Page 17 of 22 FirstFirst ...
7
15
16
17
18
19
... LastLast
  1. #321
    Quote Originally Posted by Sting View Post
    Nice theoretical, but the practical case even has file hashes that match other documented cases of child pornography. This guy is guilty as hell and if they can't convict him for that just let him rot in prison for whatever other reason they can think off. That seems like justice to me.

    - - - Updated - - -



    If there was a market large enough to make snuff films profitable, you can bet your ass that rules would be made to make possession illegal.
    It's not okay to say he is guilty and make him rot when there is no proof and he isn't even charged with anything besides contempt for not being able to remember his password.

  2. #322
    The Unstoppable Force Elim Garak's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    DS9
    Posts
    20,295
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeta333 View Post
    So the fact that the people that do this to children are getting paid to keep doing it by the guy thats stitting in jail is ok? You are so fucking clearly out of touch with reality that you claim collecting child porn is a victim-less crime. People like you are whats wrong with society.
    Again, people who do this to children do not do it for money. Little money that they get is a side effect. Not to mention that all porn is available for free, including the child porn.
    And It doesn't matter if a billion people will watch it. Nothing will change in that "molestation" bit. A child has been molested. Regardless of who pays to watch it. There's no child porn industry. There are sick animals who molest children on tape. They will do it regardless. We should focus our efforts on them rather than going for watchers who in fact are better off watching than living it, wouldn't you agree?

    People like you is the reason government ruins lives of innocents.
    All right, gentleperchildren, let's review. The year is 2024 - that's two-zero-two-four, as in the 21st Century's perfect vision - and I am sorry to say the world has become a pussy-whipped, Brady Bunch version of itself, run by a bunch of still-masked clots ridden infertile senile sissies who want the Last Ukrainian to die so they can get on with the War on China, with some middle-eastern genocide on the side

  3. #323
    Old God Mistame's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Over Yonder
    Posts
    10,111
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeta333 View Post
    you collect and view child porn for pleasure, your not different or better in my book. You get equally fucked in prison as well.
    TIL: Someone who looks at children is as bad as someone who diddles children.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flarelaine View Post
    How about the rights of those children he would go on assaulting if released?
    You can't keep someone in jail because of "what ifs". That's not how any civilized society's justice system works.

  4. #324
    The Lightbringer
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,071
    Gotta admit it would be funny if he was innocent and just didn't remember the password (I honestly don't think he Innocent).

  5. #325
    Quote Originally Posted by Sting View Post
    Nice theoretical, but the practical case even has file hashes that match other documented cases of child pornography. This guy is guilty as hell and if they can't convict him for that just let him rot in prison for whatever other reason they can think off. That seems like justice to me.
    It is a nice theoretical, but it is also what the future could look like. As I've posted before in the thread, if you're ok with this then:

    Step 1 - Have access to a person's comptuer
    Step 2 - Visit some bad sites, download, then delete some files.
    Step 3 - Plug in an encrypted external drive.
    Step 4 - Call Police
    Step 5 - That person is now indefinitely in jail because they can't remember the password to the drive.

  6. #326
    Quote Originally Posted by Krastyn View Post
    Step 3 - Plug in an encrypted external drive.
    There is no doubt the person owns the disk in question.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by ge0 View Post
    But if he doesn't, and he really doesn't remember the password, is it okay that an innocent man will be in jail for the rest of his life for "refusing to comply?"
    He knew what he was into when he decided to use cryptography. You take all the responsibility for any illegal activity, including messing with the investigation.

  7. #327
    Quote Originally Posted by Tackhisis View Post
    There is no doubt the person owns the disk in question.
    Irrelevant. If the police search a persons home and finds an external drive, how is that person supposed to prove it isn't theirs?

    He knew what he was into when he decided to use cryptography. You take all the responsibility for any illegal activity, including messing with the investigation.
    So if I lock my house, am I taking responsibility for any illegal activity that happens inside it, regardless of who does it?

  8. #328
    Quote Originally Posted by Krastyn View Post
    If the police search a persons home and finds an external drive
    It isn't. The police has to prove beyond the reasonable doubt who owns it.
    So if I lock my house, am I taking responsibility for any illegal activity that happens inside it, regardless of who does it?
    If you are the only person who can open it, you definitely are.

  9. #329
    Quote Originally Posted by Tackhisis View Post
    It isn't. The police has to prove beyond the reasonable doubt who owns it.
    Not really. If a person lives alone, It's pretty reasonable to assume a hard drive in their house is theirs. Otherwise every criminal in history would just claim everything was planted.

    If you are the only person who can open it, you definitely are.
    Can you prove they are the only person who knows the password? Can you even prove they still know the password?

  10. #330
    Quote Originally Posted by Tackhisis View Post
    There is no doubt the person owns the disk in question.

    - - - Updated - - -

    He knew what he was into when he decided to use cryptography. You take all the responsibility for any illegal activity, including messing with the investigation.
    So anyone who values privacy has to take all the responsibility for any ALLEGED illegal activity?

    Just because encryption is not important to you doesn't mean it's not important to others.

  11. #331
    Quote Originally Posted by ge0 View Post
    So anyone who values privacy has to take all the responsibility for any ALLEGED illegal activity?
    Yes, those who use encryption,anonymisation, etc. are responsible for every criminal activity, alleged or not.
    doesn't mean it's not important to others.
    Encryption is important for criminals. It is not important for other citizens.

  12. #332
    Quote Originally Posted by Tackhisis View Post
    Yes, those who use encryption,anonymisation, etc. are responsible for every criminal activity, alleged or not.
    Encryption is important for criminals. It is not important for other citizens.
    I'm trying to understand why you think that is.

    Your line of reasoning must be something along the lines of: "because encryption is not important to me, and because criminals use it, it must only be useful to criminals and no one else."

    The reality is that most everyone should be using encryption. So much of the world's cyber problems occur because of a lack of security. I have a home-based business, and I encrypt sensitive data (ie. my passwords, financial info, etc.). I also encrypt all my personal files (pictures, school work, writing, etc.). Why? Well for one, what if someone broke into my apartment and stole my computers? They'd have access to all that data! I sometimes remotely connect to my computer at home from my computer at school using TeamViewer. TeamViewer and other remote control apps in the past have had security issues that allowed hackers to gain access to PCs without authorization. I would be so incredibly fucked if that happened and my data was not protected in some way. I could spend all day talking about different ways encryption is useful and necessary for everyone who cares about security.

    If you do nothing on the computer except browse the web or play video games then maybe it doesn't matter. But you can't say that just because you have no legitimate legal use for it that other people do not. The fact criminals use encryption does not make it exclusively a criminal thing, much like the fact criminals use cash doesn't make cash exclusively a criminal thing.

  13. #333
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Hubcap View Post
    There has to be something really horrible on that hard drive.

    The jail time is for contempt of court I think.






    https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/new...ter-two-years/


    Francis Rawls, a former Philadelphia cop, will remain in jail for refusing to decrypt a hard drive federal investigators found in his home two years ago during a child abuse investigation.

    A judge ordered the man to prison almost two years ago after the suspect claimed he forgot the password of an encrypted Apple FileVault system investigators found attached to his computer while performing a house search.

    Investigators said content stored on the encrypted hard drive matched file hashes for known child pornography content [source, page 5]. In addition, the man's sister told investigators that her brother had showed her numerous photos and videos of child abuse and adult material.

    Rawls sent to prison in 2015
    Authorities tried to make Rawls hand over the hard drive's password to verify claims, but he refused to comply. A federal judge found the man in contempt of court and sentenced him to an indefinite prison sentence until he was willing to cooperate.

    Rawls said later he forgot the password and even entered three incorrect passwords during previous meetings with investigators.

    The suspect appealed the indefinite prison sentence twice, but both appeals failed. His lawyers tried to argue that holding him breaches his Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate himself, but appeal judges did not see it that way.

    Judges pointed out that the Fifth Amendment only applies to witnesses and that the prosecutors didn't call him as a witness but only made a request for him to unlock his device, hence Fifth Amendment protections did not apply.

    Rawls files appeal with the Supreme Court
    Rawls' team has now filed an appeal with the US Supreme Court on the same grounds. His team also filed a request to have Rawls released during his Supreme Court appeal as he's been held in court for more than 18 months, the standard punishment for contempt of court.

    A judge declined the request saying that Rawls was not charged under a standard law (28 USC § 1826), but under All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. § 1651), hence he can be detained indefinitely.

    This ancient piece of legislation dictates that US citizens must aide any law enforcement investigation. The prosecution used this legal trickery to avoid calling Rawls as a witness. This is also the same piece of legislation the FBI used against Apple when it tried to force the company to unlock the phone of the San Bernardino mass-shooter.

    The government also said that Rawls doesn't have to provide them with his password anymore, as they only need him to perform the act of unlocking the hard drive.
    I hope he rots in jail - and I love the legal maneuver to avoid any 5th amendment issues (or hopefully avoid).

  14. #334
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    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.
    If you refuse to comply to an order of the court, you are in contempt of court. Plain and simple. From what I gather, one can be detained for contempt of court for as long as he refuses to obey the court's order.

  15. #335
    Quote Originally Posted by McTroll View Post
    If you refuse to comply to an order of the court, you are in contempt of court. Plain and simple. From what I gather, one can be detained for contempt of court for as long as he refuses to obey the court's order.
    And I'm saying that the order of the court is unnecessarily invasive. Just because a court orders something, doesn't mean the court is right. I look forward to this going all the way to the Supreme Court.

  16. #336
    Old God Mistame's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Over Yonder
    Posts
    10,111
    Quote Originally Posted by McTroll View Post
    If you refuse to comply to an order of the court, you are in contempt of court. Plain and simple. From what I gather, one can be detained for contempt of court for as long as he refuses to obey the court's order.
    A court's authority is limited to the law and thus, any court order issued that falls outside of that scope is inherently invalid. The law in question just happens to be being misinterpreted thus making the court wrong.

  17. #337
    Quote Originally Posted by Mistame View Post
    A court's authority is limited to the law and thus, any court order issued that falls outside of that scope is inherently invalid. The law in question just happens to be being misinterpreted thus making the court wrong.
    And how exactly is it being misinterpreted in this case? If the relevance of the HDD contents is successfully brought into the case, I'd say the scope becomes valid.

  18. #338
    Old God Mistame's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Over Yonder
    Posts
    10,111
    Quote Originally Posted by McTroll View Post
    And how exactly is it being misinterpreted in this case? If the relevance of the HDD contents is successfully brought into the case, I'd say the scope becomes valid.
    The 5th Amendment protects one from being compelled provide testimony against oneself. This means any knowledge that you have that could be used against you is protected.

  19. #339
    yea I'm sorry but this is the same as unlocking your phone. You shouldn't legally be required to incriminate yourself by giving up evidence in your possession. They can force you to stand at the door while they collect things from your home. But if they can't physically collect whatever the hell they're asking for it's not my job to do it for them and self incriminate.

  20. #340
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by prwraith View Post
    yea I'm sorry but this is the same as unlocking your phone. You shouldn't legally be required to incriminate yourself by giving up evidence in your possession. They can force you to stand at the door while they collect things from your home. But if they can't physically collect whatever the hell they're asking for it's not my job to do it for them and self incriminate.
    Opening the door to your house is the same analogy as opening the lock on your phone, at least legally speaking. I see what you're getting at, and the prosecutor in this situation has to do some ducking and dodging to get the Contempt Order to stand.

    Self incrimination typically goes towards statements that can be used against you. This is just, almost literally, asking for access to your "garage" of junk. They'll collect it, they just need you to open the door.

    These situations are rarely clear cut. But this monster (albeit innocent until proven guilty) seems to be serving society well in jail.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •