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

Man jailed over computer password refusal

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 239 posts

Re: Man jailed over computer password refusal

#61

Post by Delts »

tjarratt wrote: post #44
NathanKP wrote: post #32

It seems like a bad idea to store anything incriminating on your local hard drive. Why not keep your encrypted files on a flash drive? If the police show up destroy the flash drive using a hammer, ensuring that the flash memory chip is thoroughly pulverized and completely unreadable. Likewise, if you are going to be using the internet for devious purposes drive around and use a neighbor's open wireless network access…

I understand that in some areas, not only is it illegal to operate an insecure wireless access point (in the UK at least), you can be held accountable for the actions of people that use the access point.

Unless I'm mistaken you can currently still operate an unsecured access point in the UK. The legislation was originally part of the Digital Economy Act however I can't spot anything expressly forbidding operating one.

Re: Man jailed over computer password refusal

#62

Post by [deleted] »

maxawaytoolong wrote: post #36
dc2k08 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you be tried for the same crime twice?

In the USA you cannot be tried for the same crime twice under double jeopardy laws. From wikipedia: There are three essential protections included in the double jeopardy principle, which are: - being tried for the same crime after an acquittal - retrial after a conviction, unless the conviction has been reversed, vacated or otherwise nullified - being punished multiple times for the same offense London and Wales repe…

[deleted]

Re: Man jailed over computer password refusal

#64

Post by wjy »

evgen wrote: post #24
xenophanes wrote: post #13

I realize this story is in the UK, but could it happen in the US or would the 5th amendment protect you? As an American, it seems a bit insane to me for someone to be jailed for refusing to help convict himself.

The 5th amendment protects against forced testimony, not against compulsion to provide evidence. You can refuse to testify against yourself, you cannot refuse to comply with a valid search warrant.

Testifying is providing information to the court. Decrypting your hard drive is providing information to the court. What's the difference?

I would argue that all evidence is really just information. Once again, the old lines dividing one category from another become blurred.

Re: Man jailed over computer password refusal

#66

Post by gloob »

maxawaytoolong wrote: post #36
dc2k08 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you be tried for the same crime twice?

In the USA you cannot be tried for the same crime twice under double jeopardy laws. From wikipedia: There are three essential protections included in the double jeopardy principle, which are: - being tried for the same crime after an acquittal - retrial after a conviction, unless the conviction has been reversed, vacated or otherwise nullified - being punished multiple times for the same offense London and Wales repe…

But...

this wouldn't be double jeopardy. It would be a second instance of him refusing to turn over the passwords. Just as you can be tried twice for murder twice if there are two separate murders, you could be tried twice in this situation.

Re: Man jailed over computer password refusal

#67

Post by kgo »

boredguy8 wrote: post #42

Encryption and password privacy is an entirely unsettled area of US law. The courts can probably compel you to enter your password (to decrypt a drive, or what have you), while you can maintain that the content of your password can be protected under the 5th. So, for instance, say you had encrypted files of plans to build a bomb and detailed schematics of the White House. The judge can order you to decrypt the files…

bbc.co.UK

Re: Man jailed over computer password refusal

#68

Post by [deleted] »

jemfinch wrote: post #52
boredguy8 wrote: post #42

Encryption and password privacy is an entirely unsettled area of US law. The courts can probably compel you to enter your password (to decrypt a drive, or what have you), while you can maintain that the content of your password can be protected under the 5th. So, for instance, say you had encrypted files of plans to build a bomb and detailed schematics of the White House. The judge can order you to decrypt the files…

Can you provide some citations for your claims here? I'd really like to review them.

[deleted]

Re: Man jailed over computer password refusal

#69

Post by alextgordon »

jemfinch wrote: post #52
boredguy8 wrote: post #42

Encryption and password privacy is an entirely unsettled area of US law. The courts can probably compel you to enter your password (to decrypt a drive, or what have you), while you can maintain that the content of your password can be protected under the 5th. So, for instance, say you had encrypted files of plans to build a bomb and detailed schematics of the White House. The judge can order you to decrypt the files…

Can you provide some citations for your claims here? I'd really like to review them.

Wikipedia has this to say:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Boucher

    On February 19, 2009, Judge Sessions reversed the
    magistrate's ruling and directed Boucher "to provide an
    unencrypted version of the Z drive viewed by the ICE agent.

Re: Man jailed over computer password refusal

#70

Post by boredguy8 »

kgo wrote: post #67
boredguy8 wrote: post #42

Encryption and password privacy is an entirely unsettled area of US law. The courts can probably compel you to enter your password (to decrypt a drive, or what have you), while you can maintain that the content of your password can be protected under the 5th. So, for instance, say you had encrypted files of plans to build a bomb and detailed schematics of the White House. The judge can order you to decrypt the files…

bbc.co.UK

But some people are ASKING about the US, and everything I've said above is as it pertains to US law. Which is a worthwhile discussion anyway, as US readers are the largest single group of HN readers.
Post reply on HN