Top Navigation  
U.S. Flag waving
Office Hours Momday - Friday  8 am - 5 pm Pacific 1-800-835-2418
Facebook   YouTube   Twitter
 Home Page
 Current Issue
 Article Index
 Author Index
 Previous Issues

 Kindle Subscriptions
 Kindle Publications
 Back Issues
 Discount Books
 All Specials
 Classified Ad

 Web Site Ads
 Magazine Ads

 BHM Forum
 Contact Us/
 Change of Address

Forum / Chat
 Forum/Chat Info
 Lost Password
 Write For BHM

Link to BHM

etc. - a little of this, a little of that - by Oliver Del Signore

Is Indiana still in America? Dropbox fraud? Two anti-gunner articles.

Sunday, May 15th, 2011

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer’s entry.

“We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,” David said. “We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”

Click Here to read the rest of the article.

Wow! And I thought things were crazy here in Massachusetts!

An Indiana Justice says that it’s pubic policy to allow cops to break the law…to barge into any home at any time under any or no pretense? And that the actual Fourth Amendment is no longer compatible with modern interpretations of the Fourth Amendment?

Has Indiana been moved to North Korea or did someone slip some magic mushrooms into my dinner?


Dropbox Lied to Users About Data Security, Complaint to FTC Alleges

Dropbox, the wildly popular online storage system, deceived users about the security and encryption of its services, putting it at a competitive advantage, according to an FTC complaint filed Thursday by a prominent security researcher.

The FTC complaint charges Dropbox (.pdf) with telling users that their files were totally encrypted and even Dropbox employees could not see the contents of the file. Ph.D. student Christopher Soghoian published data last month showing that Dropbox could indeed see the contents of files, putting users at risk of government searches, rogue Dropbox employees, and even companies trying to bring mass copyright-infringement suits.

Soghoian, who spent a year working at the FTC, charges that Dropbox “has and continues to make deceptive statements to consumers regarding the extent to which it protects and encrypts therir data,” which amounts to a deceptive trade practice that can be investigated by the FTC.

Click here to read the rest of the article.

Imagine that…selling a secure service that isn’t…one that allows employees, or anyone else, to view your “encrypted” data.

I think it’s time for Dropbox’s 25 million customers to take their business elsewhere.


Two articles from the JPFO website. The first is short, the second long, and both are excellent.

The Seven Varieties of Gun Control Advocate
by Gus Cotey, Jr.

Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality by Sarah Thompson, M.D.

12 Responses to “Is Indiana still in America? Dropbox fraud? Two anti-gunner articles.”

  1. Woody Says:

    The Dropbox security issue doesn’t come as a surprise to me. I guess I am just the suspicious type. Storing data in the cloud where you have no control what-so-ever over how it is handled is a pretty naive. When the cloud computing craze first started I thought; That’s dumb, no one will trust their data to a completely unknown stranger on the internet. How wrong I was! It seems that most people today care little for privacy and data security until a security breach bites them in the ass. Then they want to know who to blame. All my data is on local media. The important stuff is encrypted as well. Go ahead, call me paranoid, I don’t mind.

  2. Drill Sgt K Says:

    I sure hope that ruling is challenged. If you have no ability to deny illegal entry to the cops, they have no reason to not illegally enter your home or search you with out cause or reason. This is very different than a good faith mistake, such as the cop chasing someone with a weapon he is chasing go into the duplex and since the doors are right next to each other he tries one and it opens (but is the wrong one cause you forgot to lock it that night).

  3. Andy Says:

    I agree with Drill Sgt. This opens the door to warrant-less searches, violates privacy and will put all our liberties at risk. What to see what you are teaching your children? Does your city want to seize your firearms? It’s okay, the police can walk into any home at any time a take what they want. Another thing that needs to go, Civil Seizure Laws! We impounded your car and seized the contents. You want it back, sue the government. They suck!

  4. Vince Says:

    When I read the article about illegal entry I was mortified! While, I don’t think it’s a good idea to start shooting at the police, I DO think that it is important for me to be “allowed” to defend my property! I especially, think that the more I read what’s going on I’m going to have to step-up security making my home more impregnable! I’m disgusted with the stupidity of the court in this case.

  5. Stephen B. Says:

    This: “Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court’s decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.”

    I am running into this unfortunate idea more and more, especially at the residential treatment center I work at. Namely, it’s the idea that almost any compromise is desirable if only it prevents “violence.”

    I’m sure glad folks 236 years ago in Lexington and Concord, along with many people in Europe and the US in the 1940s held a different idea.

  6. MLA Says:

    Oddly enough, these two articles are really related. (Bear with me here.) :)

    The Indiana Supreme Court feels they’ve ruled in accordance with the highest “social good” for their citizens, since they’re “preventing violence.” The ludicrous thing is that the law enforcement officers themselves can “avoid violence” by following the proper processes.

    I think the wording of the ruling is what’s most objectionable. “Any reason or no reason at all” is the root of the problem. If the police have probable cause to honestly believe that someone’s life is in danger, then a case for immediate entry can be made. (If someone is attacking me inside my house and the police are there to hear that, I’d expect that they’d do what’s necessary to intervene.)

    How is this is related to the DropBox article? Basically, the argument continues to be made that privacy is an obsolete notion (at best), or more commonly, a “bad thing” nowadays.

    Hard to believe? Check out this article from a bit over a year ago:

    In it, federal judge Richard Posner is quoted as saying, “As a social good, I think privacy is greatly overrated because privacy basically means concealment. People conceal things in order to fool other people about them. They want to appear healthier than they are, smarter, more honest and so forth.”

    The article’s author goes on to say, “The truth about privacy is counter-intuitive: less of it can lead to a more virtuous society.”

    These ideas are seductive… who wouldn’t want a better society? Who doesn’t want the greatest social good? Isn’t giving up a “little” of our privacy or constitutional rights worth it?

    Unfortunately, this whole line of thought ignores that fact that we’re all human, and have a habit of making mistakes or acting unvirtuously.

    Beyond that, I feel that we need some “scared ground” in all aspects of our existence — physically, intellectually, and spiritually. We need a place of our own, where we can say “this is mine, not yours.”

    As I saw somewhere else on the Net, we only need two “Ideal Laws for a Civilized Society:”

    1. Do not encroach upon others or their property.
    2. Do all that you agree to do.

  7. TheNumberSix Says:

    Thank God for juries!

  8. Charles Back Says:

    During Prohibition,the Indiana Legislature passed the “Smell law”
    If anyone poured out ANY liquid, this was considered prima facie evidence of destroying illegal liquor.(as the police entered) History seems to be repeating itself. Believe Cranial Rectalmitis virus to be speading.God help us,every one!

  9. Theresa H. Says:

    I would think the Indiana ruling would be challenged, BWH please followup if new developments arise.

    Dropbox, the “cloud”, I heard in a news broadcast that perhaps information stored online in this manner may be more easily accessed without (bear with me on terminology) some kind of due process. If the information is at least on your home computer, steps have to be taken to obtain it in legal matters.

  10. Matt Says:

    @stephen B, 236 years ago, the Redcoats were headed to Lexington and Concord, to seize those horrible weapons the Colonists had stocked away (it didn’t matter they were legally held by the legally constituted militia). It was just a misunderstanding, the Redcoats just wanted to prevent violence. I’m pretty sure they didn’t have warrants though. The Colonists were to backwards to understand they could sue the British Govenrment for their property back and decided to resist the intrusion instead.

    That said, this is Mitch Daniels chance to prove to potential voters that he is made of Presidential material. He needs to be on national television speaking out against this. He should direct the Indieanna AG to file suit to overturn this immediately, he should convene the legislature immediately to pass legislation to nullify this ruling etc. I am willing to wager that Mitch Daniels blows this opportunity.

  11. david blackburn Says:

    I just finished reading all of the comments over on massad’s blog(the cop/cop hater argument), then I got to this one. Why would anybody question the police again?

  12. MLA Says:

    Then, of course, there’s the recent Supreme Court decision about how the police can simply enter your house if they feel you’re destroying evidence:,0,6820148.story

    What does one do about that? The highest court in the land has just severely eroded the 4th amendment.

    In general, I do support the police, and I think they generally have a difficult job.

    Still, things have gotten carried away to the point where we are really presumed guilty until proven innocent. (That is the basic interpretation of the SC’s ruling here, anyway.) Where’s the freedom, liberty, or justice in that?



Copyright © 1998 - Present by Backwoods Home Magazine. All Rights Reserved.