Child porn suspect jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives

[Deleted]

Wouldn't that line of reasoning mean that all warrants are illegal since giving the police access to your house is self-incriminating?

So let's compare it to a warrants.
This is like physically blocking the entrance to your house so they cannot find the information.
The Fifth seems to protect your mind and thoughts, not your property.

You don't have to give them access to your house, they have warrant that permits them to use force to enter your house.
This is more akin to them jailing you because you wont tell them where the house that they want to search is.
They have the right to look at the hardrive as much as they like, copy it, decrypt it, whatever - They just cant force him to decode it, because that is clearly forcing him to give evidence against himself, something expressly forbidden.

- - - Updated - - -

Cop stops driver due to tail light being out.
Cop hears a small child in the boot, crying.
Cop orders driver to open boot so he can investigate the sound.
Driver refuses, under the defence that opening the boot would incriminate himself.

And that is fair, he does not have to comply.
The officer though has reasonable suspicion of a crime, and may thus detain the driver, and open the trunk himself.

At the end of the day a court order has been produced stating that this guy must make the data available to authorities. He's refusing,

As is his right, to refuse to answer any questions.

Guy is an asshole. An apparently very guilty asshole.

Failure to answer questions is a privilege afforded to defendants.
Its what makes Torture illegal.

[mizeri]

he is probably better off by not doing it, if he does have child porn, then he will go to jail for that and get abused in prison for it, and if he survives prison, now he will be a sex offender for the rest of his life which means life is fucked, but thats what you get for looking at kiddie porn

[Tijuana]

It's like that XKCD cartoon where the criminal gloats that nobody can decrypt his drive but then authorities hit him with a wrench until he agrees to comply.


http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...t-hard-drives/

A Philadelphia man suspected of possessing child pornography has been in jail for seven months and counting after being found in contempt of a court order demanding that he decrypt two password-protected hard drives.

The suspect, a former Philadelphia Police Department sergeant, has not been charged with any child porn crimes. Instead, he remains indefinitely imprisoned in Philadelphia's Federal Detention Center for refusing to unlock two drives encrypted with Apple's FileVault software in a case that once again highlights the extent to which the authorities are going to crack encrypted devices. The man is to remain jailed "until such time that he fully complies" with the decryption order.

The suspect's attorney, Federal Public Defender Keith Donoghue, urged a federal appeals court on Tuesday to release his client immediately, pending the outcome of appeals. "Not only is he presently being held without charges, but he has never in his life been charged with a crime," Donoghue wrote (PDF) in his brief to the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals.

The government successfully cited a 1789 law known as the All Writs Act to compel (PDF) the suspect to decrypt two hard drives it believes contain child pornography.

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.

Donoghue wrote that investigators had decrypted a Mac Pro using a recovery key discovered on the iPhone 5S the authorities seized from his client's residence. He said no child pornography was found. The authorities want the suspect to decrypt two external drives discovered in the search.

How does the 5th amendment not apply here?

[Knaar]

Slightly off-topic, but i like that "prosecutors were monitoring the online network Freenet" and when you google Freenet, the first thing they say is "Freenet : Escape total surveillance."

[Deleted]

No, what it comes down to is people thinking some BoR-nonsense applies.

Remind me again who of us is a fascist?

I don't see his advocate trying to claim that,

Really?

The defense also claims that "compelling the target of a criminal investigation to recall and divulge an encryption passcode transgresses the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination."

Because that is literally what his lawyer did.

I don't see that preventing the judge from giving him this punishment.

Contempt of court is technically not punishment -

But on the internet everyone is a lawyer!

Its very complicated reading one section of the constitution.

[Testaxc]

the guy lost his rights when he broke the law

i dont think you have the ability to make a informed decision on this
people need to stop letting emotions decide what is right and wrong

nobody is asking him to incriminate himself they are asking for access to evidence
the court getting access to that evidence could almost instantly get him released from jail if no crimes have been committed

in Australia if you refuse to give a breath sample or blood sample to check your alcohol level if you have been driving
refusal gets you the same charge as you driving with a blood alcohol level higher than the legal limit

i dont know if you Americans do the same thing

That's not how civil rights work here. Because of rights under the 4th and 5th ammendment and the Privacy Act, people that are guilty as fuck have gotten away with crimes for a variety of reasons. If they collect information in a specifically wrong way that they don't have the right to (such as wire tapping without a warrant), then it's not usable in court and fucks the whole case.

[SodiumChloride]

So you mean other illegal information that could land him prison time? And people want me to feel sympathy for this guy?



Come off it ... He knows the password...

No one is asking for sympathy. It's just that it's against the constitution to compel someone to self-incriminate.

There is a good reason the 5th amendment exist. It's to stop law enforcement from extracting confessions/testimony via torture - people will say anything to get you to stop hurting them.

i.e. You have the right to remain silent.

Also you are assuming he has the passwords. Can you prove he has the passwords? Isn't there the possibility that he wrote it down on a piece of paper and lost it thus never memorised the passwords to begin with?

So is so dangerous to allow law enforcement to compel people to reveal information that they may or may not have. Imagine being dragged of the street and imprisoned until you reveal the locations of the bodies ... when you have no idea WTF they are talking about.

[Deleted]

So is so dangerous to allow law enforcement to compel people to reveal information that they may or may not have. Imagine being dragged of the street and imprisoned until you reveal the locations of the bodies ... when you have no idea WTF they are talking about.

I hid them behind your couch for safe keeping....

[SodiumChloride]

the guy lost his rights when he broke the law

i dont think you have the ability to make a informed decision on this
people need to stop letting emotions decide what is right and wrong

nobody is asking him to incriminate himself they are asking for access to evidence
the court getting access to that evidence could almost instantly get him released from jail if no crimes have been committed

in Australia if you refuse to give a breath sample or blood sample to check your alcohol level if you have been driving
refusal gets you the same charge as you driving with a blood alcohol level higher than the legal limit

i dont know if you Americans do the same thing

Passwords that he might not have ... Maybe he wrote it down on paper then lost the said paper. How is he to produce the passwords he not does have.

It's like the cops dragging you of the streets and demand you tell them where the bodies are ... when you have nothing to do with the murders, don't even know murders have occurred. How are you to produce information you don't have? The judge can imprison you indefinitely if you don't talk and tell them where the bodies are ... How fucked up is this?

[Slant]

the guy lost his rights when he broke the law

i dont think you have the ability to make a informed decision on this
people need to stop letting emotions decide what is right and wrong

nobody is asking him to incriminate himself they are asking for access to evidence
the court getting access to that evidence could almost instantly get him released from jail if no crimes have been committed

in Australia if you refuse to give a breath sample or blood sample to check your alcohol level if you have been driving
refusal gets you the same charge as you driving with a blood alcohol level higher than the legal limit

i dont know if you Americans do the same thing

Usually, whether or not you have broken the law is determined in court. As long as the trial is ongoing, he is technically not guilty of any crime. He is merely accused of a crime. That's a big distinction that you're failing to make.

[Deleted]

Kind of off-topic, but what are your feelings towards people who are just like, attracted to post-puberty teens? Like, that 15-ish+ range where they can look older than they are, and clearly have their adult sexual characteristics. I know the age of consent is 16 in Scotland, but in the States for the most part it's 18.

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of adult males can look at an adolescent and find them sexually attractive. A pretty prime example of this is all the frankly creepy posts people were making about Emma Watson during the first couple of Harry Potter films ("Damn she's going to be hot when she's older", etc.) Yeah, most of us were thinking the same thing but there's a difference between having that opinion and sharing it so openly. Especially since what people were really thinking is "Damn, that's a hot 12 year old."

I feel that we're genetically imprinted to regard potential mates in a sexual manner from the moment they hit puberty. From a purely physiological point of view, as soon as a female becomes fertile, she's ready to reproduce. So from that perspective I think it's a completely natural instinctive reaction.
However, there's a huuuge difference between realising an adolescent is sexually attractive and acting on that attraction, be it performing a sexual act with them, or beating one off over them in the bedroom.
The real problem arises when you habitually become attracted to underage girls. If a friend confided in me that he/she had found a 14 year old kinda hot, I'd be like "Dude, we've all been there." Because let's face it, we have.
If the same person told me they find most 14 year olds attractive, well that's when I'd be concerned. Being attracted to an individual is fine, being attracted to the entire age group? Not so much.

I feel you should stick to the age of consent designated by the law in your country. Is it fucked up if a 21 year old sleeps with a 16 year old in America? Not really. 34 year old? Getting a bit weird there, but I'd say that in the UK too, where as you pointed out, the age of consent is 16.

The age of consent isn't a magical green light that suddenly says "Woo, you can fuck this person now!" you still sure as shit need to use your moral compass, it's simply the age at which that country has decided the individual is capable of making an independent decision about consensual sex. (Personally, I think even 18 is too young for that.)

In summary, as long as you don't have a particular attraction to underage girls, and you don't act on that attraction if there's a clear distinction in age/maturity between the two individuals then you're pretty much a regular person.

[Mistame]

I think the moral of this story is essentially that the United States Bill of Rights is fucking retarded.

Because being "innocent until proven guilty" shouldn't come with the assumption of being innocent until proven guilty? Or is it that you just have a problem with rights that "infringe" on all-mighty government abusing their power?

Yeah, that stuff about bearing arms has saved way more lives than it has cost!

Wrong document, kiddo.

And labeled a paedophile for the rest of his natural life. Cast out by his community and social circle, so it's not all bad I guess.

Assuming he's proven guilty. If he's not, then it's defamation and grounds for civil suit.

Considering I'm mostly into GILF and BBW, I think your scenario is pretty unlikely.

This explains so much.

Usually, whether or not you have broken the law is determined in court. As long as the trial is ongoing, he is technically not guilty of any crime. He is merely accused of a crime. That's a big distinction that you're failing to make.

Pretty much this.

[Torgent]

I can see it, he walks into a room with a table with 2 hard drives on resting on it. Walks over, picks em up, "yeh these could have kiddie porn on em" walks out.

Yes....these feel rather child pornie. Listen to the way they rattle when shaken. It sounds a bit young. LOCK HIM UP BOYS!

[Themius]

he is probably better off by not doing it, if he does have child porn, then he will go to jail for that and get abused in prison for it, and if he survives prison, now he will be a sex offender for the rest of his life which means life is fucked, but thats what you get for looking at kiddie porn

I feel that's what you potentially get for actually abusing children. I really don't believe we should treat pedophiles who have viewed child porn as if they're producer or distributors.

[Blueobelisk]

The government shouldn't force people to decrypt their hard drives.

[Deleted]

I feel that's what you potentially get for actually abusing children. I really don't believe we should treat pedophiles who have viewed child porn as if they're producer or distributors.

By viewing child porn, you help increasing demand. The punishment should be extremely severe.

[Themius]

By viewing child porn, you help increasing demand. The punishment should be extremely severe.

That just seems stupid. Murder is a crime, there are videos of murder online, shall the ones who enjoy viewing people get murdered be sent to jail with sentences based on that murder?

I don't think people post child porn to see "numbers" rise. You want extremely severe punishment for people who haven't hurt anyone, there is a huge disconnect there.

[Rooflesstoofless]

5th Amendment makes this illegal, no?

The court can't hold you in contempt for the rest of your life because someone claims they saw you kill another person and now they want to hold you till you tell the court where the body is.

[Deleted]

That just seems stupid. Murder is a crime, there are videos of murder online, shall the ones who enjoy viewing people get murdered be sent to jail with sentences based on that murder?

I don't think people post child porn to see "numbers" rise. You want extremely severe punishment for people who haven't hurt anyone, there is a huge disconnect there.

Erm... you are talking about an industry that is driven by demand. Murder isnt an industry driven by demand. Snuff movies however are. And in a similar fashion to child porn, watching snuff movies increases demand and as such, production.

[Lillyth]

Dont care what they think he did.

If there is no evidence, they should not be able to hold him.

They can always imprison him forever once they have the evidence.