351–360 of 504 posts
I think it's already used all the time across the country now. A law that "is not supposed to be used" should not exist. If it exists, then it will be used. I'm sure this is some kind of Murphy law or something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe. But we don't know whether he looked at CP or not.
And lets face it, the NSA claim - and win in court with this claim - that "collecting and storing" personal communications doesn't count as surveillance, until a human queries the database and reads from the collected interceptions. While a personal hard drive full of child porn is unlikely to be "innocently" explained away quite that easily, I wonder if owners of, say, usenet binary hosting newsservers ever need to…
Didn't it go further than this? Just searching the data for some signal wasn't a "search" because a machine did it, it was only a "search" if you were a match and if you were a match then they had "probable cause" for the search.
Not entirely sure how accurate that is but FWIW it seemed like that was the accepted reading of the twisted reasoning on HN back when that came out.
There's a burden of proof here the court needs to meet before holding the defendant in contempt. For starters, it's reasonable to assume the defendant owns the hard drives in question if they're in their possession, irregardless of their testimony otherwise. Given that piece of information: 1: The court has to prove the disks are actually encrypted. It is not merely enough for the cops to pick up the disks, see some…
In the article is stated that he could actually compel to the order by decrypting himself the hard drive without telling the key to anyone. Could you please read my other comment about this topic? I need further explanation about the legal basis for a different behavior when is involved a physical key or a combination.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the background, but somebody has to say it: his failure was looking at child pornography.
Maybe. But we don't know whether he looked at CP or not.
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You're right, combination locks are protected by 5th amendment as Testimonial evidence. I was wrong in my original post, however this doesn't apply to computer encryptions which the court seems to treat more like keys to a safe which are not protected, I'll correct my post accordingly thanks.
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…
I wonder how this argument holds up if the government were to make deniable encryption illegal. If it is possible to determine that you have encrypted data, and it is possible to verify the accuracy of your testimony, there should be no concern about compelling false testimony. Which is different from compelling testimony that cannot be verified, at least in the sense that you know that only the people being held in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the article: "Rawls, the government argues, (PDF) "repeatedly asserts that the All Writs Act order requires him to divulge his passcodes, but he is incorrect: the order requires no testimony from [Rawls], and he may keep his passcodes to himself. Instead, the order requires only that [Rawls] produce his computer and hard drives in an unencrypted state.""
That does not change the parent's point – he is in contempt for refusing to comply, not for being unable to comply. Contempt must be willful: https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-753-el...
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.
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
"I doubt that, because a fairy whispered something to me in my sleep."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 h…
I would dare say that the really bad part is that there's no way to know for sure if he can even comply with that order. As I understand, he claims that he has forgotten the password. Obviously, it's a convenient excuse, but it's not something utterly improbable. What if he actually did forget the password? Why is the word of the judge alone sufficient to assume otherwise? There seems to be an obvious lack of checks…
Because the judge's finding is based on evidence – see my other comment[1]. The judicial power to make findings of fact is checked by the appeal process, which is now underway.