Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 504 posts

Re: Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives

#241

Post by cortic »

morgante wrote: post #216
cortic wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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..

That's assuming a hypothetical crime actually happened in the first place. In many cases it's possible that no crime ever happened . (For example, if the man in the article never actually had child porn that doesn't mean someone else did.)

Yes you are right, this is the exception.

Although, thinking about it from the point of view of someone being Convicted of a crime that never happened is fair enough, But when someone is not convicted of a crime that never happened we are not 'letting a guilty person go free' so both options in the ultimatum are broken with this.

Re: Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives

#242

Post by Programmatic »

vivekd wrote: post #223
externalreality wrote: post #31

Not sure what the man's crime is here. Does he even remember his keys after sixteen months in the slammer? I don't even remember my Gmail password after 16 days of vacation. Basically, like the article says, it like not opening a safe for an inquisitor: you are damned if you do, you are damned if you don't. Encryption is nothing new people, you are just putting your data in a safe. We have a tendency to misconstrue,…

His crime is disobeying a court order, which is a crime that you can go to jail for. Just like if you had the key to a safe, and the court orders you to open the safe, you would go to jail if you refuse to do so. If he forgot the keys he could have told the court that and the court would evaluate his credibility. *edited changed from key to combination because combination locks are protected by the 5th amendment and…

The courts can compel you to turn over something that you have. Something that you know is protected by the fifth amendment, in particular for combination locks.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/487/201/case.htm...

"""

JUSTICE STEVENS, dissenting.

A defendant can be compelled to produce material evidence that is incriminating. Fingerprints, blood samples, voice exemplars, handwriting specimens, or other items of physical evidence may be extracted from a defendant against his will. But can he be compelled to use his mind to assist the prosecution in convicting him of a crime? I think not. He may in some cases be forced to surrender a key to a strongbox containing incriminating documents, but I do not believe he can be compelled to reveal the combination to his wall safe -- by word or deed.

"""

Re: Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives

#243

Post by hyperpape »

literallycancer wrote: post #192
slantaclaus wrote: post #162

Earlier 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.

He's innocent in court (and my non-lawyerly (aka worthless) sense says the fifth amendment favors him).

But we're not a court, and our standard for speech shouldn't be "beyond a reasonable doubt". The parent poster was right. His failing was looking at child pornography.

Re: Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives

#244

Post by vivekd »

Programmatic wrote: post #242
vivekd wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His crime is disobeying a court order, which is a crime that you can go to jail for. Just like if you had the key to a safe, and the court orders you to open the safe, you would go to jail if you refuse to do so. If he forgot the keys he could have told the court that and the court would evaluate his credibility. *edited changed from key to combination because combination locks are protected by the 5th amendment and…

The courts can compel you to turn over something that you have. Something that you know is protected by the fifth amendment, in particular for combination locks. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/487/201/case.htm... """ JUSTICE STEVENS, dissenting. A defendant can be compelled to produce material evidence that is incriminating. Fingerprints, blood samples, voice exemplars, handwriting specimens, or other it…

great, now look up what "dissent" means. Dissent is legal mumbo jumbo for "stuff that ain't law."

When you have a panel of judges, we go with the decision of the majority of judges. The decision of the minority of the judges is still published under the heading "dissent." It isn't the ruling and it doesn't affect the law, but it's published just to note that they disagreed and their reasons.

There are some 5th amendment encryption cases where there is a question about whether the government has shown that there is a reasonable certainty that the files contain the evidence being sought. In those cases the 5th amendment would act to protect the info. That doesn't seem to be the case here and in that case, it seems like clear law that he would have to give up the data.

Re: Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives

#245

Post by keithnz »

Seems to me the 5th should protect him. Question is, is that a good thing?

Should law enforcement have a right to search through court orders? In a world of unbreakable locks it seems very hard to get justice unless the law can do proper searches. If we end up in a world of unbreakable encryption everywhere, seems to me, criminal activity will have huge benefits. If we can't control crime, we can't have a just society. We can't protect a individuals rights if they are undermined by criminals. Of course, it's also hard if the state has too much power to protect and individuals rights. But somewhere we need pragmatic compromises.

Re: Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives

#246

Post by Programmatic »

vivekd wrote: post #244
Programmatic wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The courts can compel you to turn over something that you have. Something that you know is protected by the fifth amendment, in particular for combination locks. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/487/201/case.htm... """ JUSTICE STEVENS, dissenting. A defendant can be compelled to produce material evidence that is incriminating. Fingerprints, blood samples, voice exemplars, handwriting specimens, or other it…

great, now look up what "dissent" means. Dissent is legal mumbo jumbo for "stuff that ain't law." When you have a panel of judges, we go with the decision of the majority of judges. The decision of the minority of the judges is still published under the heading "dissent." It isn't the ruling and it doesn't affect the law, but it's published just to note that they disagreed and their reasons. There are some 5th amendm…

I am well aware of what "dissent" means. Fortunately, this is a supreme court justice talking about a case that was not about a combination lock. Unless you can show something that says that you can be compelled to open a combination lock (I couldn't), I'll take the supreme court justice's word for it.

Re: Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives

#247

Post by 2bitencryption »

Programmatic wrote: post #242
vivekd wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His crime is disobeying a court order, which is a crime that you can go to jail for. Just like if you had the key to a safe, and the court orders you to open the safe, you would go to jail if you refuse to do so. If he forgot the keys he could have told the court that and the court would evaluate his credibility. *edited changed from key to combination because combination locks are protected by the 5th amendment and…

The courts can compel you to turn over something that you have. Something that you know is protected by the fifth amendment, in particular for combination locks. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/487/201/case.htm... """ JUSTICE STEVENS, dissenting. A defendant can be compelled to produce material evidence that is incriminating. Fingerprints, blood samples, voice exemplars, handwriting specimens, or other it…

...you just pasted the text from the ONE dissenting judge; the other EIGHT disagreed and ruled in the opposite.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1987/86-1753

Re: Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives

#248

Post by Programmatic »

2bitencryption wrote: post #247
Programmatic wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The courts can compel you to turn over something that you have. Something that you know is protected by the fifth amendment, in particular for combination locks. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/487/201/case.htm... """ JUSTICE STEVENS, dissenting. A defendant can be compelled to produce material evidence that is incriminating. Fingerprints, blood samples, voice exemplars, handwriting specimens, or other it…

...you just pasted the text from the ONE dissenting judge; the other EIGHT disagreed and ruled in the opposite. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1987/86-1753

Per my other reply, the case he was dissenting about was not about being compelled to provide the combination for a lock. The dissent simply contained a supreme court judge's opinion regarding combination locks. If you can find actual caselaw for combination locks, I'll take it. Otherwise, I'll take the supreme court justice's opinion.

Re: Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives

#249

Post by Paul-ish »

jessaustin wrote: post #132
Paul-ish wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it is all 1s and 0s, I am curious how you feel about the NSA having a good deal of your personal information stored on their drives?

Do we get to choose to live in a world where that isn't the case? No? Hey that sounds like a good reason to have fewer laws we can be parallel-constructed into violating.

>Do we get to choose to live in a world where that isn't the case? No?

Why not?

Or, maybe a better question is, why do you think you could legalize child porn easier than we could outlaw or end programs like PRISM?

Re: Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives

#250

Post by tnzn »

jhiska wrote: post #211
__s wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a private activity, it directly supports an industry of violence against children

You can make the same argument for the adult porn industry, and that leads to one of two conclusions: - That the viewer of adult porn shouldn't be prosecuted for viewing porn. or - That there is a societal / governmental acceptance of the exploitation of men and women, as long as they are adults. The easy argument out of this hypocrisy is to claim that while children can never consent, adults can, but then that opens…

I'm surprised you haven't been called a pedophile/pedophile supporter yet. Every time I tried to have that argument, it happened (tho not in HN).
Post reply on HN