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

[Kellhound]

That is not an encryption a person can use.

- - - Updated - - -

Because the safe can be opened without a combination, and encrypted data cannot.

It can be, given enough time and processing power, but that does not negate the fact that giving up a password is something you know vs something you have.

[Fugus]

You can't make a distinction between can't and won't though as it is pretty much impossible to prove. So what should happen to them?

You can make some distinction. If it can be proved that they just won't then they should be hit with obstruction of justice. But that would have to be pretty high bar to clear with the burden of proof.

If that bar of proof can not be hit, then you can't prove obstruction so no logical punishment.

In this exact case, I would say if they could hit that bar of proof at the start, I would have hit him with obstruction then. But that isn't the law now and as it stands, he does have every reasonable doubt that he did legitimately forget.

[nyc81991]

The guy is clearly a scumbag. However, he should not be in jail over a refusal to access a hard drive. It sounds like there should have been enough evidence to get him convicted without the hard drive.

According to the post (assuming it's true) "content stored on the encrypted hard drive matched file hashes for known child pornography content".


All the guy had to do was remember his password to get out of that charge if he was innocent. I think it's more than safe to say he didn't simply "forget it".

[Kellhound]

After reading the actual PDF linked to the [source, page 5] hyperlink on the story's original site, the dude should be held until he cooperates. If you're arguing that the law should be changed to avoid said loopholes from being used, fine, but from a law perspective, INCLUDING his silly 5th Amendment argument that a couple of you are still championing, he's wrong.

The officers had probable cause AND they received a warrant to obtain said HDDs. Also, if you read the actual PDF file, the HDD wasn't the only thing that was obtained. He had an iPhone that had encrypted files on it as well, and on the day he supposedly "forgot" his HDD passwords, he remembered and gained access to the encrypted files on the phone which netted investigators adult pornography, and moderately suggestive photos Rawls took of his young niece which only added heavily to the probable cause the police already had.

Also, it was found in court that there was considerable doubt that Rawls "forgot" his passwords. Many believed, based on court findings, he was purposely putting in fake passwords knowing they would fail so he could simply say "I forgot them."

And to top it all off, when he originally argued that his contempt conviction should be thrown out due to the 5th amendment, he was told that it didn't apply to him and he didn't argue. I want those of you arguing that the judge was wrong to read that again... He. Did. Not. Argue. The judge even mentioned that "a failure to file timely objections may constitute a waiver in appellate rights." In other words, he screwed himself.

Either way: probable cause existed, a warrant was produced, the writ forced decryption because without it the warrant could not be reasonably completed, he did not comply, he's being held in contempt, and his argument regarding the 5th amendment literally has no legal merit.

Those of you arguing the judge(s) are wrong are incorrect. He will either sit in jail until he unlocks the HDDs or he will sit in jail once he does for having disgusting, horrid content on them. No matter the outcome, he probably dies in jail.

The warrant was completed, the police have the harddrive and every 1 and 0 on it. That they cant make heads or tails about what those 1s and 0s mean is TFB.

- - - Updated - - -

And again, the judges, who decide what laws apply where, have decided the Fifth amendment does not apply to this situation.

Actually, only the SCOTUS has the final say when a law does and does not apply.

- - - Updated - - -

You can make some distinction. If it can be proved that they just won't then they should be hit with obstruction of justice. But that would have to be pretty high bar to clear with the burden of proof.

If that bar of proof can not be hit, then you can't prove obstruction so no logical punishment.

In this exact case, I would say if they could hit that bar of proof at the start, I would have hit him with obstruction then. But that isn't the law now and as it stands, he does have every reasonable doubt that he did legitimately forget.

By that reasoning, invoking the 5th should be obstruction.

[Machismo]

According to the post (assuming it's true) "content stored on the encrypted hard drive matched file hashes for known child pornography content".


All the guy had to do was remember his password to get out of that charge if he was innocent. I think it's more than safe to say he didn't simply "forget it".

Of course he didn't just forget it. Hes clearly a shitty human being, but that doesn't mean he has no rights. I have very little doubt that that hard drive is filled with terrible things, but it's still up to the government to prove it. The evidence was provided, it shouldn't be up to him to access it for the government.

[Kellhound]

According to the post (assuming it's true) "content stored on the encrypted hard drive matched file hashes for known child pornography content".


All the guy had to do was remember his password to get out of that charge if he was innocent. I think it's more than safe to say he didn't simply "forget it".

If the drive is encrypted, I would like to know how they determined the hash....

[Fugus]

By that reasoning, invoking the 5th should be obstruction.

No, it should not. Giving a key is not logically giving a testimony. Giving an actual testimony would still be protected by the 5th amendment.

A key is not telling them of events, plans, states of mind or anything about any events or thoughts on events. It is giving up a key which they could not logically compel to do without a judge signing off on under oath of probable cause.

Too many can't seem to make that distinction. Unlock this safe is not the same as What you did, what your plans where, your thoughts on stuff, or you opinions or anything else. That logic is about as dumb as all those patents you see where they just add "On a computer" onto it and pretend it was something new.

[Kellhound]

No, it should not. Giving a key is not logically giving a testimony. Giving an actual testimony would still be protected by the 5th amendment.

A key is not telling them of events, plans, states of mind or anything about any events or thoughts on events. It is giving up a key which they could not logically compel to do without a judge signing off on under oath of probable cause.

Too many can't seem to make that distinction. Unlock this safe is not the same as What you did, what your plans where, your thoughts on stuff, or you opinions or anything else. That logic is about as dumb as all those patents you see where they just add "On a computer" onto it and pretend it was something new.

Testimony is what you know, it is not something physical. A key is physical, a code is not. An encrypted file is like any code. You are saying that if I write a book cipher I should have to tell the police what book to use to decode it?

[Fugus]

Testimony is what you know, it is not something physical. A key is physical, a code is not. An encrypted file is like any code. You are saying that if I write a book cipher I should have to tell the police what book to use to decode it?

That is one why to say it because basically that is what giving a password is. And I would completely support it still.

The police still have no right to force you to give them that book regardless of what they want. Unless they get a judge to sign a court order to check the contents of it under a reasonable probably cause.

At which point you can still claim you "Forgot" at which point they would have to meet the bar of proof that you didn't forget.

But you are still splitting hairs on this one. Refusing to allow them to search contents with a valid search order on record. They aren't asking to you incriminate yourself, they are asking to search what is already there. You aren't telling them what or were to search either.

Congrats though on the analogy, you give the most accurate one I have seen on this subject so far.

[Kellhound]

That is one why to say it because basically that is what giving a password is. And I would completely support it still.

The police still have no right to force you to give them that book regardless of what they want. Unless they get a judge to sign a court order to check the contents of it under a reasonable probably cause.

At which point you can still claim you "Forgot" at which point they would have to meet the bar of proof that you didn't forget.

But you are still splitting hairs on this one. Refusing to allow them to search contents with a valid search order on record. They aren't asking to you incriminate yourself, they are asking to search what is already there. You aren't telling them what or were to search either.

Congrats though on the analogy, you give the most accurate one I have seen on this subject so far.

A book code requires a specific book to decode, such as the first printing of The Wizard of Oz. Its the knowledge to decode what you wrote. It also helps prove you wrote it, as a thought is not something often just lying around. They are perfectly free to look at everything, it is not the accused's duty to tell them how to make sense of it.
You are also under the laughable idea that all judges actually care what the evidence is before taking out their rubber stamp to ok every warrant given to them.

[Krastyn]

According to the post (assuming it's true) "content stored on the encrypted hard drive matched file hashes for known child pornography content".


All the guy had to do was remember his password to get out of that charge if he was innocent. I think it's more than safe to say he didn't simply "forget it".

To your first part, the article is incorrect. Content on the computer itself has hashes that match. They are making a "best guess" that the external drives "possibly" contain similar files.

To the second, the issue people are taking are not with the guy himself. He doesn't seem like a great guy. The issue is whether the state should be able to indefinitely incarcerate someone for failing to provide a password. If it is allowed, that is open to some major avenues of abuse.

[Fugus]

A book code requires a specific book to decode, such as the first printing of The Wizard of Oz. Its the knowledge to decode what you wrote. It also helps prove you wrote it, as a thought is not something often just lying around. They are perfectly free to look at everything, it is not the accused's duty to tell them how to make sense of it.
You are also under the laughable idea that all judges actually care what the evidence is before taking out their rubber stamp to ok every warrant given to them.

Close, but this is a case where they already know you wrote and have an idea of what you wrote already. You just locked the other book away where they already know where it is and refuse to give it to them even with a search order.

The whole thing about the rubber stamp courts, is another issue itself but one I also have issues with.

If I wrote a book in code with a decryption cipher and then locked the book to decode it away behind a safe and they already know I wrote that book and that I wrote a cipher to decode it and know I locked it in a safe and I refuse to turn it over with a valid court order, wouldn't that be a crime?

- - - Updated - - -

To your first part, the article is incorrect. Content on the computer itself has hashes that match. They are making a "best guess" that the external drives "possibly" contain similar files.

To the second, the issue people are taking are not with the guy himself. He doesn't seem like a great guy. The issue is whether the state should be able to indefinitely incarcerate someone for failing to provide a password. If it is allowed, that is open to some major avenues of abuse.

Now this, is something I truly fear but not sure how to reconcile the two that both allows for the privacy of others without the police able to just force their way in along with people with any knowledge just being able to encrypt everything to get around any search orders.

[Deleted]

so your saying we can just allow criminals to document and lock up all thier evidence and when we ask them to open it with a court order they dont have to?

As far as my opinion goes, this is the current law...if they want people to decrypt their information they need to update the law in order to force them to open it up. Make a law that literally says you can jail a person as long as they refuse to decrypt a hard drive for all I care.

But as long as it isn't...don't force a person to do something they shouldn't do by law.

[Kellhound]

Close, but this is a case where they already know you wrote and have an idea of what you wrote already. You just locked the other book away where they already know where it is and refuse to give it to them even with a search order.

The whole thing about the rubber stamp courts, is another issue itself but one I also have issues with.

If I wrote a book in code with a decryption cipher and then locked the book to decode it away behind a safe and they already know I wrote that book and that I wrote a cipher to decode it and know I locked it in a safe and I refuse to turn it over with a valid court order, wouldn't that be a crime?

- - - Updated - - -



Now this, is something a truly fear but not sure how to reconcile the two that both allows for the privacy of others without the police able to just force their way in along with people with any knowledge just being able to encrypt everything to get around any search orders.

1: The only THINK they know what is on the hard drive. If they actually knew they would be able to prosecute without decoding it.
2: A book is a physical object. If they know which one and where it is, they can strong arm their way in. But in this case all they know is it is a book, but not which one. 3: A court order to divulge what you know is not valid if you invoke the 5th, that is kinda the whole point.

A search warrant does not extend to you mind, that is the end of it.

[Fugus]

1: The only THINK they know what is on the hard drive. If they actually knew they would be able to prosecute without decoding it.
2: A book is a physical object. If they know which one and where it is, they can strong arm their way in. But in this case all they know is it is a book, but not which one. 3: A court order to divulge what you know is not valid if you invoke the 5th, that is kinda the whole point.

A search warrant does not extend to you mind, that is the end of it.

1) They already have probably cause and an idea of what is already on it given what they found on the PC itself. They already have an idea of what was there, they just need access to it to confirm.

2) Not quite, they know exactly which book it is, it is one you wrote yourself, they also know where it is as you have it stored, they just don't have access to it because you refuse to give it.

As for #3 and the rest, I have already addressed that early by saying that if precedent already say that they count, then as bad as that court ruling it, it is still the ruling.

And the whole point abut the 5th is to keep you from being forced not to incriminate yourself, unlocking a safe, a door, or a file is not self incrimination and does not logically apply. But again, the court cases already set the precedence that it is, as illogical as it is. The bad ruling still has the same legal weight as a good one till overturned or correct by another law or revision to a law.

[Kellhound]

1) They already have probably cause and an idea of what is already on it given what they found on the PC itself. They already have an idea of what was there, they just need access to it to confirm.

2) Not quite, they know exactly which book it is, it is one you wrote yourself, they also know where it is as you have it stored, they just don't have access to it because you refuse to give it.

As for #3 and the rest, I have already addressed that early by saying that if precedent already say that they count, then as bad as that court ruling it, it is still the ruling.

And the whole point abut the 5th is to keep you from being forced not to incriminate yourself, unlocking a safe, a door, or a file is not self incrimination and does not logically apply. But again, the court cases already set the precedence that it is, as illogical as it is. The bad ruling still has the same legal weight as a good one till overturned or correct by another law or revision to a law.

An idea of what is there is not the same as knowing what is there.

No, they DONT know which book to use, they are trying to force him to tell them, that is the point.

The thing is, knowing the password to an encrypted drive IS incriminating. And no, ruling that divulging WHAT YOU KNOW is protected by the 5th is not a bad ruling. There is a MASSIVE difference between a physical object and a thought.

[Dsc]

That is scary to me. I have a seizure condition (rarely get them nowdays) after which my head is messed up. I was once in a 40 day medically induced coma and couldn't remember crap after. If I have a bad one I forget passwords and the such. Mine are written down in a safe just incase.

That Said, hopefully I'll never be remotely in trouble with the law. kiddie crap has never been on my radar, nor financial fraud ect.

IMO they should just get the Izzys to crack it for them, like they did the Ali Babba's Iphone, then take him out back and shoot him.

[Fugus]

An idea of what is there is not the same as knowing what is there.

No, they DONT know which book to use, they are trying to force him to tell them, that is the point.

The thing is, knowing the password to an encrypted drive IS incriminating. And no, ruling that divulging WHAT YOU KNOW is protected by the 5th is not a bad ruling. There is a MASSIVE difference between a physical object and a thought.

No, they know exactly what the book is, they know where it is, they just don't know the contents of it because he has it locked up and won't release it.

And again, no, knowing the password to your own drive is not incriminating because it is already established that it was his drive. Now if it was just some random drive that they didn't know the owner to, then you would have a point.

And again, it IS a bad ruling because it is not asking to incriminate ones self as it is not asking for knowledge about his events or any such thing, they are asking for a key.

There is a massive difference between incrimination and just handing over a key they already know you have. Quite literally this is a case where someone just put "On a computer on it" and tried to pretend it was something different.

- - - Updated - - -

That is scary to me. I have a seizure condition (rarely get them nowdays) after which my head is messed up. I was once in a 40 day medically induced coma and couldn't remember crap after. If I have a bad one I forget passwords and the such. Mine are written down in a safe just incase.

That Said, hopefully I'll never be remotely in trouble with the law. kiddie crap has never been on my radar, nor financial fraud ect.

IMO they should just get the Izzys to crack it for them, like they did the Ali Babba's Iphone, then take him out back and shoot him.

Phones are much easier to break as they normally have something like 10,000 options from the pin pad and they just clone the contents of the phone to keep trying till they get it.

A computer setup is much harder as the possible number of combinations are so huge the people would die of old age before they broke it for most things.

[cparle87]

The warrant was completed, the police have the harddrive and every 1 and 0 on it. That they cant make heads or tails about what those 1s and 0s mean is TFB.

- - - Updated - - -



Actually, only the SCOTUS has the final say when a law does and does not apply.

- - - Updated - - -



By that reasoning, invoking the 5th should be obstruction.

The Supreme Court only gets involved after a very long involved process involving lower courts. Until a higher court hears a case and rules against it, the rulings of the lower courts are still binding.

[Kellhound]

No, they know exactly what the book is, they know where it is, they just don't know the contents of it because he has it locked up and won't release it.

And again, no, knowing the password to your own drive is not incriminating because it is already established that it was his drive. Now if it was just some random drive that they didn't know the owner to, then you would have a point.

And again, it IS a bad ruling because it is not asking to incriminate ones self as it is not asking for knowledge about his events or any such thing, they are asking for a key.

There is a massive difference between incrimination and just handing over a key they already know you have. Quite literally this is a case where someone just put "On a computer on it" and tried to pretend it was something different.

- - - Updated - - -



Phones are much easier to break as they normally have something like 10,000 options from the pin pad and they just clone the contents of the phone to keep trying till they get it.

A computer setup is much harder as the possible number of combinations are so huge the people would die of old age before they broke it for most things.

Again, going back to the premise of a book code, they know it's a book, but they have no idea which book. Drive encryption is not like locking papers in a safe (that is your general login password), it is encoding those papers and then putting them in the safe. They have the "safe" and they have opened it. They just cant decypher what is in it. Do you understand the difference?

Unless it can be proven that literally no other person ever had access to an encrypted drive, knowing the password is incriminating.

- - - Updated - - -

The Supreme Court only gets involved after a very long involved process involving lower courts. Until a higher court hears a case and rules against it, the rulings of the lower courts are still binding.

They are of limited jurisdiction, and ultimately, every judge in the US save 5 can rule that something is legal but if those 5 that rule its illegal are on the SCOTUS, it is illegal throughout the US.