Liberty Safe gives passcode to federal authorities

[thperez1972]

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.

Here's the arrest info. It doesn't mention the warrant. A can't find much on the warrant.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/press-release/file/1594191/download

And for anyone who is interested, here's the link to the page on Liberty's site where you can request they remove your backup code. I thought the link to that page would be front and center on the main page. But it wasn't. It was the mast entry under the misc tab.

Combination Removal Request Form

Combination Removal Request Form I authorize Liberty Safe to remove any combination or reset code associated with my safe from their records. I understand by submitting this form, Liberty Safe will be unable to support service requests for my lock. First Name This is required Last Name This is...

www.libertysafe.com

 

[bigtattoo79]

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

Its not that important to me. I would hope the search was on the up and up but I wouldn’t be shocked if it wasn’t.

2 Things stood out to me as odd to me:

1) The FBI didn’t just bust the safe open for the fun of it knowing they had the right to.

2) Liberty gave the code without being ordered to, but now we know who currently owns Liberty and who they support (I’m not shocked).

 

[AustinBR]

Its not that important to me. I would hope the search was on the up and up but I wouldn’t be shocked if it wasn’t.

2 Things stood out to me as odd to me:

1) The FBI didn’t just bust the safe open for the fun of it knowing they had the right to.

2) Liberty gave the code without being ordered to, but now we know who currently owns Liberty and who they support (I’m not shocked).

I mean, again, that's just not very logical. The FBI would have to bring in a specialist and it would take plenty of time to get it open. If they knew already that they can get Liberty safes open by compelling or working with Liberty, why would they not do that? It's a hell of a lot easier...

Plus, when forcing a safe open, there is always a risk that you damage something inside of it.

Finally, I still stand by my earlier thought that it's not too odd that a private company or individual would cooperate with the FBI. We have done that here on this very forum. Most people realize that law enforcement folks have shitty jobs and most aren't anti-LE...and they're willing to do what they can if it's easy...

 

[dantheman]

Surely Liberty knew that this would be high profile and willingly opening the safe would get a lot of attention . Were they that stupid , or did they just not care ? I guess we'll never know .

 

[Magdump]

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?

Hahahahaha!!!!! If I had a problem with cooperation with feds WHEN YOU KNOW FOLKS ARE UP TO ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES (key forking words, dude) I simply wouldn’t participate.

You said that once already and I couldn’t help but wonder how you knew that the fellow with the safe was guilty of illegal activities….guilty until proven innocent? Ridiculous

 

[Magdump]

Surely Liberty knew that this would be high profile and willingly opening the safe would get a lot of attention . Were they that stupid , or did they just not care ? I guess we'll never know .

It actually makes sense though. Liberty was bought out by liberals who contribute money to the gun grabbing democrats. I totally get it. Kinda like Dick’s sporting goods going woke.

 

[dantheman]

It actually makes sense though. Liberty was bought out by liberals who contribute money to the gun grabbing democrats. I totally get it. Kinda like Dick’s sporting goods going woke.

It appears that way but it's a dumb thing to do from a business standpoint .

 

[John_]

It appears that way but it's a dumb thing to do from a business standpoint .

Apparently not if you are a Democrat, and support their ideology and current strategies.

 

[bigtattoo79]

I mean, again, that's just not very logical. The FBI would have to bring in a specialist and it would take plenty of time to get it open. If they knew already that they can get Liberty safes open by compelling or working with Liberty, why would they not do that? It's a hell of a lot easier...

Plus, when forcing a safe open, there is always a risk that you damage something inside of it.

Finally, I still stand by my earlier thought that it's not too odd that a private company or individual would cooperate with the FBI. We have done that here on this very forum. Most people realize that law enforcement folks have shitty jobs and most aren't anti-LE...and they're willing to do what they can if it's easy...

I’m not gonna argue and some of my points may have come across wrong so I will end with this.

I’ve seen the aftermath of a few search warrants and can assure you, logic or care for the owners property was NOT used.

The FBI has lots of resources and I see no reason a private business should get involved without the proper paperwork being provided “it honestly hurts the business in the end”.

I know many LEOs that are proud of their “careers” and don’t consider it a shitty “job”. It’s crazy how often LEOs are reminded by non LEOs they have a shitty “job”.

And if you are implying that I’m anti LEO because I’m against a private business sharing customers personal info without the proper paperwork……well ok I won’t convince you otherwise.

 

[thperez1972]

I’m not gonna argue and some of my points may have come across wrong so I will end with this.

I’ve seen the aftermath of a few search warrants and can assure you, logic or care for the owners property was NOT used.

In may be time to reevaluate your list of acquaintances.

The FBI has lots of resources and I see no reason a private business should get involved without the proper paperwork being provided “it honestly hurts the business in the end”.

Let's look at an extreme example. Let's say a pregnant woman and her toddler are brutally murdered in the parking lot of a grocery store. The police put out a blurry picture of the suspect and the suspect's vehicle and mention a description with some distinctive features. You own a business across town and believe you remember someone visiting your business earlier that day. They purchased something with a credit card. You have high quality surveillance cameras and the ability to pull up transaction details, including names. What do you do?
1. get involved without the proper paperwork being provided and let the police know you may have some information on the suspect?
2. don't get involved without the proper paperwork being provided despite the fact your business is across town and there would likely be no reason for the police to think you might have information?

I know many LEOs that are proud of their “careers” and don’t consider it a shitty “job”. It’s crazy how often LEOs are reminded by non LEOs they have a shitty “job”.

They can be proud of their career and the job can still be considered shitty.

And if you are implying that I’m anti LEO because I’m against a private business sharing customers personal info without the proper paperwork……well ok I won’t convince you otherwise.

 

[Bolt Head]

Here's a 100mg dose of love and positivity:

 

[jsg34]

If you cannot fathom using any product made by any company that willfully complies with subpoenas without contest, you should scrap your phones, credit cards, banks, OnStar, internet service provider. That is a good start. All of the major providers of the aforementioned products have entire departments within their organizations called "subpoena compliance." A great majority of them also have law enforcement liaisons.

I think that 99% of the people who contact safe manufacturers are consumers who have forgotten their own passwords. That is a useful perk. As others have mentioned, the safe would have been peeled or drilled within a few minutes if Liberty didn't comply, leaving behind a useless pile of scrap.

I don't agree with Liberty, but if you are reading this on a phone or computer, you've already ceded far more privacy than what most could fit into a home gun container.

 

[thperez1972]

Please don’t assume you know my acquaintances.

I never did.

I can’t be more clear, I will never share someone’s personal info without the proper paperwork.
Video taken in public is not personal they can have that but if I have a name on a credit card receipt they can get a judge to sign off on it.

Video inside a business is not public. So I guess they need a judge to sign off on that as well.

You said "I see no reason a private business should get involved without the proper paperwork being provided." But the police may not know to get the proper paperwork unless they know you have the information. In that case, you would have to get involved without any paperwork having been provided.

The issue with taking a broad stance is that the stance needs to work for all examples, even the extremes, to be consistent. So in this extreme, made up example, to not get involved without proper paperwork means the police may not get information that could be use to catch a murderer. But the stance stays consistent.

I know many officers and they don’t consider their jobs shitty. LEOs are not drafted and can walk at anytime for better jobs, heck the safe market should be booming right about now.

I know many officers that do find their job shitty but they are still proud of their careers. It's possible for both of those to be true.

 

[dantheman]

If you cannot fathom using any product made by any company that willfully complies with subpoenas without contest, you should scrap your phones, credit cards, banks, OnStar, internet service provider. That is a good start. All of the major providers of the aforementioned products have entire departments within their organizations called "subpoena compliance."

But there was NO subpoena in this situation . NONE . Liberty willingly complied with the request .

 

[thperez1972]

But there was NO subpoena in this situation . NONE . Liberty willingly complied with the request .

Yes, they willingly assisted law enforcement when law enforcement asked for assistance. They made sure the request was legit by confirming the search warrant and they assisted law enforcement. Believe it or not, that happens every day all across the country. It's common for the police to walk into a business, ask that business for information, and get that information without the police presenting a warrant. The police are not simply entitled to get surveillance footage from a private business. If a business wanted to say no, they can. It's within their rights to make the police show up with a subpoena for the surveillance footage. Yes, the video is not the same thing as the code to someone's safe. But in both cases, it's information the business has that the police would like to use to assist them with their jobs. Should businesses stop providing surveillance video to the police without a subpoena?

 

[bigtattoo79]

I never did.

Sending PM.

Video inside a business is not public. So I guess they need a judge to sign off on that as well.

We differ on that opinion but that’s OK.

You said "I see no reason a private business should get involved without the proper paperwork being provided." But the police may not know to get the proper paperwork unless they know you have the information. In that case, you would have to get involved without any paperwork having been provided.

The issue with taking a broad stance is that the stance needs to work for all examples, even the extremes, to be consistent. So in this extreme, made up example, to not get involved without proper paperwork means the police may not get information that could be use to catch a murderer. But the stance stays consistent.

I said I don’t care the reason, personal info should never be shared without the proper paperwork. That’s my opinion and I’m sorry if that offends you, I just feel if a person trust a entity with their personal info the entity should protect it.

I know many officers that do find their job shitty but they are still proud of their careers. It's possible for both of those to be true.

Well that’s sad and I hope they can find a better job or department to work for.

 

[dantheman]

Yes, they willingly assisted law enforcement when law enforcement asked for assistance. They made sure the request was legit by confirming the search warrant and they assisted law enforcement. Believe it or not, that happens every day all across the country. It's common for the police to walk into a business, ask that business for information, and get that information without the police presenting a warrant. The police are not simply entitled to get surveillance footage from a private business. If a business wanted to say no, they can. It's within their rights to make the police show up with a subpoena for the surveillance footage. Yes, the video is not the same thing as the code to someone's safe. But in both cases, it's information the business has that the police would like to use to assist them with their jobs. Should businesses stop providing surveillance video to the police without a subpoena?

Surveillance video has ZERO to do with this . Not sure why you thought it was relevant . This is about someone's personal property that was in their residence . Liberty had NO right to assist the FBI on their fishing expedition . They made a judgement call that they had no right to make . They were NOT compelled by the Court and that should have been the most important consideration .

 

[bigtattoo79]

Disregard


Thanks

 

[thperez1972]

Sending PM.

We differ on that opinion but that’s OK.

I said I don’t care the reason, personal info should never be shared without the proper paperwork. That’s my opinion and I’m sorry if that offends you, I just feel if a person trust a entity with their personal info the entity should protect it.

In other words, if you believe you had information that might help get a dangerous person off the street, you would keep that information to yourself so you didn't have to get involved by contacting the police. Do I have that right?

Well that’s sad and I hope they can find a better job or department to work for.

I agree. It would be nice if the public and the political climate didn't make the job so hitty on occasion.

 

[thperez1972]

Surveillance video has ZERO to do with this . Not sure why you thought it was relevant . This is about someone's personal property that was in their residence . Liberty had NO right to assist the FBI on their fishing expedition . They made a judgement call that they had no right to make . They were NOT compelled by the Court and that should have been the most important consideration .

It's relevant because it's information owned by the business that the police frequently request. I'm just trying to find out where the line if, if there is even a line, between when it's ok to cooperate with police without a subpoena and when a business should demand a subpoena.

A business doesn't have to be compelled by the court to cooperate with the police. (For example, surveillance video.) And the FBI had a search warrant. While I haven't seen the warrant, in almost all cases, they search warrant lists the item(s) being looked for so it's rarely a fishing expedition. And Liberty didn't give out anyone's personal property. It didn't even give out any personal information. The code was put in place by the company. The company owned the backup code.