211–220 of 294 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They had access to the drive at one point. In a filesharing seneario it is common for feds to see what you got before the raid that grabs the physical drive.
In the file sharing scenario, how would the feds know that the encrypted drive actually has the files? They can only know what they suspect is on the drive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As long as a witch is burned who cares how they did it? Cops lying and deceiving is fundamentally wrong. Don’t pretend that it’s required for police to get convictions. There are other ways.
Comparing the arrest of a murder to witch hunting is absurd. You know that's absurd, you don't need me to explain it to you. > "Cops lying" You already admitted the cops in your example didn't lie. They're guilty only of having a calm demeanor when interrogating a murder suspect, which for some reason you consider morally abhorrent.
It isn’t meant to directly compare this to witch hunting. It’s a case of people overlooking brutality because witches are bad anyway right? There are zillions of examples of this. It’s the concept that’s important. Saying that the technique of lying is ok because it gets rid or murderers is wrong especially in light of the fact that there are other ways to do it.
And yes, there is a grey area where interrogators don’t outright lie but are still highly deceptive. I don’t care about the grey area, I just care that police are allowed to outright lie. That is not grey. The example that I illustrated reveals how sinister the police can be. It is more emotionally stirring than mechanical lying. But the interrogator did reveal her title and so whatever. Seriously twisted still. But making outright lying routine is wrong. I don’t want to live in a world where police tell flat out lies to people. That is why we have Miranda rights. Under your logic there should be no reading of Miranda rights, allowing the police to tell the suspect literally anything like “if you don’t confess we will do x” or “you have to tell us something or you’ll be locked up forever” or whatever. Miranda rights exist for an extremely good reason. And stopping outright lying is a continuation of the spirit of Miranda rights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I won't believe this ruling is safe until it goes thru higher levels." Yes - right now, there are people being held indefinitely for not decrypting hard drives the US [1]. The law used is: "All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. § 1651)". As one judge said, "We don't want your password - we just want the hard drives in unencrypted state." https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/legal/man-who-refused-...
I fear I'll be barbecued for asking, but I must: What's the alternative? I am a privacy advocate and understand that the law can (and likely will) abuse a forced decryption law. However, the story you linked is about a _police officer_ who was suspected of child pornography. His sister reported him to the police and 'content stored on the encrypted hard drive matched file hashes for known child pornography content'.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I won't believe this ruling is safe until it goes thru higher levels." Yes - right now, there are people being held indefinitely for not decrypting hard drives the US [1]. The law used is: "All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. § 1651)". As one judge said, "We don't want your password - we just want the hard drives in unencrypted state." https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/legal/man-who-refused-...
I fear I'll be barbecued for asking, but I must: What's the alternative? I am a privacy advocate and understand that the law can (and likely will) abuse a forced decryption law. However, the story you linked is about a _police officer_ who was suspected of child pornography. His sister reported him to the police and 'content stored on the encrypted hard drive matched file hashes for known child pornography content'.…
If that's evidence enough to hold him in jail indefinitely then it's evidence enough to convict him. So convict him using it. There's no need to force him to self-incriminate.
If it's not evidence enough then the alternative to this is do good police work that doesn't require holding suspects in jail indefinitely until they incriminate themselves.
>I couldn't live in a world where a suspect could say "Well, I forgot the password" and walk away Scott-free on such an ugly crime.
What if it was a slightly different scenario. What if instead of encrypting the child porn he deleted it right before the police came in. Would it be ok if he was held in jail indefinitely until he confessed? What if we just hold all suspects in jail indefinitely until they confess?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I won't believe this ruling is safe until it goes thru higher levels." Yes - right now, there are people being held indefinitely for not decrypting hard drives the US [1]. The law used is: "All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. § 1651)". As one judge said, "We don't want your password - we just want the hard drives in unencrypted state." https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/legal/man-who-refused-...
I fear I'll be barbecued for asking, but I must: What's the alternative? I am a privacy advocate and understand that the law can (and likely will) abuse a forced decryption law. However, the story you linked is about a _police officer_ who was suspected of child pornography. His sister reported him to the police and 'content stored on the encrypted hard drive matched file hashes for known child pornography content'.…
Sounds like BS to me, how can they match hash of encrypted content without the key?
I won't believe this ruling is safe until it goes thru higher levels. The Executive Branch has over the past 2 decades has shown a large propensity for attempts to disregard the 4th and 5th amendments, and I see no change in this posture or the attempts to subvert them with the current political climate.
It’s okay if you think we should not force people to unlock their phones pursuant to a criminal investigation. But it’s disingenuous to paint this as an attempt to “disregard” the 4th and 5th amendments. The Supreme Court in the 1950s and 1960s expanded the scope of those amendments far beyond the text. They turned the 4th amendment into a general purpose “privacy” amendment, even though the amendment doesn’t use tha…
the concept of privacy, outside of say, what a married couple do in the bedroom, didn’t really exist when the constitution was created.
devices that are essentially extensions to ones “self” in the digital world couldn’t even have been imagined, let alone the rights required to make that one as as free as the america that was being created.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s okay if you think we should not force people to unlock their phones pursuant to a criminal investigation. But it’s disingenuous to paint this as an attempt to “disregard” the 4th and 5th amendments. The Supreme Court in the 1950s and 1960s expanded the scope of those amendments far beyond the text. They turned the 4th amendment into a general purpose “privacy” amendment, even though the amendment doesn’t use tha…
bear in mind that whilst the scope of those ammendments may have been, for want of a better term, “extended” (SC sets precedent for interpretation, as far as i’m aware, i.e. the amendments do not actually change), you must also bear in mind that the scope and power of the government has expanded incredibly since they were written. the concept of privacy, outside of say, what a married couple do in the bedroom, didn’t…
And the 4th amendment did protect those things. But those protections also had limits. The police couldn’t get your diary from your desk without a warrant. But they were entitled to it with a proper warrant. The fact that you recorded your deepest thoughts and intimate affairs on a phone rather than a dairy or private correspondence shouldn’t change that.
As for a little back story on myself; I am wrongly labeled as a drug felon. My wife (separated for over a year) decided to try meth shortly after our wedding and got hooked in a bad way. I have a history with said drug and didn't want her to try but she insisted saying that it would help her understand why I am the way I am. I didn't know about her use of the drug and was in jail for 2 weeks because she had them in the car and I got pulled over and searched. After my release the cops in the area basically harassed me by pulling me over every other day at minimum. I was in and out of jail several times within 2 months. I had come into possession of the phone she had when I was in jail because she got a new one and I always saved the old phones to test my rooting and hacking skills with. Even though the phone was wiped, by her deleting all of her account info and messages, I was able to do a text recovery on the phone. I found in a few chats that she had with some of her friends and family while I was in jail for the 2 weeks, her telling them that I was in jail for her drugs. Of course everyone thinks that it's weed first, but we were in Colorado, so she clarified that it was for meth.
Now because of specific laws I can't even use those messages to clear my name and she won't take the stand to the law and accept her punishment for the use of the drugs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
bear in mind that whilst the scope of those ammendments may have been, for want of a better term, “extended” (SC sets precedent for interpretation, as far as i’m aware, i.e. the amendments do not actually change), you must also bear in mind that the scope and power of the government has expanded incredibly since they were written. the concept of privacy, outside of say, what a married couple do in the bedroom, didn’t…
Your premise simply isn’t true. Privacy as a concept did exist, including in the law, for example in connection with correspondence and diaries. If you read those materials from that time, you’ll see that they were in many cases far more intimate than what you might find in an iPhone today. (People used to record their private thoughts in their papers. Today, people usually don’t leave a record of things that they we…