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

Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 413 posts

Re: Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal

#171

Post by pvg »

fjdlwlv wrote: post #115
rayiner wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not bizarre at all. "To be a witness against himself" is not metaphorical or ye olde English. It literally means what it says--the government can't force someone to testify against himself ( i.e. to provide a confession). If the Founders had meant to say that the government can't compel someone to cooperate in an investigation at all , they would have said that.

The Constitution is extremely​ abbreviated because it was written by hand. Your arbitrary definition of "witness" isn't more or less correct then someome else's; these terms are negotiated over the centuries with a great deal of context. The Fifth Amendment has been consistently interpreted to mean far more than "confession"

The Constitution is extremely​ abbreviated because it was written by hand.

?!

Re: Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal

#172

Post by superflyguy »

michaelmrose wrote: post #155
timv wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps, but the judge can only make judgements based on the arguments presented. If the defendant wanted to argue that he no longer remembered the password (but would be willing to decrypt the drive if he could), then that's something that the judge would consider. But a judge can't (and won't) simply say "Oh, maybe he hasn't complied because he just forgot the password. I'm going to let him off"

Its literally impossible to prove someone has or hasn't forgotten something. You shouldn't be able to jail someone indefinitely for not producing something you can't prove exists.

That's not something that's going to trouble US authorities given that the US invasion of Iraq was alleged to have been because the Iraqi leadership couldn't demonstrate that there were no "weapons of mass destruction" hidden somewhere in the country.

Re: Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal

#173

Post by repples »

goodplay wrote: post #42

Sitting directly in front of me are two moderately large encrypted hard drives the passwords for which I forgot. If I get a subpoena to produce their contents, I will potentially remain in jail of the rest of my life for the crime of being forgetful. That judge's behavior and (the laws that enables it) is sickening. You either have enough evidence to convict a person, or you don't.

Unless you've been engaging in online noncery and have amassed a gigantic collection of photographs and videos of child abuse like the scumbag described in the article has evidenced, you should be absolutely fine. It's certainly not the judge's behaviour that is sickening here.

Re: Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal

#174

Post by repples »

tpolm wrote: post #15

and this is why the software you use to encrypt hard drives should support plausible deniability. You give away the (other) password and the decrypted drive contains nothing but cat pictures.

Or, you know, just be a decent person and don't download huge swathes of child pornography.

To be honest, it's quite disgusting that you're most concerned with how to hide such horrendous material.

Re: Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal

#175

Post by repples »

ouid wrote: post #91
paulddraper wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not as black and white as you make it. If there is a warrant to search my property, I am obligated to assist if required. E.g. open the gun safe. (Hey, speaking of guns...You know what other antedquated amendment from the Founding Fathers would be really convenient to ignore...) Now, AFAIK, no one has tested whether that still hold true of a combination safe, where the access substaintivly requires information f…

it's not similar at all. No one can prove that an encrypted drive is an encrypted drive and not a random number. whereas a safe is plainly a safe.

An encrypted drive will typically contain metadata identifying it as such, so no.

Re: Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal

#176

Post by madez »

mrmstr wrote: post #160
Buge wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep in mind that a 17 year old taking a nude picture of themself is in possession of child pornography. Do you want a harsh minimum sentence for that?

You gotta cut the government some slack here, they have contracts with private prison providers and quotas to fulfill. Can't have compassion and reason get in the way of that. Also think of the children.

Times are moving faster, you have to adapt. Efficiency is trump. Children are no exception here. You gotta see that there is just no time for things like 'being a child'.

Re: Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal

#177

Post by repples »

fencepost wrote: post #25

This is an interesting contrast to the article reported this past week about Nigel Lang, a black man in the UK who was accused of having or sharing child porn because of an extra digit added to an IP address during investigations[1]. One relevant section from the apology/explanation letter: "The issues around the downloading of IIOC [indecent images of children] are that statistically out of a cohort of offenders, th…

Please note that his sister testified against him:

> As part of their investigation, the Delaware County law enforcement officers also interviewed Doe’s sister, who had lived with Doe during 2015. She related that Doe had shown her hundreds of images of child pornography on the encrypted external hard drives. She told the investigators that the external hard drives included “videos of children who were nude and engaged in sex acts with other children.”

There's no racial conspiracy here, the guy is just a disgusting paedophile.

Re: Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal

#178

Post by DerpyBaby123 »

repples wrote: post #173
goodplay wrote: post #42

Sitting directly in front of me are two moderately large encrypted hard drives the passwords for which I forgot. If I get a subpoena to produce their contents, I will potentially remain in jail of the rest of my life for the crime of being forgetful. That judge's behavior and (the laws that enables it) is sickening. You either have enough evidence to convict a person, or you don't.

Unless you've been engaging in online noncery and have amassed a gigantic collection of photographs and videos of child abuse like the scumbag described in the article has evidenced, you should be absolutely fine. It's certainly not the judge's behaviour that is sickening here.

Isn't the man innocent until proven guilty?

Re: Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal

#179

Post by b3lvedere »

mgamache wrote: post #2

So if I forget my password, I can be in jail forever?

Yes.

But that's not all.

Depending on the country, your origin, your job, your beliefs, your principles, your preferences or whatever, a government could jail you just for being you. Forever.

Re: Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal

#180

Post by repples »

DerpyBaby123 wrote: post #178
repples wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you've been engaging in online noncery and have amassed a gigantic collection of photographs and videos of child abuse like the scumbag described in the article has evidenced, you should be absolutely fine. It's certainly not the judge's behaviour that is sickening here.

Isn't the man innocent until proven guilty?

The court accepted evidence that he'd downloaded and shared all manner of such filth, including both technical evidence and testimony from his sister.
Post reply on HN