Man Who Refused to Decrypt Hard Drives Still in Prison After Two Years

[McFuu]

A 73-year-old Philadelphia lawyer walked out of prison July 10 after serving 14 years for contempt of court -- the longest term ever served for contempt.

In a divorce proceeding in 1995 H. Beatty Chadwick said that he had lost his fortune of about $2.75 million and so could not make a significant financial settlement with soon-to-be ex-wife Bobbie.

At the time, the court professed its skepticism of Chadwick's claim of pauperage and ordered him to produce his money. He claimed the money had been lost and he was sent to jail.

"If I had been convicted of murder in the third degree in Pennsylvania, I would have been out in half the time I was in jail," Chadwick said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press after his release. "I have to spend a little time thinking about ... seeing how I can best use my skills and talents."

In 2005, Bobbie Chadwick said she had no reason to see her ex-husband remain in jail. She says she has wished "he would come to his senses and realize, 'OK, life is short, this is crazy.'"

But Beatty Chadwick, who worked as the top lawyer for an international corporation in Philadelphia, told "Primetime Live" correspondent Jim Avila in 2005 that he is not keeping anything from his wife.


This guy spent 14 years in jail for the same thing, refusing to obey a judges order. I guess he had a huge sum of money, like millions and wouldn't tell the court where it was. It was a divorce hearing.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=8101209

A true hero.

[misterpuk]

Think of the drive as a safe with loads of heroin in it. If there is a warrant to search said safe, you are compelled to open it. If you refuse to do so, then you're disobeying a lawful court order.

You won't actually get the possession charge until they verify the contents of the safe. Once they crack it, which by the warrant the are obligated to, then the contents of the safe can enter into evidence and whatever charges need to be filed are.

So he's not being held on the charge for whatever is in the safe, but for the obstruction he's causing by not allowing authorities to fulfill the requirements of a legally issued warrant.

All that said, I don't think it should be within the judge's power to hold him indefinitely. If they're saying he's broken a law by not unlocking the disk, then he should be brought up on obstruction charges and have his day in court for that matter. If found guilty, then he should be sentenced accordingly.

Indefinite incarceration is not a valid sentence for obstruction last I checked.

[Socialhealer]

Just because you can voluntarily suspend your right to privacy in order to gain whatever benefits there are in the military - doesn't mean it's not a human right.

By your logic right to life is not a human right - because people get killed.

- - - Updated - - -



It's better to resurrect Hitler and pardon him because it all was so long ago than imprison a single innocent person. Hence why all civilized countries have no death penalty.

Not to mention that watching child porn is not a serious crime, I wouldn't even make it a crime as it hurts less than no one.

lol and with that you lost all credit that you have any intellect.

why do you think child porn exists? because there is a demand for it, so children are abused raped and tortured because people will pay to see it.

this is why the internet is good, you can be anonymous and say hey watching child porn is a victimless crime and no-one can beat the shit out of you for being sick in the head.

[ranzino]

Think of the drive as a safe with loads of heroin in it. If there is a warrant to search said safe, you are compelled to open it. If you refuse to do so, then you're disobeying a lawful court order.

You won't actually get the possession charge until they verify the contents of the safe. Once they crack it, which by the warrant the are obligated to, then the contents of the safe can enter into evidence and whatever charges need to be filed are.

So he's not being held on the charge for whatever is in the safe, but for the obstruction he's causing by not allowing authorities to fulfill the requirements of a legally issued warrant.

All that said, I don't think it should be within the judge's power to hold him indefinitely. If they're saying he's broken a law by not unlocking the disk, then he should be brought up on obstruction charges and have his day in court for that matter. If found guilty, then he should be sentenced accordingly.

Indefinite incarceration is not a valid sentence for obstruction last I checked.

See the bolded part; that's were logic likes to differ. It is not his duty or should be to open anything; end of arguments and done. you as governemnt can do it on your own or fuck off, if you are not able.
In your example: government can keep the safe full with "heroin-or-not heroin-but-stolen-arms", but nothing more.

[McFuu]

Ok, then he should be put on trial with what they have, rather than what they wish they had.

Eyewitness without evidence is basically here-say. People are rarely convicted on just eyewitness testimony.

OT:. The whole argument of if passwords are protected under the fifth or not is borderline getting old.
The problem is that different judge's have different interpretations on the matter and they are neither correct or wrong. Until someone specifically makes a law or amends the fifth itself situations like this will continue to occur.
This feels heavy handed, I could see the guy being placed on house arrest until he gives the password.

Better still if encryption programs offered 2 passwords, one to unlock and the other wipes the drive. This could all be done with in the future.

[breadisfunny]

Alleged Child Abuser. Innocent till proven guilty means something to a lot of people.


No matter what the crime indefinte imprisonment without a trial is wrong and should be condemned at every turn, this is the realm of the most terrible of dictators.

child molesters have the right to be locked up.

[ranzino]

...

Better still if encryption programs offered 2 passwords, one to unlock and the other wipes the drive. This could all be done with in the future.

But..but.. it destroys evidence (which might be there or not) !!
somebody in lawmaking will take umbrage for sure and make it also illegal to use that option.

[ComputerNerd]

Pretty much.

They have a legit argument to search it as they have both the hashes that match and the mans own sister says she had seen it.

His whole argument is he forgot the password, so it comes down to how credible do they think it is that he forgot the password.

The hash matching would require them knowing the password and applying the same encryption.
Otherwise it can't match.
And since the point of this is them not having the password, that can't match.

Eyewitness without evidence is basically here-say. People are rarely convicted on just eyewitness testimony.

OT:. The whole argument of if passwords are protected under the fifth or not is borderline getting old.
The problem is that different judge's have different interpretations on the matter and they are neither correct or wrong. Until someone specifically makes a law or amends the fifth itself situations like this will continue to occur.
This feels heavy handed, I could see the guy being placed on house arrest until he gives the password.

Better still if encryption programs offered 2 passwords, one to unlock and the other wipes the drive. This could all be done with in the future.

Software can be bypassed by imaging the drive, taking a physical copy of the data at its most basic level.
Firmware on a physical device can offer that protection though, if it has sufficient means to prevent said imaging.
There are products which already do that.

[McFuu]

But..but.. it destroys evidence (which might be there or not) !!
somebody in lawmaking will take umbrage for sure and make it also illegal to use that option.

Software can be bypassed by imaging the drive, taking a physical copy of the data at its most basic level.
Firmware on a physical device can offer that protection though, if it has sufficient means to prevent said imaging.
There are products which already do that.

I think if it were as simple as the police imaging the drive and accessing the information within it would had been done a long time ago.

I'm sure there are drive encryption programs that offer some kind of fail safe drive deletion password. But I don't know how to work that for a google search to get any to show up for me. I'd be interested in reading about them if you know of any. I'm sure their website would have information on the legality of such a function or what I'm assuming is a definite grey area. I think there are already programs that offer drive deletion after a certain number of incorrect password entries. Providing a password and having them incorrectly enter it a couple of times, I'm sure would be "lawful".

[melodramocracy]

I'm wondering how this isn't a pretty clear infringement of his fifth amendment rights.

[Kellhound]

I'm wondering how this isn't a pretty clear infringement of his fifth amendment rights.

That is exactly what the appeals courts will be deciding. i do not personally think forcing people to give up passwords or use body parts to unlock devices should fly. If the authorities can crack the codes themselves that's fine though.

[Zeta333]

I'm sure you don't think the UN has any say in the matter...

However, article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights disagrees with your statement.

i dont think this is a arbitrary attack on his privacy.

- - - Updated - - -

Just because you can voluntarily suspend your right to privacy in order to gain whatever benefits there are in the military - doesn't mean it's not a human right.

By your logic right to life is not a human right - because people get killed.

- - - Updated - - -



It's better to resurrect Hitler and pardon him because it all was so long ago than imprison a single innocent person. Hence why all civilized countries have no death penalty.

Not to mention that watching child porn is not a serious crime, I wouldn't even make it a crime as it hurts less than no one.

Human rights are a social invention and not a universal fact.

[Tackhisis]

fifth amendment rights.

Evidence is not a testimony. You cannot incriminate yourself by providing evidence of any kind.

[Varitok]

Indefinite incarceration without any charges? Oh wow.

[Elim Garak]

lol and with that you lost all credit that you have any intellect.

why do you think child porn exists? because there is a demand for it, so children are abused raped and tortured because people will pay to see it.

That's bullshit. Would you abuse, rape and torture children on tape if I were to pay you 1 million bucks for it with an attached risk of imprisonment? it takes a special kind of monster to do Child Porn. They do not do it because there's a demand, they do it because they WANT to do it and then there's a demand for it so they can enjoy it and make some money. There are a lot of easier and legal ways to turn a way bigger profit than doing child porn. Sane people do not do child porn. Insane people will do it because they want to. Demand or no demand. They should be isolated from society.

Watching child porn is a victimless crime.

this is why the internet is good, you can be anonymous and say hey watching child porn is a victimless crime and no-one can beat the shit out of you for being sick in the head.

And you can be a tough guy!

- - - Updated - - -

Human rights are a social invention and not a universal fact.

And the water is wet, even though "wet" is a human construct, just like the words we are using, computers, the court system.

What was your point again?

[Fugus]

The thing is:
The Prosicution is sure that there is ChildPorn on that HDD. They dont know for Sure, (Thats why they need his Password).
If you now jail them for, as you word it "withholding evidence", indefinitely. You can put anyone in jail for anything.

Oh, I think that guy shot someone, but I cant find the murder weapon. But he MUST know where it is. Jail him until he tells me.
Oh, he probably stole a car, but I dunno where he sold it. But he MUST know where it is. Jail him until he tells me.

Again, you are putting the burden of proof much lower than it actually is.

The prosecution had a level of probable cause high enough to actually get a judge to sign a search warrant for it. They had the mans own sister testifying that he showed her the material as well.

At this point, after 2 years, the can make the claim that he no longer remembers but when this was signed, it was such that the judge ruled that he still did know the password and was refusing to give it.


And no, that "I think that guy shot someone" is off. It is more like, we have witnesses saying that you shot this person and your sister says you put the gun in this safe, we need access to it and here is a search warrant.

They respond, "Oh, I forgot the combination".
So you respond, "But you accessed it earlier today from what we gather and your own family said you did yesterday and you have been using it for a long time".
They respond, "Yeah... But I forgot it since then"

So the judge responds, "You have been using this combination number for months or years, you had used it within 24 hours of the warrant and we have witnesses that say you shot them and that you put the murder weapon in that safe, it is reasonably believed that you still know this number and are willingly refusing to give it, you will be held in contempt until such time you give the combination to said safe".


That is more in line with what the OP was describing.

[Halicia]

I'm wondering how this isn't a pretty clear infringement of his fifth amendment rights.

Because once someone accuses you of a sex crime, you lose all rights.

The big thing here to me is the rule of thumb, "don't talk to cops".

Look at this like a BS traffic stop. Cop demands you open your trunk for him to make sure you aren't some sort of criminal, and unbeknownst to you, your crackhead neighbor's been hiding his stash in your vehicle and the cop finds it. You're !@#$ed.

Now take it to illegal data. People don't store it on their own devices. If someone in Thailand's stashed something on yours without you knowing, you're !@#$ed. Cops don't give a !@#$ if its someone in Thailand, it won't help their arrest numbers any. Prosecutor doesn't care, they need you to plea out so they can get to the next case.

What should you do ? Tell them "No."

[SherriMayim]

The solution is simple. We just need to make child abuse a misdemeanor rather than a full blown felony.

[LanToaster]

Again, you are putting the burden of proof much lower than it actually is.

The Burden of Proof.
So, I go to the Police and say: You shot a man, with a gun in a safe you buried in the woods. I saw you access the Safe on a daily basis, also the Corpse is buried next to the safe.

Does this warant indefinite Jailtime? Because thats what you described.

Just to make it a bit Deeper, I also planted a Safe with a Corpse in the woods for them to find. Good Luck providing the Combination for that safe.

[Krastyn]

He is not.
At least he is not more a witness against himself as if he lets the police into his home where they may find a stashed murder weapon.

Still hilarious though, that in 2 years the police still can't crack the encryption.

That's a false comparison. Opening a door to your house is a purely physical act, and requires not unique knowledge known only to him.