221–230 of 239 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Usually there'll be a reason for the police to kick your door down. I imagine that plus destroyed evidence would be enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
Also, I don't think it necessarily needs to be proven that the evidence was incriminating; just destroying evidence is criminal behavior. Of course, IANAL, but that's how I'd do it if I ruled the world...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but I'm assuming the UK didn't draft a law in the mid 90s to prevent Islamic attacks on the US. The fact that their plans would be written in a foreign language (never mind a foreign alphabet) would have been more than adequate to keep it secret from British intelligence. ps. You do know that we have been having terrorist attacks for almost a century.
>The fact that their plans would be written in a foreign language (never mind a foreign alphabet) would have been more than adequate to keep it secret from British intelligence. This is one of the stupidest statements I have ever seen.
Plus, in my experience, Arabic is a difficult language for people who grew up speaking romance languages to learn. Perhaps not as difficult as Japanese, but still much more difficult than German or French.
It sounds to me like TrueCrypt needs a new feature: a password that just destroys all data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
They would send you a letter to go serve in the military, You would go to where you where assigned, You objected because of your conscience, They would then send you to a force labor camp or mental institution for a few years, The hard work, unhealthy food and living conditions, lacking health care, medical experiments, and violence among convicts would often destroy your physical and mental health, Then when you where released, They would send you a letter to serve in the military. … Unless, naturally, your conscience would no longer object to serving in the military…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The fact that their plans would be written in a foreign language (never mind a foreign alphabet) would have been more than adequate to keep it secret from British intelligence. This is one of the stupidest statements I have ever seen.
Why? Given that in 2010, nearly a decade after 9/11 and almost 7 years after the invasion of Iraq, the US military, State Dept, domestic law enforcement agencies and presumably intelligence agencies still have a severe shortage of Arabic-speaking staff, why do you find the statement stupid? The UK before 9/11 was much less focused on terrorism than the US is now. Developing robust foreign language capability in large…
If they are unable to crack the pass code, does he go free on lack of evidence?
What really happens is the investigators have to answer the 5-Ws (who,what,etc) and they "build" a case against you. If they have one piece, then they can go fishing for the rest. This is why it's important to shut your month when talking to the police. Anything you say at this point can really open you up to all types of crap later. They'll twist your words around, become your friend, good cop/bad cop, mention friends and family and all other types of tricks to get you to talk. Believe it or not, criminals willingly give up testimony about themselves. Some guy in a lab with half a shoeprint isn't what wins the case, you do.
If all the prosecution has is one piece of evidence then a competent barrister can shred it to pieces. This guy's job is to create FUD, and lots of it. The less evidence the prosecution has the easier his job is. But what he/she can't do is fix anything you say in front of the police while he isn't there. This is why it's important to shut up and ask a lawyer first.
ISTM a virtual 'locked container of documents' would have the same legal status.
I'm not sure why so many techies go down the Walter-Mittyesque 'Enemy of the State' route when discussing this sort of thing. Mention the police in conjunction with encryption and suddenly everyone's a paranoid compound-dweller...
Let's be clear here - it is unlikely that this guy is making a stand for paranoid techies - it is much more likely that he's got pics and videos on his HDD of kids getting raped that he doesn't want the police to see.