0
49

[–] stillinit 0 points 49 points (+49|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Anyone know this judges name?

Edit: Found it. Michael Ian Rothschild. You can't make this shit up.

0
11

[–] Welcome_fags 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

coincidence!

0
9

[–] Guy_Justsome 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

((( ! )))

0
1

[–] JohnScott88 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

This judge Michael Rothschild is a criminal peice of garbage. What law Force you to give your passcode to police? This judge should be imprisoned and should be civally liable.

0
0

[–] selpai 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

So what, they're colluding to set precedent?

0
35

[–] green_man 0 points 35 points (+35|-0) ago 

Because fuck the 5th amendment.

0
17

[–] common_sense 0 points 17 points (+17|-0) ago  (edited ago)

And 4th amendment

0
3

[–] HelicopterRides4Libs 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

The constitution is literally just a piece of paper. Fuck this degeneracy, we need to take action.

0
0

[–] JimboBillyBobJustice 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Grab ya gunz m8....I'll meet ya at the 7-11 and we can get a case of beer and start this fucking Revolution

0
17

[–] teatime 0 points 17 points (+17|-0) ago 

Constitution says...5th Amendment! This should be an open and shut case. Hopefully he sues the local PD to make them hurt after pulling a stunt like that.

0
16

[–] myleperfriend 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago 

It is due to exactly this kind of scenario that privacy minded individuals should not keep anything on their phones. Instead, keep sensitive documents and files on a drive that has been encrypted with something like VeraCrypt or TrueCrypt. These allow you to build encrypted containers allowing for Plausible Denisability. Basically, one encrypted container with two different passwords. One to unlock the "dummy" data and one to unlock the real data. This way, if ever compelled to share a password, you can do so, and it will work, and your data will still be secured.

This is especially important if you read the last paragraph of the article where it says:

Police in both cases were following a precedent set in Sarasota County last year, when the sheriff's department wanted to compel a man accused of video voyeurism to give them his iPhone passcode. A trial judge had ruled that this would violate the alleged voyeur's Fifth Amendment rights, declaring that the man could not be forced to surrender "the contents of his mind." But a state appeals court rejected that reasoning, citing the 1988 Supreme Court decision Doe vs. U.S. That case centered around whether the feds could force a suspect to sign consent forms permitting foreign banks to produce any account records that he may have. In Doe, the justices ruled that the government did have that power, since the forms did not require the defendant to confirm or deny the presence of the records. The Florida court decided that the iPhone case was analogous: The password to the phone and the contents of the phone were separate subjects.

So under this logic, your password is considered to be the exact same as a key to a safe. You must provide it if legally compelled, as doing so will not confirm or deny anything except that you have access to the safe. If only you had a magic safe that had two keys; where opening the safe with one key would always reveal an empty safe or a safe filled with harmless and innocuous items, while the other key revealed completely different contents... You could let people look in your safe all day without fear as long as you never share the fact that two keys exist in the first place.* This is how plausible deniability works.

0
5

[–] Acer-Red 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Isn't it plausible that you forgot the password? I actually have a couple encrypted hard drives I long ago forgot the passphrases to decrypt them. If I was ordered to produce the passphrases I legitimately would be unable to comply.

0
0

[–] myleperfriend 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

i suppose its plausible but if i were a prosecutor i would have a hard time understanding why you kept the data intact if you know you cant retrieve it. at the very least it tells me that whatever is there holds some value to you.

0
0

[–] BistroPalin 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Definitely true. I have many partitions in the same bucket. Don't use them often and long ago lost the scrap of notepaper where I wrote the password. It's not a crime not to maintain all passwords forever.

0
2

[–] para_monk 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

There are some notable differences between signing a consent form and relinquishing a password. It's this kind of hair splitting that can completely invalidate a law by defining things a little bit differently.

0
2

[–] JackDinn 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

yep all cool stuff. Take a look at stenography, vcsteg2.py with vera which turns the outer encrypted container into a video file i.e. the whole file looks and plays exactly like a .mov or .mp4 of which you choose the source video file. Its only when you load it with vera and try to decrypt the iner-container that you get the soft nougaty goodness of the decrypted data which in my case is encrypted again with ecryptfs just for fun.

0
0

[–] myleperfriend 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

i will absolutely have to check out vcsteg. thanks!

0
1

[–] erik324 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

So long as the gov't doesnt have anyone who can tell that the program you used is capable of that. They deffs dont tho pretty sure theyre still using rotary telephones and file cabinets over at the NSA

0
9

[–] Abelekene 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

Maybe he has something to hide, but jailing him for that is unfair

0
9

[–] solar_flare 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

It's sad this has to be stated. A country where a judge can stick you in jail indefinitely because he/she thinks or says he/she says they think you have something. Whatever happened to charges and a trial? This is an affront to justice.

0
0

[–] Pepper-theDoctor 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

(((Judge))h

0
0

[–] BistroPalin 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

This person is not a legitimate judge. They are a tyrant. Their actions are insidious.

0
0

[–] Abelekene 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

So sad

0
4

[–] Caesarkid1 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Right? Keep the phone in evidence and release him.

0
1

[–] Abelekene 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

That's just what they should have done

0
7

[–] Drunkenmoba 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Wasn't there a federal ruling on this already?

Edit: Seems there's two different running cases. But with Phones now having encryption by default the ruling that they applied was for foreign banks. As it is, the ruling can be easily challenged since the better application would be the strict Fifth amendment as access to phone is directly handing over your files.

0
5

[–] bourbonexpert 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

That's a fucking long time. I know 180 days doesn't sound like much, but that six months. In county jail fucking sucks balls. A lot of inmates would rather do two years in the regular prisons in one year in county. Because in regular prison you can lift weights play basketball go outside things like that. In county jail you're just stuck ,a lot of county jails don't even have AA meetings or church

0
1

[–] 1moar 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

^ This. County sucks balls. I haven't been to the big time, *knocks on wood, but I can only imagine that it has to be 'better'.

0
0

[–] bourbonexpert 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

There is a joke among inmates. It's hard to go to prison for the first time. But you go the second time easily.

0
4

[–] solar_flare 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

--Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

 

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

--Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution

 

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

--Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

load more comments ▼ (12 remaining)