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

491–500 of 504 posts

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

#491

Post by dingoegret »

cookiecaper wrote: post #438
baddox wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and the people who are holding him in a cage are the people deciding whether he is unable or unwilling. Not exactly any consolation.

Yes, the state ultimately decides whether someone's behavior justifies their detainment or not. Is this really news to you? Should they just let him go because he said "Shoot, turns out I don't remember!" How would any criminal justice occur if we let people off with flimsy excuses like that? Most of the time, absolute certainty that someone is guilty is not possible; that's why the criminal standard is "beyond a rea…

Beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean "hurr guilty cause i tink u lying cause i don like ur face". Observers cannot be relied on to make correct judgements and the observers of the observers cannot be relied on to assess if they made a correct judgement. Indefinite imprisonment via unconstitutional contempt of court laws is the real issue here and not encryption.

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

#492

Post by dingoegret »

cookiecaper wrote: post #456
baddox wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> should they just let him go because he said "Shoot, turns out I don't remember!" No, I don't think any private individual should be jailed for failing to decrypt data, regardless of whether they are able to, as part of a case wherein they are the accused. This should be a basic fundamental right of the accused, and I think the current working interpretations of the fifth amendment are unjust. > How would any crimin…

>Justice in my view is the presumption of innocence, with the duty to demonstrate guilt beyond reasonable doubt placed on the prosecution. Forcing accused to decrypt data obviously helps the prosecution, but so would warrantless searches, and I oppose both for precisely the same reason. Warrantless searches are unjust because the police can come in and execute them without oversight. In this case, the neutral oversee…

No entity exists neutrally; that is fucking niave. Courts can favor accused police and political officials. The laws must then be designed not to act to grant power to an assumed neural party, but set the stage where all parties have equal power within the confines of the legal process. A fair race.

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

#493

Post by dingoegret »

cookiecaper wrote: post #440
brw12 wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you're exactly wrong. The demand on Rawls is that he do whatever work is necessary to produce the drives in an unencrypted state. If he hid a printout of the password on Mount Everest, that means he is compelled by the court to climb Mount Everest.

I'm speaking in practical terms here. I haven't read the actual order, but I understand the language of the order may technically require him to do the work necessary to render his drives in a decrypted state. That's because they expect the only requirement to be entering the key. If he had a password hidden on Mt. Everest and demonstrated that to the court's satisfaction, and then cooperated with the court's order t…

And that is the fucking problem. It's a principled issue and you admit that it is. What your arguing about is how much is enough to violate the principle. Since people can only agree on principles, you shouldn't kill, then the law needs to fucking operate on principle alone.

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

#494

Post by type0 »

cookiecaper wrote: post #443
mejari wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the grandparent quote stating the opposite of what you've said here?

Technically, maybe. The court's language is meant to clarify that the accused does not have to disclose his key, he need only unlock his disks. There is no reasonable expectation that this would require a significant effort or testimony on his part. His case hinges on whether he can prove that the work necessary to decrypt the disks, which is understood to mean entering the keys which he remembers, is testimonial sel…

> The evidence surely indicates that this man used his computer regularly, which necessarily required unlocking his disks, and that means that by all rational conclusions he is, or at least was, capable of complying with the order.

Well that is understandable but what if he burned the passwords just before he got arrested, heck he might even chewed them up and those are long gone. How would they find out? If he is a such dangerous child molester should they go full Sam L.Jackson Unthinkable style on him?

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

#495

Post by type0 »

heptathorp wrote: post #403
elcct wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alice has created a file containing random data. Authorities think it is an encrypted volume and wants Alice to give up the key. Alice has no way to prove it is just a file with random data and is imprisoned indefinitely for essentially having a file with random data =]

Mallory has created a file containing random data and planted it on Alice's drive. Then Mallory phones in an anonymous tip to the police...

Nice, even in times of Stalinistic oppression things weren't as easy...

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

#496

Post by dllthomas »

libertymcateer wrote: post #487
dllthomas wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no observable difference between trying and failing, and refusing by pretending . We can obviously observe an open refusal.

I disagree, and the court system is predicated on this idea. Judging the credibility of testimony is not only one of the primary activities of judges and juries, but, again, I categorically do not believe that you truly believe there is no difference, whatsoever, in indicia or outward evidence, between telling a lie and telling the truth. It's not a remotely credible position to take. It is absolutely the case that h…

In my attempt to be clear about the piece of your rant I was calling attention to, I was imprecise. Your previous comment had been directed at asserting there was obviously a difference between someone verbally stating refusal and someone attempting to comply. I can see how you could choose to read that into what the other poster said, but it is not a charitable interpretation.

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

#497

Post by kelnos »

cookiecaper wrote: post #141
kelnos wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because he's violating a lawful order. If the accused wants to challenge the legality of that order, he can file a lawsuit to do so (and from the article, it sounds like he has). But unless the judge supervising that lawsuit issues a stay on the order in question, the accused is still obliged to comply and can be detained based on his/her refusal to do so. So here's the thing about that. If he's filed an appeal on…

>And that's the problem with contempt-of-court. If you can be held indefinitely without being charged with anything, that's a corruption of the legal process. Someone being held in that manner for long enough will likely do anything to get out of that situation, even confess to a crime that carries a sentence of a defined length, because knowing you'll be out in 10 years (or whatever) might be better than being held…

> The flip side, however...

I think I'm ok with that. If the prosecution can't compile enough evidence on their own with the defendant's court-ordered, self-incriminating "help", I don't think they deserve a conviction.

Assuming the court order is lawful, I think a shorter sentence just for violating the order is a fair compromise. Obviously no law is perfect, and there will be exceptions, though.

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

#498

Post by tripzilch »

EpicEng wrote: post #455
cmdrfred wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>credible oral testimony. So the system as it stands is you can be jailed indefinitely because a judge does not believe you actually forgot a password? That doesn't sound ideal.

He gave no testimony, so there's nothing to disbelieve. Everyone has the right to not self incriminate, but that's not a get out of jail free card. Honestly, what do you envision as an ideal system? The legal system can't be structured like software. You have to be able to cope with unknowns, things that cannot be proven 100%, and people who won't cooperate. This stuff isn't binary.

well you can start by codifying your laws and getting rid of juries. there's different types of legal systems.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)

civil law / roman law, as used in a large part of the world including Europe. (different from civil law as the term is used in the US)

things are quite a lot more clear cut if you just codify (yes, exactly like code, our law books look like code in human language, precisely worded) instead of reinterpreting the law on case by case basis and some ancient writings reinterpreted to fit a modern setting (even they were made by smart folks, it's still almost religion)

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

#499

Post by sjy »

tripzilch wrote: post #498
EpicEng wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He gave no testimony, so there's nothing to disbelieve. Everyone has the right to not self incriminate, but that's not a get out of jail free card. Honestly, what do you envision as an ideal system? The legal system can't be structured like software. You have to be able to cope with unknowns, things that cannot be proven 100%, and people who won't cooperate. This stuff isn't binary.

well you can start by codifying your laws and getting rid of juries. there's different types of legal systems. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system) civil law / roman law, as used in a large part of the world including Europe. (different from civil law as the term is used in the US) things are quite a lot more clear cut if you just codify (yes, exactly like code, our law books look like code in hum…

This doesn't answer the parent's point. Most cases turn on the facts, even in civil law systems. Defendants still get locked up when judges don't believe them, and judges can still get the facts wrong.

Most U.S. federal law is codified, including the contempt provision that applied here (18 U.S. Code § 401). Codification does not remove the need for courts to resolve ambiguities. The constitutional right in this case is a good example: there is no explicit privilege against self-incrimination in the European Convention on Human Rights, yet the European Court of Human Rights has found that Europeans do have this right, and has explained its scope by 'reinterpreting the law on a case by case basis' [1].

[1] http://cardozolawreview.com/Joomla1.5/content/30-3/ASHWORTH....

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

#500

Post by libertymcateer »

dllthomas wrote: post #496
libertymcateer wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree, and the court system is predicated on this idea. Judging the credibility of testimony is not only one of the primary activities of judges and juries, but, again, I categorically do not believe that you truly believe there is no difference, whatsoever, in indicia or outward evidence, between telling a lie and telling the truth. It's not a remotely credible position to take. It is absolutely the case that h…

In my attempt to be clear about the piece of your rant I was calling attention to, I was imprecise. Your previous comment had been directed at asserting there was obviously a difference between someone verbally stating refusal and someone attempting to comply. I can see how you could choose to read that into what the other poster said, but it is not a charitable interpretation.

> There's no observable difference between inability to produce a result and refusing to produce a result.

I don't see how that is open to interpretations, regardless of charitability. I think it is total, unabashed poppycock.

> How do they know he didn't just forget the password? Or that the password was recorded somewhere that he no longer has access to?

Credible testimony and other evidence.

> After sitting in jail for many months, it is very easy to forget a password that you no longer use regularly.

Right, and that is not the issue. Obviously the judge did not find this guy to be credible in the first instance.

That having been said, I'm a corporate lawyer, so my apologies if I was unnecessarily aggressive in my reply to your post. It is something I always have to watch out for, but your points are appreciated and thanks for taking the time to engage.

Post reply on HN