[–] Damnpasswords 0 points 39 points (+39|-0) ago 

I hate pedos, bu,t for all we know, the estranged sister used his unlocked computer to view child porn.

[–] wifblat 0 points 71 points (+71|-0) ago 

It's insane that an accusation and a best guess about child porn is enough to disappear someone.

[–] 300_Black 3 points 53 points (+56|-3) ago 

Bingo.

We'll never know in how many cases CP accusation was used as an easy way to disappear any of (((their))) opposition.

[–] kalgon 1 points 15 points (+16|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Well it could be construed as obstruction of justice

I haven't read the article, but if there's an investigation, search warrants and shit, and he's the only person in the world capable of unlocking that computer... I could see how this could be construed as such

Now this is the US, there's the fifth stuff, the right to not incriminate yourself

Both cases I don't see how infinite detention is justifiable

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

It is the ultimate weapon to destroy someone's life. If someone were to plant child porn on your computer you are 100% fucked no matter what.

[–] dias17se 3 points -2 points (+1|-3) ago 

Ive seen this happen once, there was this psycho, he killed 3 kids, and was suspected of killing another few....the guy was insane, the bodies were never found, everyone knew it was him, and he got jail time. So, no evidence, but we locked the right guy.

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

I hate pedos, but this law scares me. I have encrypted drives just because I have IP and tech from employers I don't want to be responsible for leaking or repairing hacks discovered from my leak.

I'm terrified of being accused of ANYTHING because according to this, all they need to do is corrupt your drive, so you can't decrypt, and thus default to a life sentence.

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

Or what if you forgot the password to decrypt them?

[–] JerkSock 0 points 28 points (+28|-0) ago 

Wouldn't this be a violation of the 5th Amendment?

[–] lanre 1 points 21 points (+22|-1) ago 

Yes, but the constitution doesn't matter anymore. They're trying to spin it as the same as refusing to unlock a safe.

[–] AmaleksHairyAss 0 points 21 points (+21|-0) ago 

Refusing to unlock a safe should also not be illegal under the constitution.

[–] Tallest_Skil 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

HAHAHHAHAAHAHAA LOOK AT THIS GUY WHO THINKS THE CONSTITUTION STILL EXISTS HAHAHAHAHAHA

[–] 9-11 5 points -1 points (+4|-5) ago 

The argument is that it is physical evidence, and no different than having a locked safe with physical evidence inside, which you'd have no right to keep from investigators with a proper warrant.

[–] JerkSock 0 points 19 points (+19|-0) ago 

Physical evidence (which is only POTENTIAL atm) that can only be accessed by the defendant voluntarily giving up information that is in his head. It all comes back to the 5th; they are asking him to testify against himself. Their argument is spurious.

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

Also, if I am not mistaken, to acquire a search warrant, they must know exactly what they are looking for, and where.

[–] goatsandbros 0 points 20 points (+20|-0) ago 

He’ll stay locked up indefinitely until he decrypts the drive

I half expected this to be in Europe or China.

[–] Hand_of_Node 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

This was a big UK story a while back. Refusal to provide a password meaning prison for that crime alone. Looks like we effectively have it now too.

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

There goes justice.

[–] 7e62ce85 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Say you forgot.

[–] AmaleksHairyAss 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

fourth, fifth, AND fourteenth amendment. The really sad thing is it wouldn't happen to a rich man.

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

Rich mean better lawyer. Better lawyer means better connections. Better connections means get out of jail Free. It is what it is, and it's not hidden.

[–] neuman1812 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago  (edited ago)

So the article lists two documents. One where the defense uses "John Doe" The other is from the court which uses his real name.

Based on that, this is the most recent document I can find on this.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/09/judge-wont-release-man-jailed-2-years-for-refusing-to-decrypt-drives/

TLDR: Still in jail

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

Guilty until proven innocent. Fuck the police, fuck politicians, fuck judges, fuck district attorneys.

[–] Sandmich 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

An interesting comment from that post where he puts forward the argument that since they pulled the file hashes out of memory (I'm guessing, and I can't speak to how they did that) that proves that the State has an exact expectation of what it will find so the defendant cannot claim the 5th. I still think it's a stretch and I'm given to think that contempt cases shouldn't revolve around situations which can last forever.

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

I don’t agree with that at all. This is a textbook example of why the fifth amendment was written.

[–] wifblat 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

2 years old, I wonder what happened

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

Ded

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

That's fucked up. Sounds like the judge is overstepping his power. Decrypting a hard drive, kinda discarding all the evidence of a murder... the defendant has no obligation to produce evidence against themselves. 5th amendment. Even if he's a pedo the he still has rights. Glad the ACLU and EFF are stepping in.

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

If the fifth amendment wasn’t written to cover this, than what is it meant for?

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

Wiping judge's asses, apparently.

load more comments ▼ (21 remaining)