|
|
Post by jdd2 on Jun 5, 2013 6:15:21 GMT -5
It unfortunately involves possible child porn, but I like what the judge says and has done. news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57587670-38/judge-child-porn-suspect-doesnt-need-to-decrypt-files/For the defense: " I will move heaven and earth to make sure that the war on the infinitesimal amount of child pornography that recirculates on the Internet does not eradicate the Fifth Amendment the way the war on drugs has eviscerated the Fourth Amendment." The FBI "found 20 terabytes of hard drives, but agents in the Milwaukee field office could not break the encryption despite spending "over 10 weeks working" on the task." "The question of encryption and the Fifth Amendment has been around at least since the 1990s, with law review articles sparring over which traditional legal analogy is most apt. Prosecutors tend to view passphrases as akin to someone possessing a key to a safe filled with incriminating documents. That person can, in general, be legally compelled to hand over the key. Other examples include the U.S. Supreme Court saying that defendants can be forced to provide fingerprints, blood samples, or voice recordings. Civil libertarians, however, cite a different set of Supreme Court cases that conclude Americans can't be forced to give "compelled testimonial communications." Courts already have ruled that that such protection extends to the contents of a defendant's mind, the argument goes, so why shouldn't a passphrase be shielded as well?" +=+=+=+ I wonder if Mr. Feldman is using PGP or something else... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2013 10:20:55 GMT -5
It is an interesting question. Would you be compelled to give up the key to the lock on the storage facility where you stored your (allegedly) stolen loot? Why is a password any different? I don't know.
That said, nearly every child porn case I've covered involves guys who have thousands, if not tens of thousands, of child porn images and videos on their computers. I'm always amazed when I read the search warrant returns and see how many hard drives and other means of data storage were seized from the suspect's home. It seems to me that by the time the guy brings home the third or fourth hard drive, the wife might start asking questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Jun 5, 2013 10:52:01 GMT -5
If I were on a jury I would disregard any evidence obtained that way. I also disregard any fingerprint or DNA evidence obtained after the person is in custody as that is being forced to testify against yourself.
The last hope for freedom in the US is jury nullification.
|
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Jun 5, 2013 11:17:42 GMT -5
I have a lot if hard drives but I don't have 20 terabytes. That is a lot of stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Jun 5, 2013 12:32:22 GMT -5
I don't know about this particular case, though I'd probably fall on David's side. In more general terms, liberty requires a moral, law-abiding public. If there is too much crap going on...hello security cameras. Too many red lights being run (and the subsequent accidents)...hello red light cameras. Kiddie porn running rampant (as it seems to be)...hello invasions into your hard drive(s). I don't have a problem with it.
Sorry Doug.
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jun 5, 2013 12:53:57 GMT -5
What's possibly more enlightening and interesting is the change of outraged shoes when governments change. Very few remain consistent on issues like this. If their monkey team is in charge, they don't register outrage. If their monkey team is instituting the creeping infringement, they become apocalyptic and apoplectic.
That's something that will never change. Russell's right. We do the monkey.
|
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Jun 5, 2013 12:58:36 GMT -5
What's possibly more enlightening and interesting is the change of outraged shoes when governments change. Very few remain consistent on issues like this. If their monkey team is in charge, they don't register outrage. If their monkey team is instituting the creeping infringement, they become apocalyptic and apoplectic. That's something that will never change. Russell's right. We do the monkey. |
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jun 5, 2013 13:02:45 GMT -5
What's possibly more enlightening and interesting is the change of outraged shoes when governments change. Very few remain consistent on issues like this. If their monkey team is in charge, they don't register outrage. If their monkey team is instituting the creeping infringement, they become apocalyptic and apoplectic. That's something that will never change. Russell's right. We do the monkey. Sad, but so TRUE. I get soooooo tired of hearing which party is opposing this or that and how when they were/are in power/out-of-power they're position was 180 degrees opposite. And then they have the gall to explain some obtuse rationale so matter-of-factly that makes their flip-flop in position seem perfectly logical. (Like we were born yesterday). |
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jun 5, 2013 13:03:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Jun 5, 2013 13:03:24 GMT -5
So Hanners and Evan agree on this issue and this is supposed to show us that people line up by partisan beliefs on this?
|
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jun 5, 2013 13:07:34 GMT -5
I don't know about this particular case, though I'd probably fall on David's side. In more general terms, liberty requires a moral, law-abiding public. If there is too much crap going on...hello security cameras. Too many red lights being run (and the subsequent accidents)...hello red light cameras. Kiddie porn running rampant (as it seems to be)...hello invasions into your hard drive(s). I don't have a problem with it. Sorry Doug. Hell. Even I pay my not-quite-a-full-stop-on-red photo tickets. I may waste a little breath and ink in the process. But it's a harmless protest. And I think, overall, it's for the best. |
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Jun 5, 2013 14:19:06 GMT -5
There are no "unless the government wants to break the law" lines in the BOR either it's absolute or there is no legal government. You don't let the criminals set the standards.
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 20,003 
|
Post by Dub on Jun 5, 2013 14:56:40 GMT -5
It is an interesting question. Would you be compelled to give up the key to the lock on the storage facility where you stored your (allegedly) stolen loot? Why is a password any different? I don't know. But if they opened your storage facility and found a single large block of molecules with no way to reassemble them into your stolen loot, can they force you to tell them how make the block look like the loot again? The hard drive is analogous to the storage vault. If they have the hard drive, they have the contents. If all your digital text was in Russian using Cyrillic characters and they had no way of translating Russian into English, can you be forced to translate it for them? Tricky questions that dance around meanings, philosophy, and justice. |
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Jun 5, 2013 20:57:10 GMT -5
It is an interesting question. Would you be compelled to give up the key to the lock on the storage facility where you stored your (allegedly) stolen loot? Why is a password any different? I don't know. But if they opened your storage facility and found a single large block of molecules with no way to reassemble them into your stolen loot, can they force you to tell them how make the block look like the loot again? The hard drive is analogous to the storage vault. If they have the hard drive, they have the contents. If all your digital text was in Russian using Cyrillic characters and they had no way of translating Russian into English, can you be forced to translate it for them? Tricky questions that dance around meanings, philosophy, and justice. Dub--I really like your analogies, especially the one using Russian. |
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Jun 5, 2013 22:30:57 GMT -5
The idea that any of this is a violation of self incrimination is absurd. Where would that argument stop?
"Can I see your ID?"
"No. If you knew who I was, and you were looking for someone with my name, address and ID because thy committed a crime, then telling you who I was would be a violation of my 5th amendment rights."
Bank teller is robbed. She gives a description of the robber. A man fitting that description is picked up. He is put in a line up for her to pick him out. All the men stand there with giant bags over their heads. She asks that they remove the bags. "Sorry Miss. But if we allowed you to actually SEE the suspects then you might be able to identify them and that would be a violation of their 5th amendment right."
Man robs a bank and a security camera takes his picture. But nobody is allowed to compare that photo to his actual face because it would be a form of ID that we just can't have.
If DNA is not allowed as a form of ID and fingerprints are allowed then any not ban photos, eye witnesses, anything that would tie you to a crime? Absolutely absurd.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2013 6:16:13 GMT -5
I was groping for the same argument, Supertramp, but you said it much better than I could. Agree 100%.
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jun 6, 2013 7:17:32 GMT -5
The IRS just outlawed being conservative. When the government is weaponized, it's understandable that people cringe at giving them even more power.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Jun 6, 2013 7:20:39 GMT -5
You aren't required to show your ID now or carry it. We laughed about it in WW2 movies. "Your papers please" (in my German accent). That would never happen in America. And they can't make you shave your beard for ID parades.
Can you say Police State.
Of course it's forcing you to testify against yourself to use DNA or fingerprints taken in custody. I haven't worked with fingerprints but I have worked with DNA and the great results you get (99% match etc) only apply to fresh samples. Comparing old samples to fresh the accuracy falls dramatically.
|
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Jun 6, 2013 8:47:55 GMT -5
"The IRS just outlawed being conservative."
Heh. That's why they gave them tax exempt status.
|
|
