Child porn suspect jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives

[Kellhound]

Innocent beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean the prosecution has to prove that the investigation was not conducted dirty. The defense would have to make a case that the investigation was handled improperly in order to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Just pointing out the investigation was handled by law enforcement is more than enough to place into question the handling of a case. All one needs to do is look into how law enforcement has behaved with Stingrays to see that.

[caervek]

want to leave prison, give the password, unless of course, you have child porn on those hard drives.............

This pretty much, dirty peado deserves to rot in jail.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Just pointing out the investigation was handled by law enforcement is more than enough to place into question the handling of a case. All one needs to do is look into how law enforcement has behaved with Stingrays to see that.

"My Client is not guilty because All Cops are dirty" will not get you far in a criminal trial.

[Detritivores]

Except, contempt charges come with the caveat that you can leave the jail as soon as you are willing to comply with the court order. That is why they can be "indefinite". Essentially, you have the keys to your own cell.

But can the court order you to give up your 5th amendment rights? (Hint: No, they can't). Hence my conclusion that contempt rules are being abused to force people into forfeiting constitutional rights.

Yes, encryption is a frontier of figuring out where the line is between complying with warrants and self-incrimination. And we can debate which side it falls on. But there is no existing law addressing it. And by my wholely uninformed reading and opinion, giving up encrypted information seems to fall squarely under 5th amendment protection. We have a supreme court to figure out if I'm right tor not though.

- - - Updated - - -

Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean the prosecution has to prove that the investigation was not conducted dirty. The defense would have to make a case that the investigation was handled improperly in order to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

I never said it did. I'm saying they still have to prove people guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and we still have to assume they're otherwise wrong. Whether they're wrong because they're dirty or wrong because they're shitty at collecting evidence or using logic is irrelevant.

[Foosha]

-This man is a serial killer! My wife's sisters husband's friend saw him bury a body part or something!!

-Uh what? Those were geraniums

-This forensic specialist says that holes are only dug for body parts and maybe sometimes plants, but mostly body parts!

-Judge: Ok man, look, you havent been charged with anything, just show us where you put the bodies and how you killed them specifically, and their names. Also video evidence if possible...for scientific reasons. Oh this totally wont be admitted to evidence bro

-Uhhh what?

-Judge: Show us the body locations or you are in contempt!!

-Contempt of what!? What am I being charged with!?

-Judge: CONTEMPT! CONTEMPT!!!!

[Hyve]

If he has nothing to hide, why wouldn't he give them the password?

[Kellhound]

"My Client is not guilty because All Cops are dirty" will not get you far in a criminal trial.

"The prosecution needs to prove that the investigation was done legally and professionally, especially in light of the systemic abuses that have come to light over the past few years" however will. Especially when the prosecution decides they would rather drop the case then reveal how they obtained the information being used in court. And many police agencies agreed to that with the DOJ concerning Stingrays.

- - - Updated - - -

If he has nothing to hide, why wouldn't he give them the password?

What if he has plenty to hide, and none of it has to do with child porn?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I never said it did. I'm saying they still have to prove people guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and we still have to assume they're otherwise wrong. Whether they're wrong because they're dirty or wrong because they're shitty at collecting evidence or using logic is irrelevant.

But it's up to the defense to prove incompetence/corruption of the investigators. Its not up to the prosecutor to prove that there was no incompetence or corruption. The assumption is that the investigation was handled correctly until evidence is presented to show that it may not have been.

[Mixxy]

If he has nothing to hide, why wouldn't he give them the password?

If there's enough proof to put him in jail forever, why demand he unlock the drives?

[Kellhound]

But it's up to the defense to prove incompetence/corruption of the investigators. Its not up to the prosecutor to prove that there was no incompetence or corruption. The assumption is that the investigation was handled correctly until evidence is presented to show that it may not have been.

No, the defense just needs to produce reasonable doubt, they do not have to prove anything.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

-This man is a serial killer! My wife's sisters husband's friend saw him bury a body part or something!!

-Uh what? Those were geraniums

-This forensic specialist says that holes are only dug for body parts and maybe sometimes plants, but mostly body parts!

-Judge: Ok man, look, you havent been charged with anything, just show us where you put the bodies and how you killed them specifically, and their names. Also video evidence if possible...for scientific reasons. Oh this totally wont be admitted to evidence bro

-Uhhh what?

-Judge: Show us the body locations or you are in contempt!!

-Contempt of what!? What am I being charged with!?

-Judge: CONTEMPT! CONTEMPT!!!!

It's actually more along the lines of "We found evidence that a body was dragged to your doorstep and an eye witness that says she helped you bury a body"

- - - Updated - - -

No, the defense just needs to produce reasonable doubt, they do not have to prove anything.

Yes, key word is reasonable. It's not reasonable to accuse officers of being corrupt without any supporting evidence.

[Foosha]

It's actually more along the lines of "We found evidence that a body was dragged to your doorstep and an eye witness that says she helped you bury a body"

- - - Updated - - -



Yes, key word is reasonable. It's not reasonable to accuse officers of being corrupt without any supporting evidence.

If there's evidence than why hasnt he been formally charged with a crime? It's either you have evidence and charge him in relation to that evidence, or you dont and...thats it

[Kellhound]

It's actually more along the lines of "We found evidence that a body was dragged to your doorstep and an eye witness that says she helped you bury a body"

- - - Updated - - -



Yes, key word is reasonable. It's not reasonable to accuse officers of being corrupt without any supporting evidence.

Actually, in this day and age it is reasonable to assume any given officer acted in an underhanded manner during the investigation.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Actually, in this day and age it is.

Actually it isn't.

[SodiumChloride]

It's actually more along the lines of "We found evidence that a body was dragged to your doorstep and an eye witness that says she helped you bury a body"

There is no "body on the doorstep" ... they would have charged him by now if there were.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

If there's evidence than why hasnt he been formally charged with a crime? It's either you have evidence and charge him in relation to that evidence, or you dont and...thats it

Because all the evidence they have now is still circumstantial...they don't have the smoking gun.

What he's being held for is a separate matter...which is disobeying a court order.

[Rotted]

want to leave prison, give the password, unless of course, you have child porn on those hard drives.............

I'm pretty sure there will be porn on those hard drives,

But it wouldnt shock me if there isn't

People can be extreme about their privacy and think making a stand like this will raise awareness / make a point / w/e you want to call it

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

There is no "body on the doorstep" ... they would have charged him by now if there were.

Never said they had a body on the doorstep...said there was evidence that a body was dragged to the doorstep...they don't yet have the body though.

Here's the case as I understand it

There's an investigation going on in freenet regarding distribution of child porn.
They have forensic evidence that shows that data was sent to his IP address that may be child porn.
They have a witness that says "Yeah, he's got child porn. We watched it together". That witness is his sister and has also just incriminated herself along with him.
It's still circumstantial evidence...but it's evidence.

[Foosha]

Never said they had a body on the doorstep...said there was evidence that a body was dragged to the doorstep...they don't yet have the body though.

Here's the case as I understand it

There's an investigation going on in freenet regarding distribution of child porn.
They have forensic evidence that shows that data was sent to his IP address that may be child porn.
They have a witness that says "Yeah, he's got child porn. We watched it together". That witness is his sister and has also just incriminated herself along with him.
It's still circumstantial evidence...but it's evidence.

Viewing child porn is not illegal. Holding (ie downloading), distribution and payment or whatever are. Grey areas and problems are abound as with any internet commodity.

Furthermore, going to a police station, or even a judge and saying "I KILLED 15 PEOPLE, MURDERED THEM I DID" wont get you thrown in prison (maybe a psych ward). If you dont divulge any information or evidence regarding those murders, you cant be found guilty...charged or and open investigation, but even with your confession, it doesnt mean jack shit

[SodiumChloride]

Because all the evidence they have now is still circumstantial...they don't have the smoking gun.

What he's being held for is a separate matter...which is disobeying a court order.

If this court order is illegal and unconstitutional ... the state has a hella of a lawsuit coming for wrongful imprisonment.