Page 18 of 22 FirstFirst ...
8
16
17
18
19
20
... LastLast
  1. #341
    Quote Originally Posted by Fugus View Post
    Not 100% sure on it but I believe that is the logic. They aren't asking to incriminate himself with his own testimony, they are asking him to unlock something where they already have probable cause to believe it has illegal stuff on it with a warrant. And so, his rights aren't directly being violated because he has the keys to his cell figuratively and may leave any time he wish just by unlocking the device they already have the warrant to search.
    For this to be true ther would have to be proof that he does in fact have the key to decrypt the device,otherwise they are holding him for not remembering the key. This is like asking a mute guy to speak up or be held indefinitely for contempt of court. The court should be required to prove that their demand is actually possible for the person in question before they can hold someone in contempt, otherwise they are just a kangaroo court.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Vizardlorde View Post
    he is not in jail for child pornography he is in jail for not complying with a court order which he is guilty of.
    Do you have proof that remembers the key they ask for?

  2. #342
    Quote Originally Posted by Noradin View Post
    For this to be true ther would have to be proof that he does in fact have the key to decrypt the device,otherwise they are holding him for not remembering the key. This is like asking a mute guy to speak up or be held indefinitely for contempt of court. The court should be required to prove that their demand is actually possible for the person in question before they can hold someone in contempt, otherwise they are just a kangaroo court.
    Like I said before, at this point, he does a solid claim that he forgot after 2 years and should be able to be released on it.

    At the time, 2 years ago, they evidently had enough on him to believe that he did know it. Now whether that was a legit verdict or he was railroaded on it is another matter.
    Since we can't call out Trolls and Bad Faith posters and the Ignore function doesn't actually ignore it. Add
    "mmo-champion.com##li.postbitignored"
    to your ublock or adblock filter to actually ignore ignored posters. Now just need a way to ignore responses to them as well.

  3. #343
    Quote Originally Posted by Fugus View Post
    If he can argue that in court, they will have to release him because then he really does not know. But so long as they have reason to believe he knows it, he is holding his own key to his cell as far as the courts are concerned.
    So you are saying they can hold him indefinitely as long as they claim he is lying about his memory?
    Great "justice" system where your rights disappear as soon as you forget something and some judge knows about it.

  4. #344
    The Lightbringer Molis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    3,054
    Did anyone try 1-2-3-4-5 on the firewall password?

  5. #345
    rot in jail pedo

  6. #346
    [QUOTE=Socialhealer;47187251]TLDR = please let the person go free, there's no evidence.

    QUOTE]

    Yes this is exactly how it is meant to work no matter how horrible the person is because it helps protect the actually innocent from an abusive legal system, or is meant to.

  7. #347
    [QUOTE=Vetis;47216733]
    Quote Originally Posted by Socialhealer View Post
    TLDR = please let the person go free, there's no evidence.

    QUOTE]

    Yes this is exactly how it is meant to work no matter how horrible the person is because it helps protect the actually innocent from an abusive legal system, or is meant to.
    good then all criminals can just keep records of crimes on encrypted drives we'll just let them all go free because they refuse to open them, sounds perfect.

  8. #348
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    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.
    It really isn't, just because you like that fantasy of yours does not make it reality.
    Encryption is not a "door" with a "key" and clueless people calling it one does not make it one.

  9. #349
    Quote Originally Posted by Noradin View Post
    So you are saying they can hold him indefinitely as long as they claim he is lying about his memory?
    Great "justice" system where your rights disappear as soon as you forget something and some judge knows about it.
    No, they have to have some level of credible proof to go with it. I honestly hope the Judges are held to a higher standard than the Department of Veteran Affairs disability board or social security......

    Crap, that really makes it sound worse....
    Since we can't call out Trolls and Bad Faith posters and the Ignore function doesn't actually ignore it. Add
    "mmo-champion.com##li.postbitignored"
    to your ublock or adblock filter to actually ignore ignored posters. Now just need a way to ignore responses to them as well.

  10. #350
    At this point it seems reasonable to assume that what he has there is enough to have current situation as preferable.
    If he really hasn't forgotten the password, which does seem like bullshit.

  11. #351
    Quote Originally Posted by Noradin View Post
    It really isn't, just because you like that fantasy of yours does not make it reality.
    Encryption is not a "door" with a "key" and clueless people calling it one does not make it one.
    Except of course, that is quite literally what symmetric cryptography is.

  12. #352
    Old God Mistame's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Over Yonder
    Posts
    10,111
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Opening the door to your house is the same analogy as opening the lock on your phone, at least legally speaking.
    The only way that analogy would be valid is if your doors had keypad locks, in which case you do not have to give them pass code, but they can break the door down, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Self incrimination typically goes towards statements that can be used against you.
    Self incrimination covers any information that you have in your head. Period.

    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    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.
    You cannot be forced to open the door for anyone. It's their responsibility to gain access, even if it means pulling the door off.

  13. #353
    Quote Originally Posted by Mistame View Post
    You cannot be forced to open the door for anyone. It's their responsibility to gain access, even if it means pulling the door off.
    Actually, I believe you can be forced to. If you have a safe with a key and you refuse to turn over the key to open it with a valid search order, they could hold you for that.
    Since we can't call out Trolls and Bad Faith posters and the Ignore function doesn't actually ignore it. Add
    "mmo-champion.com##li.postbitignored"
    to your ublock or adblock filter to actually ignore ignored posters. Now just need a way to ignore responses to them as well.

  14. #354
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Noradin View Post
    It really isn't, just because you like that fantasy of yours does not make it reality.
    Encryption is not a "door" with a "key" and clueless people calling it one does not make it one.
    Encryption is precisely that - a door with a key. And clueless people saying otherwise does not change that fact. And the courts agree. Which is why he's still behind bars.

  15. #355
    Quote Originally Posted by Fugus View Post
    Actually, I believe you can be forced to. If you have a safe with a key and you refuse to turn over the key to open it with a valid search order, they could hold you for that.
    If the safe has a key, yes.

    If the safe has a combination, no.

    There is a massive difference legally speaking between asking someone to provide something physical, versus asking them to supply something mental. There is a large legal precedent that combinations and passwords are protected by the 5th.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Encryption is precisely that - a door with a key. And clueless people saying otherwise does not change that fact. And the courts agree. Which is why he's still behind bars.
    The courts do not agree. You're just choosing to ignore any court cases that don't agree with you. Multiple courts have ruled that you cannot be forced to hand over a password unless it can be proved that what they will find is a "forgone conclusion".

  16. #356
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Mistame View Post
    The only way that analogy would be valid is if your doors had keypad locks, in which case you do not have to give them pass code, but they can break the door down, etc.
    Which is precisely what encryption is - you're trying to attack an analogy without understanding the underlying legal principle. The analogy is sound - and the courts agree.



    Self incrimination covers any information that you have in your head. Period.
    You mean like bank account numbers? Addresses? You are entirely incorrect - and the courts, including SCOTUS, agree. The 5th is not unlimited. In several different areas. Including, encrypted devices.



    You cannot be forced to open the door for anyone. It's their responsibility to gain access, even if it means pulling the door off.
    Now you're taking the analogy to an invalid area - again, account numbers, addresses. There is a variety of information that is not protected by the 5th amendment - and courts can compel people to reveal that information or face contempt.

    Contempt charges are how the courts "break down the door".

  17. #357
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Which is precisely what encryption is - you're trying to attack an analogy without understanding the underlying legal principle. The analogy is sound - and the courts agree.
    I'll leave this here for you again:
    The only published federal appellate court opinion regarding the application of the Fifth Amendment to the testimonial act of decryption is In re Grand Jury
    Subpoena, 670 F.3d 1335. There, the Eleventh Circuit began its analysis by stating a two-part test for determining whether decryption was testimonial: first, whether
    the decryption “would make use of the contents of his or her mind”; and second, whether the government could show with “reasonable particularity” that any testimonial aspects of the decryption were “foregone conclusions.” Id. at 1345-46.

    As to the first step, the court held that decryption is testimony about a suspect’s “knowledge of the existence and location of potentially incriminating files”; of their “possession, control, and access to the encrypted portions of the drives”; and of their “capability to decrypt the files.” Id. at 1346. These communicative acts of decryption “would certainly use the contents of his mind.” Id. at 1349. As explained above, this is true of all password-based decryption.

  18. #358
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Krastyn View Post
    If the safe has a key, yes.

    If the safe has a combination, no.

    There is a massive difference legally speaking between asking someone to provide something physical, versus asking them to supply something mental. There is a large legal precedent that combinations and passwords are protected by the 5th.

    - - - Updated - - -



    The courts do not agree. You're just choosing to ignore any court cases that don't agree with you. Multiple courts have ruled that you cannot be forced to hand over a password unless it can be proved that what they will find is a "forgone conclusion".
    The courts in fact have very recently agreed - unless you haven't read the OP. Furthermore, the most recent legal decision in fact says that the 5th does not protect passwords - 3rd Circuit.

    The legal issues are extraordinary and with multiple Federal Circuit Court's chiming in we're more than likely to see SCOTUS accept and rule on the issue.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Krastyn View Post
    I'll leave this here for you again:
    Nice find - but not the only ruling. Great analysis from the Circuit Court, however.

    However, looking at the other cases, and the 11th's ruling, the other side seems to have better facts. I certainly hope that the Court takes new tech into consideration and rules in favor of the prosecution.
    Last edited by cubby; 2017-09-06 at 04:57 AM.

  19. #359
    Quote Originally Posted by Krastyn View Post
    If the safe has a key, yes.

    If the safe has a combination, no.

    There is a massive difference legally speaking between asking someone to provide something physical, versus asking them to supply something mental. There is a large legal precedent that combinations and passwords are protected by the 5th.
    Was reading up and I stand corrected:

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_te...passcodes.html

    " a federal judge in Pennsylvania said Wednesday that people cannot be forced to reveal passcodes, since that would violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination."

    It is based on cellphone combinations but would apply equally to encryption and combination safes. And dated 2015.

    They can force you to give DNA samples, Voice Samples, Writing Samples, Finger Prints, or Go in a line up but they can not ask force you to give anything from memory.

    So this will probably be appealed further up the chain.
    Since we can't call out Trolls and Bad Faith posters and the Ignore function doesn't actually ignore it. Add
    "mmo-champion.com##li.postbitignored"
    to your ublock or adblock filter to actually ignore ignored posters. Now just need a way to ignore responses to them as well.

  20. #360
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    However, looking at the other cases, and the 11th's ruling, the other side seems to have better facts. I certainly hope that the Court takes new tech into consideration and rules in favor of the prosecution.
    This case does not invalidate the 5th. If anything, it actually reinforces it.

    After the inital arrest, Rawls plead the 5th. The state got a court order to turn over the password, and it was rejected on the grounds of the 5th. It was only after the state got a new court order based off the All Writs Act.

    That is the key thing here. The All Writs Act bypasses the 5th, because it claims what they are requesting is a purely procedural matter. They can only do this if the state can prove that they won't gain any new information from the act of decryption, that what they will find is a "forgone conclusion". The states evidence in this case is one detective whose "best guess" is that one specific file may "possibly" be on the HD (quotations directly from the detective).

    This will definitely go up to the Supreme Court. I sure hope for anyone living in the US they don't uphold it. Otherwise enjoy the aftermath.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Fugus View Post
    They can force you to give DNA samples, Voice Samples, Writing Samples, Finger Prints, or Go in a line up but they can not ask force you to give anything from memory.
    Because none of those require any information specific to the persons mind. Key, yes. Combination, no.

Posting Permissions

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