a warrant to access the safe. Had Liberty not provided a code to open it, they would have physically broken into the safe.

My question is how do we “know” the FBI had a warrant for the safe?

 

[thperez1972]

My question is how do we “know” the FBI had a warrant for the safe?

Well, it looks like the AG from Missouri is investigating Liberty Safe. Based on the article, he seems to believe there was a warrant.

Missouri AG launches investigation into Liberty Safe

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has launched an investigation into a heavy-duty gun safe manufacturer known as Liberty Safe.

fox2now.com

 

[AustinBR]

My question is how do we “know” the FBI had a warrant for the safe?

They had a search warrant for the guy's house. I haven't seen a copy of the actual document, but it seems logical that their warrant included access to his safe. No FBI agent is going to risk losing his job and getting sued for grossly extending a search past what is allowed within a warrant.

 

[bigtattoo79]

They had a search warrant for the guy's house. I haven't seen a copy of the actual document, but it seems logical that their warrant included access to his safe. No FBI agent is going to risk losing his job and getting sued for grossly extending a search past what is allowed within a warrant.

I just don’t like “assuming” what may have been included in the warrant, hopefully they make it public at some point.

FBI agent’s are human and some do dumb stuff risking their jobs, one example below.

 

[AustinBR]

I just don’t like “assuming” what may have been included in the warrant, hopefully they make it public at some point.

FBI agent’s are human and some do dumb stuff risking their jobs, one example below.

Fair.

For a public case like this, it's not very logical that they would be willing to screw it up publically. Surely the warrant included the safe.

 

[thperez1972]

I just don’t like “assuming” what may have been included in the warrant, hopefully they make it public at some point.

FBI agent’s are human and some do dumb stuff risking their jobs, one example below.

And I hope they post the agent's credentials. We wouldn't want to just "assume" they were actually feds.

At some point, you have to make reasonable assumptions. If there weren't a search warrant, if this were actually a warrantless search, I feel confident the safe's owner or his attorney would have made a public statement about it.

 

[bigtattoo79]

Fair.

For a public case like this, it's not very logical that they would be willing to screw it up publically. Surely the warrant included the safe.

I agree it’s most likely but again I just refuse to assume that. Oh well at this point at least we know who really owns the safe company and who they support.

 

[bigtattoo79]

And I hope they post the agent's credentials. We wouldn't want to just "assume" they were actually feds.

At some point, you have to make reasonable assumptions. If there weren't a search warrant, if this were actually a warrantless search, I feel confident the safe's owner or his attorney would have made a public statement about it.

OK lol.

I don’t doubt there was a warrant. I know you’ve seen warrants and how they cover different things, I would like to know what the judge signed off on without assuming.

 

[AustinBR]

OK lol.

I don’t doubt there was a warrant. I know you’ve seen warrants and how they cover different things, I would like to know what the judge signed off on without assuming.

File a freedom of information act request and see if you can find it