Child porn suspect jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives

[P for Pancetta]

So has the sister been arrested as well for admitting to viewing child pornography? Do search warrants include hard drives nowadays?

Though if there was nothing on them, why wouldn't he decrypt them? Suppose stuff could be planted, seems like authorities are desperately trying to get him on something.

I'll go ahead and choose his side. Using his clearly vindictive sister and a "best guess" forensic examiner as witnesses is hilarious.

I would never ever decrypt the hard drive as long as the investigation was pending even if they were both blanks. In order to maximize my gains when they have to drop the case and I can go in for the big bucks.

[Luxxor]

This is a bit like someone being suspected of murder, and being held indefinitely until (s)he produces the murder weapon.

Agreed, thats illegal.

[Fugus]

His "crime" was withholding a divorce payment to his ex-wife.

What was he charged with? And what was the maximum possible sentence for that charge? If they did that without charging him, he has one hell of a payday coming if he lawyers up because they broke some laws.

[Endus]

There's another thing about this that bugs me... and that is the police/courts announcing who they have and what they suspect them on before they have evidence or even charges. Can it seriously not wait until a verdict has been found? Admittedly it's a little different in this case because they're holding him indefinitely, but it's still a shitty practice. Unless someone gets out on bail, they're not a threat to the public, and therefore identifying them only serves to demonize them whether they did the crime or not. That will stick with that person for a very, very long time even if they're innocent.

The only real way to restrict this is to restrict the freedom of the press, and freedom of speech in general. We do that when the offender's a minor, or with victims of certain crimes, but let's be clear that pushing for this is restricting freedom of speech.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

What was he charged with? And what was the maximum possible sentence for that charge? If they did that without charging him, he has one hell of a payday coming if he lawyers up because they broke some laws.

He was also never charged with a crime. He was released 7 years ago.

[zhero]

No one asks him to incriminate himself. Hes is asked to allow search of his property according to law.

it is self incrimination, he is being held and they are trying to force him to do something. they cannot force the suspect/accused to do anything. He has the right to remain silent.

[Lady Dragonheart]

I really don't feel sympathy for him. They had a warrant and he's obstructing their right to search. If he wants out, then he should just give them the decryption key, else he should be charged to the full extent of the law.

[Fugus]

He was also never charged with a crime. He was released 7 years ago.

Then he needs to lawyer up because they broke the law by keeping him locked up a minimum of 6 years and 6 months longer than they were legally allowed to.

[The Stormbringer]

The only real way to restrict this is to restrict the freedom of the press, and freedom of speech in general. We do that when the offender's a minor, or with victims of certain crimes, but let's be clear that pushing for this is restricting freedom of speech.

It's not restricting freedom of the press if the press isn't informed in the first place. You can say you have a suspect, and they are in custody, but you don't name names. That way lays defamation of character and absolute obliteration of reputations. If and when they are convicted or cleared is when the information should drop. That way they can say 'X was found not guilty of Y' or 'X was found guilty of Y' and it will DRASTICALLY cut down on the damage done.

Once again, unless they are considered a flight risk or are out on bail and considered dangerous.

[Drusyn]

if you need to encrypt your internet traffic, hard drives, or for that matter, any form of communication or information, then you are hiding something that you shouldnt be doing...


rot in jail pervert

What if what he is doing is legal but he doesn't want anyone to know? What if he is secretly gay and the information on there would prove it?

[Saradain]

I really don't feel sympathy for him. They had a warrant and he's obstructing their right to search. If he wants out, then he should just give them the decryption key, else he should be charged to the full extent of the law.

He is not obstructing anything. They found his harddrives, it is their job to decrypt them if they want the data within.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Then he needs to lawyer up because they broke the law by keeping him locked up a minimum of 6 years and 6 months longer than they were legally allowed to.

He was held in contempt in 1995. Later, The court of appeals upheld the contempt charge and he was held for another 4 years.

[Fugus]

He was held in contempt in 1995. Later, The court of appeals upheld the contempt charge and he was held for another 4 years.

Please link me this because it violates the law and to have that upheld would be something major.

The only legal way to hold him that long would be to charge him with a crime that had a punishment of at least that long and hold him on contempt on those charges.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Please link me this because it violates the law and to have that upheld would be something major.

The only legal way to hold him that long would be to charge him with a crime that had a punishment of at least that long and hold him on contempt on those charges.

http://openjurist.org/302/f3d/107/chadwick-v-janecka

[Ralikon]

i ain't in to it, but it's kinda weird how it's illegal, when all these other weird fuckin' fetishes are legal

[Mrbleedinggums]

It's a direct violation of his 5th Amendment of self incrimination. If someone is arrested for stashing cocaine in their house and the police can't find it, they cannot then demand that the person shows them where he stashes his cocaine.

- - - Updated - - -

He is not obstructing anything. They found his harddrives, it is their job to decrypt them if they want the data within.

Truth! Can't force the person to do anything and give the police anything that may or may not incriminate themselves. Either they find the information or they dont.

Edit: By the way, since I'm sure there's already some people that may have posted it or will post; We are defending the principle of your right to be defended in court. By forcing someone, regardless of the crime allegedly committed, to incriminate themselves, it opens a can of worms that can eventually turn to you.

Even if you have nothing to hide, you DO NOT EVER allow police to enter your (proverbial and literal) home without a warrant. Police are NOT your friends; they are doing their jobs and their job includes making revenue by arresting/fining people. There are also crooked cops who wouldn't bat an eye at planting evidence on you if it meant they get a nice paycheck from it.

[zephid]

if you need to encrypt your internet traffic, hard drives, or for that matter, any form of communication or information, then you are hiding something that you shouldnt be doing...


rot in jail pervert

Not necessarily. A lot of people are handling confidential information (lawyers, priests, medical professionals, etc.), not to mention everyone who might be working as a programmer (or similar) for a software company. They all have perfectly legal uses for encryption.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

i ain't in to it, but it's kinda weird how it's illegal, when all these other weird fuckin' fetishes are legal

Other weird fetishes are legal because they are fetishes involving consenting adults.

[Socialhealer]

i ain't in to it, but it's kinda weird how it's illegal, when all these other weird fuckin' fetishes are legal

2 consenting adults = go ahead.

children that can't consent? pretty obvious why it's illegal in every country.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

It's a direct violation of his 5th Amendment of self incrimination. If someone is arrested for stashing cocaine in their house and the police can't find it, they cannot then demand that the person shows them where he stashes his cocaine.

- - - Updated - - -



Truth! Can't force the person to do anything and give the police anything that may or may not incriminate themselves. Either they find the information or they dont.

Edit: By the way, since I'm sure there's already some people that may have posted it or will post; We are defending the principle of your right to be defended in court. By forcing someone, regardless of the crime allegedly committed, to incriminate themselves, it opens a can of worms that can eventually turn to you.

Even if you have nothing to hide, you DO NOT EVER allow police to enter your home without a warrant. Police are NOT your friends; they are doing their jobs and their job includes making revenue by arresting/fining people. There are also crooked cops who wouldn't bat an eye at planting evidence on you if it meant they get a nice paycheck from it.

But, if that person has a safe...the authorities can compel him to open that safe.