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

21–30 of 504 posts

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

#21

Post by AnonymousPlanet »

planetjones wrote: post #15

As expected on HN I am not surprised to see people defending one's right to privacy and encryption. However, what's the solution then ? If all the "bad guys" who distribute illegal material do so encrypted volumes and refuse to give up the decryption key then what do we do ? It's a different world now; the police can't just take a drill out and open the safe.

There is no god given right that demands to upturn every stone. Live with the fact that there is no solution that lets you look into the drives. Period.

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

#22

Post by BigChiefSmokem »

AckSyn wrote: post #17

He shouldn't have to decrypt his hard drives, and I support his decisions. The problems with this are numerous. First of all no one has any duty to provide the police with evidence as a 5th amendment protection. It's not a "right" for the police at all to have. Imprisoning someone for failure to disregard their constitutional rights is absurd. They have no evidence to hold him period.

But I bet something led police to the hard drive in question in the first place. I wonder what "that" something was. In the U.S. you can be arrested and held for Reasonable Suspicion (or Probable Cause)

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

#24

Post by kpil »

sixQuarks wrote: post #18
ghurtado wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you do that with apostrophes? It makes your comment harder to read and doesn't add anything to it.

I think he's doing a southern accent

It's the future! ( You must also imagine a wobbly fade before reading the comment. )

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

#25

Post by coldtea »

AckSyn wrote: post #17

He shouldn't have to decrypt his hard drives, and I support his decisions. The problems with this are numerous. First of all no one has any duty to provide the police with evidence as a 5th amendment protection. It's not a "right" for the police at all to have. Imprisoning someone for failure to disregard their constitutional rights is absurd. They have no evidence to hold him period.

>First of all no one has any duty to provide the police with evidence as a 5th amendment protection.

Apparently all these amendments are open to all kinds of BS interpretation by courts, with loopholes like "you don't really expect privacy when you send snail mail", "some random gun freak is the same as a well armed militia", "corporations are people" and other such shenanigans.

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

#26

Post by coldtea »

planetjones wrote: post #15

As expected on HN I am not surprised to see people defending one's right to privacy and encryption. However, what's the solution then ? If all the "bad guys" who distribute illegal material do so encrypted volumes and refuse to give up the decryption key then what do we do ? It's a different world now; the police can't just take a drill out and open the safe.

>As expected on HN I am not surprised to see people defending one's right to privacy and encryption. However, what's the solution then ? If all the "bad guys" who distribute illegal material do so encrypted volumes and refuse to give up the decryption key then what do we do ?

Why do we care for people distributing "illegal material" in the first place?

And how come this "illegal material" doesn't ever get decrypted? Catch them then.

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

#27

Post by parhurs »

danbruc wrote: post #13

This is probably a lot less black and white then it might seem at first. If there is sufficient evidence, one can obtain a search warrant and this forces you to possibly act against your own best interest by allowing the police to search your home. On the other hand you can usually not be forced to testify against yourself. So this becomes the question where decrypting a hard drive lies on this spectrum. Is it more l…

Obviously the former. The home search is analoguous with handing the hard drive to the police (they're free to search it). Giving the key is analogous to voluntarily digging up a secret stash in your back yard. And I disagree with it not being black and white, if you didn't already notice that. Rights are rights.

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

#28

Post by jordache »

iamdave wrote: post #20
planetjones wrote: post #15

As expected on HN I am not surprised to see people defending one's right to privacy and encryption. However, what's the solution then ? If all the "bad guys" who distribute illegal material do so encrypted volumes and refuse to give up the decryption key then what do we do ? It's a different world now; the police can't just take a drill out and open the safe.

If all the "bad guys" who distribute illegal material do so encrypted volumes and refuse to give up the decryption key then what do we do ? "Bad guys" still have fifth amendment protection. You prosecute, satisfy the burden of proof and hope a jury convicts. That's what you do. Outside of that, if you really want this changed, petition your representative to repeal the fifth amendment, I suppose?

need to stop thinking from an american centric perspective.

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

#30

Post by mhurron »

dleslie wrote: post #8

Doesn't America have some rule against being compelled to provide evidence of your guilt?

There are limits to that and the Government keeps attempting to increase the limits of the 5th amendment in regards to electronic documents.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

Above is another article on the same case.

Post reply on HN