Child porn suspect jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives

[kail]

a death sentence is exactly what he deserves. and yes it is completely fair. pedophiles and child molestors have no rights.
i am 100% for the death penalty so your anti death penalty arguments fall on "i don't give a shit" ears.

Grinding that ax I see.

[Saradain]

a death sentence is exactly what he deserves. and yes it is completely fair. pedophiles and child molestors have no rights.
i am 100% for the death penalty so your anti death penalty arguments fall on "i don't give a shit" ears.

Where does it say that he in fact is a child molester?

Never mind, stupid me asking that from you. Human rights and justice either apply for everyone, or no one.

Which one will it be?

A wasteland with no law?

A bastion of order where everyone has human rights and fair justice and trial? (Doesn't your precious US police rights speech say something about right to remain silent and a right to have a fair trial and not a public lynching?)

[Kellhound]

In your opinion, but not the opinion of our laws and the courts. As many examples have pointed out, just because a suspect has evidence locked away behind impenetrable physical or virtual barriers doesn't mean he is no longer required to grant access.

He has to open the door to his basement just like he has to open the door to his hard drive. This might change some day, who knows, but right now it's pretty clear... and makes sense.

The whole idea of contempt of court is asinine, it needs to go away even more than All Writs. The idea that a judge can strip someone of their 5th Amendment rights because they are butthurt is sad.

[Oktoberfest]

We should repeal the All Writs Act.

I'm seriously LOLing at the people who are ignoring the fact that this is breaking at least 2 constitutional amendments soldily and several more depending on interpretation.

The 4th, compelling a person to provide possible evidence against themselves could constitute an unreasonable search and seizure. Or a little more clearly, they lack probable cause to want access to the drives. Expert testimony amounting to "there's probably porn there(but I haven't seen it so I don't know)" isn't worth shit.
The 5th, for starters, self incrimination. If the cops can't get dirt on you, you can't be compelled to give them evidence against you.
the 6th, the right to a trial by jury of his peers (the court hearing is not this). Among other violations of the 6th. Basically the 6th Amendment was tossed out the window for this case.
May be a violation of the 8th as this could constitute an excessive fine/bail even cruel, and likely unusual punishment.

Basically, this is a gross miscarriage of justice and anyone defending it is taking a shit all over the Constitution and any reasonable sort of justice system.

Yup this is right.

“There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” - Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, #78


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."- Thomas Jefferson

[The Stormbringer]

a death sentence is exactly what he deserves. and yes it is completely fair. pedophiles and child molestors have no rights.
i am 100% for the death penalty so your anti death penalty arguments fall on "i don't give a shit" ears.

So, because one person said there was child porn on his computer, he's a pedophile/child molestor (fun fact: they have to actually have touched a kid to be this)? Even though they have no evidence? Holy shit, you must be psychic if you know this when even the cops are just saying they think it's there.

I'm not making an anti-death penalty argument, I'm arguing against assuming someone is guilty without any god damn evidence! If there was evidence, fucking charge him and get this stupid shit over with.

Well, while I disagree they should just throw him in Gen-Pop...it's not accurate to say there is no evidence against him.

"The authorities have called two witnesses. One was the suspect's sister who claimed she looked at child pornography with her brother at his house. The other was a forensic examiner who testified that it was his "best guess" that child pornography was on the drives," Donoghue wrote. The investigation began in 2015 when Pennsylvania prosecutors were monitoring the online network Freenet and executed a search warrant of the man's home."

>best guess
>guess

Please point to the actual evidence here.

[Airwaves]

Are you seriously asking this question ?

Well he is kinda right. Charging people for JUST viewing would make everyone who has ever browsed porn guilty of it. The internet is full of porn with people under 18 and without a doubt most people have viewed it without even knowing.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

So, because one person said there was child porn on his computer, he's a pedophile/child molestor (fun fact: they have to actually have touched a kid to be this)? Even though they have no evidence? Holy shit, you must be psychic if you know this when even the cops are just saying they think it's there.

I'm not making an anti-death penalty argument, I'm arguing against assuming someone is guilty without any god damn evidence! If there was evidence, fucking charge him and get this stupid shit over with.

"The authorities have called two witnesses. One was the suspect's sister who claimed she looked at child pornography with her brother at his house. The other was a forensic examiner who testified that it was his "best guess" that child pornography was on the drives," Donoghue wrote. The investigation began in 2015 when Pennsylvania prosecutors were monitoring the online network Freenet and executed a search warrant of the man's home."

>best guess
>guess

Please point to the actual evidence here.

Done.

The Forensic trail leads to his house and an eye witness confirms there was child porn there.

[Zantos]

It's good they Might have caught someone getting so much child porn that he needs two hard drives to store it, but really, Keeping him in jail when they have ways around the coding? Come on, that is a waste of resources. If your going to pour so much time and money on keeping someone in jail, at least go after the dirt bags Harming the children and Creating that stuff, not someone just looking at it.

- - - Updated - - -

Done.

The Forensic trail leads to his house and an eye witness confirms there was child porn there.

Not done. They Think that it's on the hard drives. It could be somewhere else completely. If there at all. They only have assumptions to go on. Cut the guy free and focus on the real dirt bags who are harming the children.

[Deleted]

a death sentence is exactly what he deserves. and yes it is completely fair. pedophiles and child molestors have no rights.
i am 100% for the death penalty so your anti death penalty arguments fall on "i don't give a shit" ears.

Neither do elf-fuckers.

[Jaxsz]

So, because one person said there was child porn on his computer, he's a pedophile/child molestor (fun fact: they have to actually have touched a kid to be this)? Even though they have no evidence? Holy shit, you must be psychic if you know this when even the cops are just saying they think it's there.

I'm not making an anti-death penalty argument, I'm arguing against assuming someone is guilty without any god damn evidence! If there was evidence, fucking charge him and get this stupid shit over with.

"The authorities have called two witnesses. One was the suspect's sister who claimed she looked at child pornography with her brother at his house. The other was a forensic examiner who testified that it was his "best guess" that child pornography was on the drives," Donoghue wrote. The investigation began in 2015 when Pennsylvania prosecutors were monitoring the online network Freenet and executed a search warrant of the man's home."

>best guess
>guess

Please point to the actual evidence here.

Besides the part where you ignore the evidence regarding the internet investigations, what more do they need?

Say a person calls and says I just watched my neighbor shoot his wife in the head.

Police show up. Neighbor says no, you don't get to search my home. Is that the end of it? All there is to it? I mean, after all, the only evidence they have is a call from one person.

False - that eyewitness statement is enough probable cause to grant a warrant to investigate/search in almost all cases. The occupant in this case needs to allow law enforcement to enter to confirm no one is shot in the head etc.

And so we get to this case. Sister says she watched him looking at child porn on his PC. Internet investigations point to his home as well for viewing child porn online. Warrant issued. They don't need any more evidence to search - but they do need more evidence to prosecute, which the suspect is denying their right to access, and so we hit contempt of court.

It isn't that complicated, nor is it illegal or denying his rights or anything else insane. It's pretty simple. He needs to give them access to the evidence they have a warrant to search. He can do that at any time to be released.

[The Stormbringer]

Done.

The Forensic trail leads to his house and an eye witness confirms there was child porn there.

No, the "Forensic Trail" says the guy uses Freenet. Nowhere does it say they actually caught him viewing kiddie porn, aside from the sister's eyewitness testimony. Eyewitness testimony which can be from a misunderstanding, or someone with an axe to grind.

They could always send those drives over to the FBI or CIA to get them decrypted if they really wanted answers, but instead they're just sitting on it and waiting for him to give up his right to privacy. That's the issue here. If there were tangible evidence that they could point to and say, "See? Right here, this is it, no question." there would be no argument. I would be behind everyone else in getting him charged and convicted. There isn't.

Besides the part where you ignore the evidence regarding the internet investigations, what more do they need?

Say a person calls and says I just watched my neighbor shoot his wife in the head.

Police show up. Neighbor says no, you don't get to search my home. Is that the end of it? All there is to it? I mean, after all, the only evidence they have is a call from one person.

False - that eyewitness statement is enough probably cause to grant a warrant to investigate/search in almost all cases. The occupant in this case needs to allow law enforcement to enter to confirm no one is shot in the head etc.

And so we get to this case. Sister says she watched him looking at child porn on his PC. Internet investigations point to his home as well for viewing child porn online. Warrant issued. They don't need any more evidence to search - but they do need more evidence to prosecute, which the suspect is denying their right to access, and so we hit contempt of court.

It isn't that complicated, nor is it illegal or denying his rights or anything else insane. It's pretty simple. He needs to give them access to the evidence they have a warrant to search. He can do that at any time to be released.

First of all, that analogy doesn't make any sense. If they have the warrant, they can search the house and see if the wife is there or not. The only way your analogy would work would be if he had a safe room or something that she was locked in and he refused to give them a way inside.

I am willing to admit I'm wrong if you can show me where it says they actually found him viewing child porn online. All I see there is using Freenet: "Freenet is free software which lets you anonymously share files, browse and publish "freesites" (web sites accessible only through Freenet) and chat on forums, without fear of censorship."

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Not done. They Think that it's on the hard drives. It could be somewhere else completely. If there at all. They only have assumptions to go on. Cut the guy free and focus on the real dirt bags who are harming the children.

They have evidence that there is Child Porn (confirmed by an eye witness) in the house and they have two encrypted drives.

[Jaxsz]

No, the "Forensic Trail" says the guy uses Freenet. Nowhere does it say they actually caught him viewing kiddie porn, aside from the sister's eyewitness testimony. Eyewitness testimony which can be from a misunderstanding, or someone with an axe to grind.

They could always send those drives over to the FBI or CIA to get them decrypted if they really wanted answers, but instead they're just sitting on it and waiting for him to give up his right to privacy. That's the issue here. If there were tangible evidence that they could point to and say, "See? Right here, this is it, no question." there would be no argument. I would be behind everyone else in getting him charged and convicted. There isn't.

"Right to privacy" is just a random thing you made up online, and definitely has no bearing when dealing with a warrant to search.

The "this right here, this is it, no question" evidence is hidden behind encryption which the suspect needs to grant law enforcement access to due to the warrant to search. If it isn't there, he is free to go. If it is there, he is charged.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

No, the "Forensic Trail" says the guy uses Freenet. Nowhere does it say they actually caught him viewing kiddie porn, aside from the sister's eyewitness testimony. Eyewitness testimony which can be from a misunderstanding, or someone with an axe to grind.

They could always send those drives over to the FBI or CIA to get them decrypted if they really wanted answers, but instead they're just sitting on it and waiting for him to give up his right to privacy. That's the issue here. If there were tangible evidence that they could point to and say, "See? Right here, this is it, no question." there would be no argument. I would be behind everyone else in getting him charged and convicted. There isn't.

You think they applied search warrants to everyone that is on Freenet? They had reason to believe he had Child Porn and they have a witness that confirms that. That is Evidence.

[The Stormbringer]

"Right to privacy" is just a random thing you made up online, and definitely has no bearing when dealing with a warrant to search.

I don't mean it as an actual right, it's just a turn of phrase. They want to show they have power over him, they're using contempt of court to force an issue that has been shown to be unconstitutional in other cases.

As to the warrant to search, does that actually include passwords to decryption? I'm genuinely curious here, because from what I've seen it doesn't. Would love to be proven wrong, though.

You think they applied search warrants to everyone that is on Freenet? They had reason to believe he had Child Porn and they have a witness that confirms that. That is Evidence.

Of course not, that would be ridiculous. The wording is even ambiguous enough to say that they could have gotten her testimony before they began the investigation. Unless you can make a case with eyewitness testimony alone, it doesn't matter. They need proof.

I'm 100% not against people who have child pornography being charged and convicted, what I'm against is assuming guilt when someone could potentially be innocent. They need to crack the hard drives and actually find out what's on them rather than keeping someone indefinitely imprisoned.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

And yet they can't make a fucking case with what they have.

Because right now the evidence is only circumstantial...but there is enough evidence, in the opinion of the judge, to issue a court order to unlock the hard drives.

[Saradain]

"Right to privacy" is just a random thing you made up online, and definitely has no bearing when dealing with a warrant to search.

The "this right here, this is it, no question" evidence is hidden behind encryption which the suspect needs to grant law enforcement access to due to the warrant to search. If it isn't there, he is free to go. If it is there, he is charged.

Wrong. It is suspected through unreliable, vindictive witnessing that your "this right here, this is it, no question" material might possibly be on the harddrive. Stop saying something incriminating is somewhere when in fact you have nothing but some vengeful statement and obscure data about visiting places where it is possible to see child porn.

I've visited and will visit 4chan. I have seen illegal material there by accident, as anything can be posted there without immediate supervision. Should the police be allowed to search my harddrives based on that? Well, I'm not expecting much of a different answer than you have given already but try to at least get some sort of an undeniable definite proof...

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

As to the warrant to search, does that actually include passwords to decryption? I'm genuinely curious here, because from what I've seen it doesn't. Would love to be proven wrong, though.

Well, the judge determined there was reason to order him to decrypt the hard drives, and the appeals court upheld the contempt charge.

[The Stormbringer]

Because right now the evidence is only circumstantial...but there is enough evidence, in the opinion of the judge, to issue a court order to unlock the hard drives.

If there's enough evidence to issue a court order to him, there should be enough evidence for them to go through law enforcement channels to get the things encrypted on their own. It would probably even faster, easier, and cheaper than leaving someone in jail for 7+ months.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

If there's enough evidence to issue a court order to him, there should be enough evidence for them to go through law enforcement channels to get the things encrypted on their own. It would probably even faster, easier, and cheaper than leaving someone in jail for 7+ months.

I'm assuming that is already in the works...but decryption can take a really long time.

But the contempt charge is totally separate from any potential criminal charges. He violated a court order.