- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Liberty Safes is getting the Bud Light treatment big time
Posted on 9/6/23 at 6:52 am to Mid Iowa Tiger
Posted on 9/6/23 at 6:52 am to Mid Iowa Tiger
quote:
If they had a valid warrant liberty safes saved the guy from having his safe destroyed by the FBI.
Them telling the FBI to pound sand wouldn’t have mattered, the FBI would have still gotten in the safe.
A sane post.
2
Posted on 9/6/23 at 7:02 am to cwill
quote:
If they had a valid warrant liberty safes saved the guy from having his safe destroyed by the FBI. Them telling the FBI to pound sand wouldn’t have mattered, the FBI would have still gotten in the safe.
quote:
A sane post.
Really?
Is an opened safe effective at securing things?
I would say no.
IMHO the company should have requested permission from the owner.
If the owner refused permission, then the company should tell the Feds to enjoy destroying it.
In this way, they stay out of the matter.
Posted on 9/6/23 at 7:03 am to jimmy the leg
They had a warrant. The safe was going to be opened.
Posted on 9/6/23 at 7:06 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
not sure it'd be smart business plan to just stiff the FBI when they come knocking.
This kind of problem needs to be solved by the people running the show - not by being stupid when confronted by the agents.
Those individual agents serving the warrant have no responsibility for anything nefarious going on behind the scenes.
At some point companies(or somebody) is gonna have to begin stiffing them or the war will be lost.
Because the people "running the show" are using the FBI as a political weapon against their enemies. Those people are getting exactly what they want.
Can you say with complete confidence the "individual agents" aren't complicit in the frickery their bosses are up to? Those fed boys at all the false flag rallies aren't there unbeknownst to the reason they are there. They do it willingly and knowing full well why they are there. The changing of costumes and different battle cries lend credence to the fact those "individual agents" are a part of the problem. Benefit of the doubt is null and void when it comes to the federal authorities. Assume they are bad actors. You'll likely be correct.
Posted on 9/6/23 at 7:06 am to cwill
quote:
They had a warrant.
It wasn't Liberty's property. Owner should sue them for trespassing.
Feds should have brought their own people.
Posted on 9/6/23 at 7:07 am to cwill
quote:
A sane post.
How?
Do all the products you purchase from companies still belong to them in some meaningful way such that they can effect them at will if they choose?
This guy wasn't leasing a safe...he bought it. He owned it. It was his property. In what world should the company from which he bought it still eb able to open it, and di he/you know this was a capability when purchasing it? That there was a backdoor built in they'd happily hand over if told to do so?
If the guy handed the warrant decided to not open the safe, then the destruction of said safe is ON HIM, and it's not up to Liberty to decide they'll open it to save the FBI the hassle or him form buying a new one.
I kind of get why some on The Right won't see this, back the blue and all, but someone on The Left that used to be all about telling authority (especially the government) to frick off?
Amazing times...
Posted on 9/6/23 at 7:08 am to HubbaBubba
Copcucks. It’s time for conservatives to wake up and realize cops aren’t your friends.
Posted on 9/6/23 at 7:10 am to cwill
quote:
They had a warrant. The safe was going to be opened.
True...
But what does that have to do with Liberty opening it? Does Liberty, as the company that sold this property to the guy in question, work for their customers selling security products, or do they work for the federal government as a safe cracking company?
Posted on 9/6/23 at 7:12 am to HubbaBubba
This reminds me of the time I played Super Fun 21 in Vegas. Turns out, it wasn’t super fun. Point being, if you have to say it in the title, it’s probably not so.
Moral of the story, just play blackjack.
Moral of the story, just play blackjack.
Posted on 9/6/23 at 7:13 am to loogaroo
quote:
It wasn't Liberty's property. Owner should sue them for trespassing. Feds should have brought their own people.
The safe was going to be opened. The owner has no cause of action.
Posted on 9/6/23 at 7:18 am to cwill
quote:
The owner has no cause of action.
Agreed.
quote:
The safe was going to be opened.
Not by Liberty, unless they chose to do so. And that choice, like all others, will have consequences...and in this case, those consequences will be that their customers now know they'll gladly open the security product you bought for them is the federal government asks them to.
This was a VERY expensive safe cracking gig for them.
Posted on 9/6/23 at 7:20 am to dragginass
was liberty named in the warrent?
the safe was private property, and paid for as a secure device
It was not secure. someone should class action Liberty as selling products that do not do what they say
aka, keep my arms secured.
the safe was private property, and paid for as a secure device
It was not secure. someone should class action Liberty as selling products that do not do what they say
aka, keep my arms secured.
Posted on 9/6/23 at 7:21 am to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
This was a VERY expensive safe cracking gig for them.
lets hope!
Posted on 9/6/23 at 7:26 am to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
di he/you know this was a capability when purchasing it? That there was a backdoor built in they'd happily hand over if told to do so?
He should have known. Are there any safes with electronic locks that don't have this functionality built in? It's intended purpose is to provide an estate or secondhand purchaser the ability to open the safe without destroying it. I no longer use electronic locks, but my last safe, I had to provide an alternate POC who could receive the "master" code.
Posted on 9/6/23 at 7:27 am to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
If the guy handed the warrant decided to not open the safe, then the destruction of said safe is ON HIM, and it's not up to Liberty to decide they'll open it to save the FBI the hassle or him form buying a new one.
The warrant was going to get the safe opened. It was going to be opened one way or the other. 6 one way, half dozen another, the outcome was always the same.
quote:
but someone on The Left that used to be all about telling authority (especially the government) to frick off?
The left? The problem here is acting like liberty breached some obligation or the belief that a locked safe is protected from a warranted search and seizure. It’s just not. That’s not left/right, back blue/frick gov - it just is.
Posted on 9/6/23 at 7:29 am to dr
quote:
It was not secure. someone should class action Liberty as selling products that do not do what they say aka, keep my arms secured.
You’d have a case if they were just handing out the back door code to anyone without a valid search warrant.
Posted on 9/6/23 at 7:30 am to Shiftyplus1
quote:
That's not the point. The point is they have a backdoor code to every safe they make. It's a massive weak spot and a middle finger to their customers.
No its not.....I have a Liberty electronic home safe and sometimes the electronics have to be re-programed or replaced. Every safe has a backdoor code
Posted on 9/6/23 at 7:30 am to cwill
quote:
The safe was going to be opened.
Jesus Christ.
Posted on 9/6/23 at 7:37 am to cwill
quote:
You’d have a case if they were just handing out the back door code to anyone without a valid search warrant.
was the backdoor code explained before purchase?
was the company policy (to LE) disclosed prior to purchase?
probably not, and the safe co has no right to disclose that without first talking to the purchaser
Posted on 9/6/23 at 7:51 am to dr
quote:
was the backdoor code explained before purchase?
It's in the manual.
Page 3 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News