We should jail oj until he tells us he did it?
Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives
191–200 of 504 posts
Re: Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was pretty much inevitable :( > Encryption is nothing new people, you are just putting your data in a safe. Well, you could also be held indefinitely for refusing to provide the combination for a safe. If there were safes that could keep them out indefinitely, anyway. I suspect that they nailed him using ICAC's Black Ice app. It's a hacked version of the Freenet client that logs peer IPs, and tracks hashes that…
Thanks for the background, but somebody has to say it: his failure was looking at child pornography.
>his failure was allegedly looking at child pornography
FTFY
It doesn't matter what they accuse him of, until they prove it, he's innocent.
Re: Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, yes, the thing that ultimately underpins all authority is the ability to exert physical force to see it honored. I'm not clear on what you're suggesting.
I think it's pretty clear that the parent is accusing the state of using torture to coerce compliance, which is a strong indication that the state itself is no longer legitimate.
The state cannot exist without violence to back it up. Why would anyone pay taxes if you couldn't be thrown in jail for non-compliance?
Re: Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives
#194We need John ham in that black mirror Christmas episode..
Re: Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the background, but somebody has to say it: his failure was looking at child pornography.
>his failure was allegedly looking at child pornography FTFY It doesn't matter what they accuse him of, until they prove it, he's innocent.
Thanks.
I don't care what the charge is, if the government can not prove their case without compelling the person to testify / provide evidence against himself the judge needs to throw that case out. This is terrifying that anyone could be jailed for using what anyone would consider their 5th amendment right.
Re: Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives
#196From what I understand our legal system was designed to fail "open". Or rather that we are willing to let a guilty person go free rather than an innocent person go to jail. I know everyone wants to have a perfect justice system but we have to ALSO decide which direction we would like it to fail until that time comes (never). In essence cases like this are more about this question. When the system fails, which directi…
I've always been confused by this proposition; If there is an innocent person convicted of a crime, then there also has to be a guilty person that has gone free.. so it seems the ultimatum has to be "are we are willing to let a guilty person go free rather than let a guilty person go free and an innocent person go to jail." Which has a much more obvious answer..
Let's say you have 200,000 suspected criminals, some % of which are criminals. How many of them are you willing to put in prison? If it's looking that most likely around 30% are guilty, do you put 60,000 in prison and say "oh well, some false negatives, some false positives, whatever"
or do you just put 30,000 in prison to prevent most innocent persons from going to jail? Then you are letting half of the guilty people go free
It's a question of how many innocent people you are willing to jail to catch more real criminals
Re: Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's much like the "thou shalt not kill" commandment in the Bible. That's an erroneous translation, although I concede it is very common - but rarely if ever found within a Bible as you claim; both the KJV, which I prefer for the music of its language, and the NIV, which is much more common these days, instead correctly render it as "Thou shalt/you shall not murder ". I can't speak for Torah, but I doubt it differs…
Isn't "Thou shalt not murder" sailing awfully close to a tautology, though?
No, because like temporal law, the Mosaic code elsewhere defines what is and is not murder. As 'coldtea elsewhere points out, Christ explicitly deprecates most of that code in his teachings - but he cites this one verbatim, and to do so without intending to implicitly affirm at least the distinction between killing which is wrongful, i.e. murder, and killing which is not, seems an unlikely mistake for any rabbi to make.
Re: Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the background, but somebody has to say it: his failure was looking at child pornography.
This is not an activity I want to engage in or even associate with people who do, but a nonviolent private activity is not a reason to violently persecute someone, especially to this degree.
It's not a private activity, it directly supports an industry of violence against children
Re: Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives
#199Good to know that File Vault actually works.
Re: Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives
#200Professor Orin Kerr has wrote about this exact case extensively, and provides a good insight into all legal aspects. I think it is well worth a read, especially the part about the 'forgone conclusion'. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
Right. Well that changes things. There is some evidence of the contents. I wonder if there are hash values for those 20,000 CEM files and if they are still on freenet. If so LE could aquire, via the hashes, from the network, and prove, without opening the drives, what the contents are. At least it becomes a strong circumstantial case. If you were relying on a single file you could claim the odds of hash collision etc…
> If so LE could aquire, via the hashes, from the network, and prove, without opening the drives, what the contents are.
Except those files may have been deleted already. You can't prove that you will find anything incriminating on that drive.