quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
>>customerservice@libertysafe.com<<

Sent them a nice note.

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:
One way or the other, they are getting inside.

No doubt, but if I was running Liberty Safe Co, it would be "other" because unless they had a court order, there's no way my company would cooperate.

Well F me. I have a liberty with a digital dial. I’m not in the habit of being a criminal and my only contents are my entire gun collection some loaded mags a few suppressors and a 3 ring binder with all my NFA stamps. Obviously LEO will get in if they want to but the behavior of liberty folding over is very upsetting.

I’m not in a place get rid of it out of spite because I don’t have a few thousand dollars to buy something else but I will never buy again or reccommend them.

It’s interesting to note that Apple sued the FBI and won their case over being compelled to unlock phones. Liberty did not need to do this. The betrayal will not be forgotten.

Oh well. Have fun in bankruptcy liberty.

That video of 8-9 cars full of feds pulling into talk to that J6 guy 2+ years later

quote:

Originally posted by ElToro:
Well F me. I have a liberty with a digital dial.
...

I’m not in a place get rid of it out of spite ...

Which would be silly to do in any event, because the only person you'd be harming by such a gesture is yourself.

Get the user's manual for the lock and change the master code, if you can. If you want to be really sure: Do the factory reset procedure, then change the master code, then re-code your personal access codes.

Test thoroughly and multiple times after each change!

Or replace the lock. It's generally not all that challenging.

Can you actually change the master code ? I'm not talking about the default factory code that was on it when purchased . What good is a master code if it can be changed by the user ?

I feel sorry for the retail stocking dealers who have them in inventory.

Are they caught in the middle of this mess?

quote:

Originally posted by CoolRich59:

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:
One way or the other, they are getting inside.

No doubt, but if I was running Liberty Safe Co, it would be "other" because unless they had a court order, there's no way my company would cooperate.

That's my point, a warrant is a court order.

Liberty might as well have said, “Hey look, they said the magic word, “please”, what were we supposed to do?”

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:

quote:

Originally posted by CoolRich59:

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:
One way or the other, they are getting inside.

No doubt, but if I was running Liberty Safe Co, it would be "other" because unless they had a court order, there's no way my company would cooperate.

That's my point, a warrant is a court order.

So what? What exactly is the point you're trying to make? Everything you've been saying is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:

quote:

Originally posted by CoolRich59:

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:
One way or the other, they are getting inside.

No doubt, but if I was running Liberty Safe Co, it would be "other" because unless they had a court order, there's no way my company would cooperate.

That's my point, a warrant is a court order.

A court order that granted the FBI to legal authority to search the the guy's house, NOT one that ordered Liberty to provide access to the safe! It should be obvious there's a BIG FUCKIN' difference there!

The homeowner in this case, Nathan Hughes, is not compelled to enable/facilitate the search of his home and/or collection of any evidence therein. In fact once the warrant was served, he was would've likely been ordered to step aside and placed under arrest. Further (and foremost!), under the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, he CANNOT be compelled to do so! Certainly Liberty safe was not compelled and/or obligated to participate/cooperate in any way...Period!

Edited - Apparently he was NOT arrested at his home!

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:
The FBI had possession of the safe and a warrant to open the safe.
Without the services from Liberty, they had other options that would cause damage to the safe. One way or the other, they are getting inside.
The truth is that many of us could also get inside that thing, doing a little damage on the way in.
This will play out in court. If the warrants weren't legal, the evidence obtained won't be legal. The guy gets his safe back intact.
There are plenty of things done by government and/or companies I don't agree with. This isn't one of them unless there's a lot more to the story.

Theres more to this story, it sounds like you don't have the info.

Of course the FBI would access the safe, no matter what. They could have used dynamite if they had to. That's not the issue. The point is that the warrants were not served to Liberty for the safe data, but to Nathan Hughes, owner of the home. The FBI called Liberty from the house to hopefully have an easier time opening the safe, and Liberty complied, and under zero legal obligation or pressure to do so. Liberty threw their customer under the bus, and I'll bet they did so in the past.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:
One way or the other, they are getting inside.

and, that excuses Liberty from voluntarily disclosing information enabling access to a customers safe without a court order compelling them how....

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:
That's my point, a warrant is a court order.

So then the name on the warrant/court order is irrelevant? Simply by having a warrant, law enforcement can through that compel companies you buy from to disclose sensitive access information to your safe, computer, accounting software, emails, texts without court direction naming those companies.


So what? What exactly is the point you're trying to make? Everything you've been saying is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Some folks are contrarian by nature... and even though the point of the discussion and action by Liberty is crystal clear, it doesn't matter.

Reminds me of the people who say "I don't care if the (insert agency) is watching me because I don't have anything to hide" they are the ones giving up privacy and freedom in the name of security.

In this case the FBI called liberty, probably have a contact, since Liberty gave up the data, they had to have an internal meeting/procedure for this with requirements of what to disclose and what legal document they would accept to do so.

It's not that they did this one time, but how many times have they done this without the owners written/verbal permission or a direct order naming Liberty.

Their tweet said they do this 4000 times a year, odds are this has happened before where they gave out sensitive information voluntarily since the order doesn't name them

If the owner didn't give them the combination then he'd probably have a judge compelling him in an order, or, be arrested on contempt charges until he gave it up, or they cut it open, at that point it's the owners decision, not the manufacturer.

Bet they put something in their warranty/TOS agreement about this in the future

https://redstate.com/jenvanlaa...esters-safe-n2163492

Liberty Safe Announces Changes After They Admit Giving FBI Access to J6 Protester's Safe

After more than 24 hours of being slaughtered on social media for giving the FBI an access code to one of its safes, Liberty Safe announced changes to its policies regarding storage of access codes and cooperation with law enforcement.

The manufacturer admitted Tuesday that it had provided an access code to the FBI on August 30, 2023 for a gun safe after "receiving proof of [a] valid warrant." While Liberty Safe did not provide the name of the owner or the location of the safe, it's generally believed that it was the safe of Nathan Hughes, an Arkansas man who attended protests at the U.S. Capitol and whose home and business were raided on August 30. The Hodgetwins, who say they are friends of Hughes, tweeted Monday that Hughes had been raided and arrested, and that Liberty Safe provided the FBI with an access code to his gun safe during the raid.

As video provided by the Hodgetwins shows, Hughes was at his business when the FBI rolled up. The gun safe was at his home, where the feds turned off his surveillance cameras and internet before handcuffing his girlfriend (who'd recently suffered a miscarriage) and holding her at gunpoint. While the feds had a search warrant, the specifics of the warrant aren't known, and the available information shows that there wasn't anyone else at the home who could possibly access the contents of the safe and harm the agents.

From Liberty's first statement and what was known from social media postings, the type of code provided to the FBI wasn't clear - whether it was Hughes' actual code that Liberty had on file, or a master access code, or a one-time access code. And, though Liberty referenced procedures around cooperation with law enforcement, it didn't specify what that procedure is and how its customers' rights are protected in that procedure.





Shipley, who is representing numerous January 6 defendants, also wrote that there are "some very troubling features" regarding the Government's approach in Hughes' case, particularly that Hughes was present at the Capitol on January 6 as a member of the press.

Expect to mount an aggressive defense, including forcing DOJ to confront their own policies as well as the law on prosecuting members of the press. Nathan has attended many protests of all types as part of his reporting. His presence at the Capitol on 1/6 was not any different in that respect.

Is there a procedure for an owner changing the combination on an S&G combination lock on a Liberty Safe?

video of arrest of Nathan Hughes

https://twitter.com/i/status/1699848599503339560

The photographer has balls, you can't deny that. I think I might behave the same way except I wouldn't push it as hard, as I would expect the feds to manage to turn it into an arrest.

"This is our job."?

FUCK you. Your job is shit. If you want to find the real domestic terrorists, take a look in the Goddamned mirror.

Anyone notice the one 'agent' that began to talk shit stating it was a 'crime scene', until he thought better (mid-sentence), I guess realizing that wouldn't fly as no crime had been committed there, and it was a public place as it was simply a mall parking lot!

The FBI deserve absolutely zero respect or deference. What they got in that video is the very least that I would expect from every citizen when dealing with the Eff Bee Eye.

I have to wonder if any of those feds feel remorse for having thought they were signing up for a career in LE, while becoming a state security apparatus to protect the current regime. Rounding up political prisoners just never struck me as a calling to join LE.