Child porn suspect jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives

[Saradain]

Essentially you're saying if a search warrant is issued, a person is not required to allow law enforcement to enter the premises since this is "self incriminating."

That isn't the case at all. A person isn't required to testify against themselves, but they ARE required to allow access to locations when a search warrant is issued. The debate now is whether allowing access to encrypted hard drives falls under the same laws - which the court thinks it does - and the supreme court will likely have to rule on eventually.

Again, you have to look at this hard drive in the same way as you'd look at a locked door in a house. If law enforcement has a warrant to search inside this room, the person is required to grant them access. In the same way, he's required to grant them access to this hard drive.

They have the harddrive. What they don't have is the encryption key. If a locked door prevents your access to a room and you really need to get in no matter what? You break the door. The police is expected to have the capability. Not locking the suspect in jail until he gives the key.

[Kellhound]

He is not testifying against himself. No one is asking him to testify against himself. No one is saying he is being held in contempt because he isn't telling them where the evidence is located.

He is being held in contempt because they have evidence on hand, which a court has said they have a right to search, and he is refusing to allow them to search the evidence.

No, he is refusing to make it so the police can interpret what they are searching, they can search the drive.

[Elim Garak]

Legally it isn't much different, and the courts seem to keep agreeing! Nice try though.

They are not the same. When police enters a locked room along with the accused - it's quite different from the police looking thru the contents of a hard drive back at the police station, they can easily plant ANYTHING on it.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

No, they have an eyewitness, and not much else really. The "forensic evidence" is marginal at best.

The evidence they had was sufficient to get a warrant.

[Jaxsz]

They have the harddrive. What they don't have is the encryption key. If a locked door prevents your access to a room and you really need to get in no matter what? You break the door. The police is expected to have the capability. Not locking the suspect in jail until he gives the key.

If they can't break the door, they can hold in contempt until they manage to break the door. It really isn't too complicated. People are arguing that the law should be changed, but not understanding that as it stands now, this is all legal and completely standard. He can get out at any time by granting access. Until he agrees to, he can sit locked up in contempt because law enforcement feels there is probable cause to believe the evidence to prosecute is contained in a location they have a warrant to search but the suspect refuses to grant access to search.

[The Stormbringer]

Legally it isn't much different, and the courts seem to keep agreeing! Nice try though.

- - - Updated - - -

No, in this case they are just requesting access to the safe - and he has to provide that if they somehow can't brute force into it.

Oh please, they can easily brute force it. You don't think the FBI or CIA or any other federal agency they have access to can't crack Apple FileVault? If they really wanted to, it would be done already.

[Kellhound]

SCOTUS has never addressed the issue of compelled decryption.

No, but that they have already commented on the difference between a physical key and a mental key is telling, and not in a good way for your view.

- - - Updated - - -

The evidence they had was sufficient to get a warrant.

Warrants are also found to be invalid all the time.

[Jaxsz]

They are not the same. When police enters a locked room along with the accused - it's quite different from the police looking thru the contents of a hard drive back at the police station, they can easily plant ANYTHING on it.

Do you think the accused gets to walk around with law enforcement while warrants are fulfilled? Is this real? In most cases they aren't anywhere around, and evidence could definitely be planted in theory in either situation (see the hilarious Making a Murderer series for that debate).

[8bithamster]

Perfect, just let them rot until they are willing to cooperate. If the drives have nothing on them, there is no issue with decrypting them. Right now he's making himself look more and more guilty.

[Jaxsz]

Oh please, they can easily brute force it. You don't think the FBI or CIA or any other federal agency they have access to can't crack Apple FileVault? If they really wanted to, it would be done already.

They'll get in there eventually, and he'll sit in contempt until then, and then they'll find shitloads of child porn, and he'll be prosecuted.

[Kellhound]

They'll get in there eventually, and he'll sit in contempt until then, and then they'll find shitloads of child porn, and he'll be prosecuted.

Guilty until proven innocent.

[The Stormbringer]

They'll get in there eventually, and he'll sit in contempt until then, and then they'll find shitloads of child porn, and he'll be prosecuted.

Or they'll find nothing and all they did was remove someone's freedom for several months without any crime being committed.

Oh, and, you know, completely tarnish their reputation to hell and back with this big PR fiasco. One or the other.

[Elim Garak]

Do you think the accused gets to walk around with law enforcement while warrants are fulfilled? Is this real? In most cases they aren't anywhere around, and evidence could definitely be planted in theory in either situation (see the hilarious Making a Murderer series for that debate).

It's a locked door, of course the accused is present to open it by your analogy.

And yes it is possible to plant stuff in a room, but it's much harder to do with all the WITNESSES and at the moment it is opened for the first time, or does the police search homes without witnesses who should be there to ensure none of the planting actually happens?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

No, but that they have already commented on the difference between a physical key and a mental key is telling, and not in a good way for your view.

And if SCOTUS rules that way.. that's fine.

Right now the matter is left to the courts. Some find one way...others find the opposite.

Warrants are also found to be invalid all the time.

And yet, this one was not. I'm sure if the defense could attack the validity of the warrant they would have already done so.

[Saradain]

If they can't break the door, they can hold in contempt until they manage to break the door. It really isn't too complicated. People are arguing that the law should be changed, but not understanding that as it stands now, this is all legal and completely standard. He can get out at any time by granting access. Until he agrees to, he can sit locked up in contempt because law enforcement feels there is probable cause to believe the evidence to prosecute is contained in a location they have a warrant to search but the suspect refuses to grant access to search.

As you imply that the suspect can be held permanently imprisoned, may I request an excerpt from the state law, with a legit link to the source so I can read it myself? Burden of proof seems to be on you. Otherwise we'll be here forever, arguing about how we interpret the law and how the court is always right no matter what they decide. All it requires is a little work from an american who probably has easier time accessing the database of his laws. If the law clearly states that he can be detained forever (should the decrypting take that long), then so be it. Then it becomes a matter of insulting the barbaric laws of US which likely gets me my first infraction :P

[Jaxsz]

Or they'll find nothing and all they did was remove someone's freedom for several months without any crime being committed.

Oh, and, you know, completely tarnish their reputation to hell and back with this big PR fiasco. One or the other.

Pretty easy fix - comply with court order of the search warrant and grant access to the hard drives.

- - - Updated - - -

It's a locked door, of course the accused is present to open it by your analogy.

And yes it is possible to plant stuff in a room, but it's much harder to do with all the WITNESSES and at the moment it is opened for the first time, or does the police search homes without witnesses who should be there to ensure none of the planting actually happens?

The accused opens a door in a standard search warrant, and then sits outside while law enforcement conducts a search. The witnesses present are other law enforcement officials.

- - - Updated - - -

As you imply that the suspect can be held permanently imprisoned, may I request an excerpt from the state law, with a legit link to the source so I can read it myself? Burden of proof seems to be on you. Otherwise we'll be here forever, arguing about how we interpret the law and how the court is always right no matter what they decide. All it requires is a little work from an american who probably has easier time accessing the database of his laws. If the law clearly states that he can be detained forever (should the decrypting take that long), then so be it. Then it becomes a matter of insulting the barbaric laws of US which likely gets me my first infraction :P

There is no "burden of proof" in an internet debate. Really, the burden of proof is pretty easily fulfilled when you realize the court agrees this is legal repeatedly, including at the court of appeals. Contempt of court is pretty broad, and arguably abuseable, but it is what it is.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

As you imply that the suspect can be held permanently imprisoned, may I request an excerpt from the state law, with a legit link to the source so I can read it myself? Burden of proof seems to be on you. Otherwise we'll be here forever, arguing about how we interpret the law and how the court is always right no matter what they decide. All it requires is a little work from an american who probably has easier time accessing the database of his laws. If the law clearly states that he can be detained forever (should the decrypting take that long), then so be it. Then it becomes a matter of insulting the barbaric laws of US which likely gets me my first infraction :P

I actually already posted a case where a man was held in contempt of court, with no charges filed against him, for 14 years.

[Kellhound]

And if SCOTUS rules that way.. that's fine.

Right now the matter is left to the courts. Some find one way...others find the opposite.




And yet, this one was not. I'm sure if the defense could attack the validity of the warrant they would have already done so.

It likely will rule against forced mental assistance.

It hasnt gone to trial.

[Saradain]

There is no "burden of proof" in an internet debate. Really, the burden of proof is pretty easily fulfilled when you realize the court agrees this is legal repeatedly, including at the court of appeals. Contempt of court is pretty broad, and arguably abuseable, but it is what it is.

No burden of proof on the internet? Damn, I'm off to some political topics on this website!

Really, some 3rd world countries imprison people for nothing no matter what their law says. Why is it so hard to end all this debate with a simple proof?

[Elim Garak]

The accused opens a door in a standard search warrant, and then sits outside while law enforcement conducts a search. The witnesses present are other law enforcement officials.

So planting evidence on a hard drive is easier as it only takes one person to do, with no witnesses.
Also who opens the locked room if the accused is not participating?