161–170 of 224 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
because it's supposed to be broken and/or backdoored since may 2014 when the development abruptly stopped and weird warnings appeared on the official site to switch to alternative programs
There's no evidence it's been "backdoored since may 2014." There were no changes at that point in time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Although I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to abuse it in this way. Simple. Imprison someone for two years. Demand they provide key material again. Rinse and repeat.
Idk how it works in the UK, but in the US you can't charge someone for the same crime twice.
"USA land of the free..." Really what happened with your country ? In EU you can't imprison someone for not decrypting hard drive if he says it can incriminate him, everyone understand this but not the biggest democracy in the world?
The whole EU? No, a small island has some lunitic laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_King...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no foolproof way, but uncertainty is something the law has dealt with for centuries, and isn't unique to this situation. The short answer is: it gets argued in court like everything else. If cryptography introduces too many new cases of contempt, we'll need to rework the contempt system, and, in particular, introduce juries to the process (perhaps for contempt sentences exceeding a certain number of weeks).
> uncertainty is something the law has dealt with for centuries, and isn't unique to this situation. The short answer is: it gets argued in court like everything else. Yes, precisely. This is a specific point I have seen programmer types uniquely vulnerable to tripping over. Courts, generally, aren't like computers, where a little technicality will override common sense completely in a literalistic following of instr…
True, and in rare cases where something like that does happen, it's probably going to be a lot more amenable to sensational reporting, so more likely to be widely reported.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then he should be sentenced on the other evidence anyway. The failure to provide additional incriminating evidence could be used as an aggravating circumstance in the ruling, not as a separate crime with infinite detainment. (edit: replaced punishment with detainment, it's probably more neutral)
Why? He's in possession of data deemed contraband, but apparently not linked to distribution. The police need to demonstrate possession and can do so when their search is complete. The police did an investigation, obtained a warrant to search for the contraband and seized the hard drive. The defendant was ordered by the judge to decrypt the drive per the warrant, and refused to follow the order. He's in contempt of c…
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't be so quick to claim they're doing nothing wrong. Every year, rhinos in Africa are threatened by poachers in Africa who want their horns for the black market in China. Every person who buys rhino horn in Africa, every person who is in a position to fight the unnecessary consumption of endangered animals and doesn't, is complicit in the destruction of their species. You don't get a pass because you aren't t…
1) Are you advancing the argument that abuse of children is an economic response to demand, and not that the perpetrator wanted to do it in the first place? 2) How does this argument explain the illegality of drawings depicting underage sex with none of the depictions being based on a real-life individual? Somewhat unrelated (I'm not trying to set up a straw man here), I believe that it's more consistent to believe t…
There is abuse of children, then there's the act of making recordings of it for others to consume. The latter certainly functions on a demand curve, as it takes more work to produce something than it is to just do it.
> How does this argument explain the illegality of drawings depicting underage sex with none of the depictions being based on a real-life individual?
There probably isn't much rationality to it. Legislation is more of a political process than a rational one.
> I believe that it's more consistent to believe that society finds paedophilia to be disgusting and that due to their disgust that paedophiles should be jailed.
I would agree with that assessment. But there's also a shocking amount of truly, unbearably horrific content in the world. Disgust may not be the most rational basis to make something illegal on, but it's better than nothing. Laws are intended to be iterated on over time, a more nuanced view will eventually prevail, though it might take decades.
> It's a somewhat risky viewpoint to espouse that "paedophilia in and of itself should not be illegal, abuse of a victim should" given the fervor of the people against paedophilia, but I think it is more congruent with a living in a free society.
Paedophilia is not illegal. It's child abuse and possession of child pornography that's illegal. You can't convict someone of being a paedophile, there's no law against it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If someone watches 'gladiator' the movie then real people are not actually being harmed. IMO, it's harder to suggest that watching fake content is also wrong. Now, extend that to fringe Anime and there is now sick content that's was not harmful to create. I don't see how your suggesting there is an actual difference between movie types assuming all actors are adults and blood was faked etc.
The difference is of degree and not kind. When you add reality to content it makes it both morally and psychologically worse. In between the real and the completely fake is the very convincing. Snuff films fill this niche. In between snuff films and Gladiator would be your fringe anime. Fake content isolates negative aspects of experience and presents it in a comforting bubble where you don't have to contemplate all…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point is just this: the notion that you have or haven't forgotten your password is something that gets argued in court, just like everything else. Tech people have a bad habit of pretending that the uncertainties that our work generates are the first uncertainties the court system has ever dealt with. But most of criminal law turns in large part --- mens rea --- over a court making decisions about what's in the he…
Mens rea used to be a key part of the law, but most new legislation is now strict liability.
This argument is besides the point, though. I'm not saying that contempt rules are OK because the underlying crimes require the state to prove mens rea. I'm saying, the court has for centuries been charged with ascertaining truths that are in some sense unknowable, because they depend on determining what someone was thinking. This isn't a new challenge for the court.