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

271–280 of 504 posts

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

#271

Post by jdmichal »

rodgerd wrote: post #264
iopq wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But without 100% proof he can't be jailed. The prosecutors don't have enough evidence to prove it, so how can he be jailed for it already? "Innocent until proven guilty" is the foundation of our legal system

> But without 100% proof he can't be jailed. The standard is not "100% proof". Perhaps you should learn something about the legal system.

The standard for US criminal law is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". I think "100% proof" is a close enough summary of that phrase... If the proof doesn't 100% convince the jury, then reasonable doubt still exists and prosecution should fail.

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

#272

Post by libertymcateer »

realo wrote: post #206

I have a question... Suppose the suspect Alice only has a portion of the key. Someone else (Bob...) has the remaining key bits. Alice is busted, and 'compelled to give the key', and DOES provide her portion of the key. Bob is never found. Then Alice would be indefinitely imprisoned, even if she would have actually complied with the court order. It seems unethical, to me. Bonus question: Alice pretends that Bob exists…

> A possible answer to the first question: Alice is not compelled to provide the key. She is compelled to decrypt the drive. Obviously she can't do that without Bob. Alice is screwed and will spend the rest of her life in prison.

Yes, and in this scenario she would not be held in contempt, so your hypothetical does not apply.

You can only be held in contempt for refusing to comply with court orders, not for the failure of a desired outcome.

Let's put it another way: you are totally misunderstanding why this fellow is in jail. It is not because the hard drive remains encrypted - it is because he defied a court order to decrypt it. Granted, if the drive were decrypted by other means he would likely be let out of prison because the point of holding him for contempt would be frustrated - but that does not mean that he was put into jail because the drive was not decrypted. Contempt is solely about defying court orders.

If Alice gave over her half of the key, she would have complied with the order, therefore, there would be no grounds for contempt.

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

#273

Post by libertymcateer »

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,…

> Not sure what the man's crime is here.

He didn't commit a crime. He is being held in jail for contempt of court. This is how the system works. This is no different than if a judge demanded that you turn over any other form of evidence - it should not be so shocking that you can be held in contempt for refusing to obey a court order.

It is bad, however, that he is being let to rot indefinitely. That is the problem here - not that he was jailed for contempt in the first place.

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

#274

Post by rodgerd »

jdmichal wrote: post #271
rodgerd wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But without 100% proof he can't be jailed. The standard is not "100% proof". Perhaps you should learn something about the legal system.

The standard for US criminal law is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". I think "100% proof" is a close enough summary of that phrase... If the proof doesn't 100% convince the jury, then reasonable doubt still exists and prosecution should fail.

> I think "100% proof" is a close enough summary of that phrase...

Not even close.

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

#275

Post by icelancer »

bluejekyll wrote: post #92
briHass wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The examples you chose are interesting, not only because they reveal an obvious bias. I think the correct interpretation of the various amendments is to view them in conjunction with the ninth. That is, the default should be to argue in good faith about what rights the amendment is attempting to preserve, not nit-picking them to find technicalities that the state can use to limit or restrict someone's rights. Your hi…

> it's clear from reading other writings by the Founding Fathers that the 2nd Amendment was written to allow an individual to own firearms. This is irrelevant, it matters what made it into the contract, i.e. Constitution. The second amendment in full is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A well regulated mi…

Guns already are absurdly heavily regulated. Unless you actually mean banned.

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

#276

Post by cloakandswagger »

braveo wrote: post #97
coldtea wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because militant muslims have been using it for millennia for actual attacks and war, not just spiritual ones.

so exactly like Christians.

https://imgur.com/a/p6IzQ

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

#277

Post by [deleted] »

realo wrote: post #206

I have a question... Suppose the suspect Alice only has a portion of the key. Someone else (Bob...) has the remaining key bits. Alice is busted, and 'compelled to give the key', and DOES provide her portion of the key. Bob is never found. Then Alice would be indefinitely imprisoned, even if she would have actually complied with the court order. It seems unethical, to me. Bonus question: Alice pretends that Bob exists…

[deleted]

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

#278

Post by jdmichal »

rodgerd wrote: post #274
jdmichal wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The standard for US criminal law is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". I think "100% proof" is a close enough summary of that phrase... If the proof doesn't 100% convince the jury, then reasonable doubt still exists and prosecution should fail.

> I think "100% proof" is a close enough summary of that phrase... Not even close.

Do you have any refutation to the logic in the rest of my post? Or is "nope neener neener" the only thing I get?

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

#279

Post by grzm »

jdmichal wrote: post #271
rodgerd wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But without 100% proof he can't be jailed. The standard is not "100% proof". Perhaps you should learn something about the legal system.

The standard for US criminal law is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". I think "100% proof" is a close enough summary of that phrase... If the proof doesn't 100% convince the jury, then reasonable doubt still exists and prosecution should fail.

Beyond reasonable doubt can admit that doubt does exist, it's just not reasonable to entertain it. 100% proof strongly implies that there is no doubt at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt

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

#280

Post by MichaelBurge »

Retr0spectrum wrote: post #254
gresrun wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL, but it would fail to meet the basic criteria, as the communication was not for the purpose of securing legal advice and, the prosecution would argue, the communication was made for the purpose of committing a crime.

IANAL, but what if the same keys were also used to encrypt client-attorney communications?

They compel you to release everything, but don't allow the client-attorney communications to be used as evidence.
Post reply on HN