Slashdot Mirror
Judge Orders Child Porn Suspect To Decrypt His Hard Drives
An anonymous reader writes "After having first decided against forcing a suspect to decrypt a number of hard drives that were believed to be his and to contain child pornography, a U.S. judge has changed his mind and has now ordered the suspect to provide law enforcement agents heading the investigation with a decrypted version of the contents of his encrypted data storage system, or the passwords needed to decrypt forensic copies of those storage devices. Jeffrey Feldman, a software developer at Rockwell Automation, has still not been charged with any crime, and the prosecution initially couldn't prove conclusively that the encrypted hard drives contained child pornography or were actually Feldman's, which led U.S. Magistrate Judge William Callahan to decide that forcing him to decrypt them would violate his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. But new evidence has made the judge reverse his first decision (PDF): the FBI has continued to try to crack the encryption on the discs, and has recently managed to decrypt and access one of the suspect's hard drives... The storage device was found to contain 'an intricate electronic folder structure comprised of approximately 6,712 folders and subfolders,' approximately 707,307 files (among them numerous files which constitute child pornography), detailed personal financial records and documents belonging to the suspect, as well as dozens of his personal photographs."
Reading that made me ask three questions:
1) What kind of encryption did the FBI break?
2) Can they do it again, for any arbitrary encrypted data?
3) If 2), what kind of decryption should we use instead of 1) ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability
Weasel-wording it like that makes me think it's probably random manga pictures from his browser cache and not real child pornography.
He should inform the honorable judge that he's forgotten the decryption parameters or whatever they are called.
This way, he puts the ball back into their court. That is, to prove that he indeed still remembers these parameters.
That will be a tough one to prove.
1) Why can't they break the rest?
2) Why haven't they charged him yet?
having an "intricate electronic folder structure" complete with "detailed personal information" is nefarious? Isn't that, essentially, every install of every desktop OS ever? Hell, I think in my 13k file music collection sorted by album and artist there's EASILY 3k folders. And I think elsewhere on the same drive I have my tax returns...
The Judge never said the FBI couldn't have a go at it, just that the suspect couldn't be compelled to hand over the decryption information because of lack of evidence.
Once the FBI had some success of their own and found evidence, then the judge changed his mind.
IANAL, but I believe the FBI (and law enforcement in general) is free to try and crack encrypted hard drives obtained with warrant, they just can't make you give up a password (until now).
"Sorry, your honor, but I have forgotten the decryption password." or, actually, that would be stupid since it would imply they are his. It should be "Sorry, your honor, I never had the encryption password". Unless the FBI has concrete proof he actually decrypted them in the past, they're screwed. Go back to cracking away. I also want to know the encryption that they supposedly cracked. Unless it is junk, it is more than likely that they brute forced the encryption passphrase for that hard drive.
It's disgusting if he has CP, but something something plausible deniability.
It's like the IT worker with no morals who quits in an organization where he held all the passwords and then promptly claims to have forgot them all when the company demands them right after they quit. You cannot prove if they were forgotten or not.
Actually refusing to give them out is grounds for legal action in both instances.
-- filgy
So, anyone know the punishment for not complying vs. the punishment for possession of child pornography? In other words, some people have refused a judge's orders and served out a few years, vs. if this guy does comply, does he look at lots more time?
Personally, I think any child pornographer's are scum of the Earth, but if I were facing serious charges like say murder, and a judge ordered me to decrypt a drive I knew would cause me to be incriminated, I'd tell him to take a flying leap.
Does wrapping up savagery in righteousness make you feel just?
Good-bye
Where pixels of a certain colour arranged in a certain way on a screen and even the bits used to represent them are illegal. I hate kiddy porn as much as everyone else but feck it throwing people in jail for looking at pictures is taking the piss.
wasn't there already a case in which being forced to decrypt one's hard drives was deemed self-incrimination?
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before June 4, 2013, Feldman shall do one of the following: (1) meet with law enforcement agents who currently maintain custody of the above- identified storage devices and, without being observed by law enforcement agents or by counsel for the United States of America, enter the appropriate password or passwords into forensic copies of the above-identified storage devices so as to decrypt those devices and allow law enforcement personnel to continue their examination of the files contained therein;
So first, this could be drawn artwork, with no one harmed in the process. Its treated the same in the US. That is stupid.
Secondly, when people are harmed to create child pornography, possession and distribution of the evidence is illegal, and comes with very harsh penalties. This drastically reduces what the police can do, while increasing the confidence of the creates that those they sell to won't turn to the police.
Suppose possession of child pornography was legal, but its creation was not (if it involved real people). This would make any one who acquired any perfectly comfortable submitting it to the police, which would drastically help catch those involved.
You could even ban selling it (but maybe not buying it), and make it except from copyright to cut of the funding. Then any child pornography that got out could be legally circulated, so there would be a nice supply, and no demand to create or purchase any, since the market price would be 0, and its also illegal.
Sure, some people would be bothered by having easy access to child pornography, but I consider hiding our societies crimes from public view (and thus allowing them to continue more easily) worse that exposing them for all to see.
Supposedly they have kiddie pron on the part that's been decrypted. Why don't they just try him on that basis? The excuse for how 5th Amendment protections no longer apply strikes as the worst kind of legal contortionism: http://ia601700.us.archive.org/6/items/gov.uscourts.wied.63043/gov.uscourts.wied.63043.6.0.pdf
The judge's first decision had nothing to do with the FBI and everything to do with the 5th Amendment of the US constitution, which reads:
"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 offense 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." ...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, is the important part here. The FBI couldn't prove what was on the drives and couldn't prove they belonged to the accused, so ordering him to decrypt them would have been a violation of the self-incrimination clause and any evidence gained this way would eventually get thrown out on appeal and the accused would go free.
Now, nothing there prohibits the FBI from trying to decrypt the drives since they were taken with a warrant and had reasonable suspicion that they were used in a crime. Once they were able to decrypt those drives and see that in fact they did contain illegal content and were owned by the accused, the judge can then compel the accused to decrypt the other drives since it is now know that they are owned by him and contain illegal content.
I see we're into the land of "Monster until proven Person" now...
Interesting. I just read about a normal guy who turned pedophile, was discovered to have a 'massive' brain tumor, had it removed, and promptly returned to being normal.
Glad you weren't ever alone in a room with him.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Or vice versa?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
(Note: I am not an american citizen and my understanding of the american legal system is therefore limited)
Constitutional rights in the USA should be absolute. Decrypting an hard drive should or should not be covered by the fifth amendment. New evidence should not change its constitutionality because a judge changed his/her mind. I believe that hard disk encryption is too important in too many cases to let a "local" judge decide whether it is constitutional or not. American citizens (or whatever representative has that power) should ask the supreme court to decide on that matter.
Absent any proof there was child porn on the drives the suspect couldn't be compelled to decrypt them to provide that evidence.
The FBI however was free to try and decrypt the drives.
After proving that drives at least contained some child porn it was no longer possible.
Imagine the same scenario with a house. The police think you have a grow op. But they don't have any actual proof of a grow up. They have a power bill, show up at your door and you say 'sorry, I run a server farm, not a grow op, no you cannot come in'. The police not believing this story keep snooping around, they watch you bring in lamps and fertilizer and numerous suspicious people bringing packages out. Eventually they get some sort of valid evidence that you have at least one growing illegal plant in your house. Now they can get a warrant, and you have to let them in.
You don't have to provide the police a key to your house, unless they can convince a judge there is definitely something illegal hidden behind your front door. Then you're boned.
What's the penalty for saying "No"?
Table-ized A.I.
So I just read the judge's order granting the ex parte request, and there is something I am confused about. If the 'limited decrypted version' they supposedly have contained child pornography why is he still not charged with a crime? Something seems fishy here.
"In addition to numerous files of child pornography, the decrypted part of
Feldman’s storage system contains detailed personal financial records and
documents belonging to Feldman"
I'm willing to bet they have the file structure (names of files) but have no actual file data, in which case the governments request would add a lot to the case instead of the "little to none" the judge is using to justify the use of the forgone conclusion doctrine.
Not defending anyone for child pornography, I just like everyone else don't like seeing the forced self incrimination of people using the 5th amendment.
Murderers are animals, and don't deserve rights. Rights are for people, not monsters...
Substitute terms as appropriate to apply to yourself for the rest of your ranting post.
P.S. You do realize "pedophile" is a psychiatric term with an actual, specific meaning, and that it doesn't speak at all to the existence of any criminal actions, don't you? A person who (in all likelihood completely beyond his or her control) feels an attraction for someone younger than puberty, and never acts upon it in any way, is a "pedophile". A person who repeatedly rapes multiple 16-year-olds, is not a "pedophile".
Are you sure your moral discernment here is rational? Have you yourself every been attracted to a 16-year-old? Should we now consider you as guilty as if you had raped her?
they decrypted and found cp?
isnt that enough to charge him?
It might be worth pointing out that it's precisely this attitude that makes the issue of finding proper justice so damned important for this issue. The law protects the accused, the guilty and the innocent, and it not our place absent the facts presented to a learned judge or jury of peers to decide otherwise. But hey if you want to start burning witches or castrating the mentally ill there's probably someplace in central Africa that would be happy to have you.
-- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
I see we're into the land of "Monster until proven Person" now...
That's the assumption I make when I hear an unidentified noise at night.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
It's a kinda roundabout way of saying, "You can't [or at least don't need to] give or show them the secret spell, but you better perform it and release the rune for the witches to see, or may they rain hell on you from every applicable plane of existence."
(Magic analogy, because car analogies are so passé.)
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
If they have an image of a child in a sex act then the guy is done. All they need to do is show the judge 'look what we found' (aka HAVE EVIDENCE) and the guy should be toast. If they really did have even just a SINGLE image he's guilty. They don't need the rest of the drive to convict him.
So that means:
1. What they found is not child porn per se.
2. What they found is 'art' of a nature that would imply that there IS child porn on the drive.
3. They really haven't gotten shit and are throwing a hail Mary.
Its not like the Government can lie to a suspect (they can). But they cannot lie to a Judge (but do).
This case stinks.... if they had the proof they'd show it to the judge. Commence trail by innuendo.
Um, I have a few questions:
1) If they have already accessed one of his drives and found thousands of photos in it, what more do they need to charge him with multiple crimes?
2) From a strategic standpoint, let us say that he a) knows he has illegal photos on his other drives and b) knows he will be charged with possesion of the photos that have already been accessed by the FBI. What possible incentive does he have to do as the judge orders? He knows he will get an incredible prison sentence, probably, but also that he will be charged with being a sex offender regardless. So he decides to sit in jail and ignore the judge. He knows he will never get out, most likely...so how is this not an empty order by the judge?
I practice stenography. Most people find a file, assume it's just an executable or what not, and move on, never realizing that the incriminating evidence was there the whole time. If this guy really wanted to be a dick about it, he could have taken perfectly benign pictures and changed the file names to sexy 6 year old or whatever these ass hats look at.
Whenever a player quits EVE to go play WoW, the Average IQ of both games increase.
If they have sufficient evidence that both the existence of kiddie porn on the drives, and the defendant's ownership and control over those drives, are "foregone conclusions" (which is the standard that needs to be met to avoid 5th amendment protection), why isn't he simply charged on the basis of that evidence?
FBI got into one of the drives (how is irrelevent). They found kiddie porn.
Now that he can (and will) be proven guilty, not sure if self incrimination is still possible since he is already incriminated. Unless of course there is evidence of further crimes (snuff porn perhaps) on those drives.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
I find his return to normality highly suspicious.
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
Or else what exactly? This is what I don't understand. What is the threat against him if he refuses to comply? if he already knows they have other images from other drives, he surely knows that he is epically and royally screwed for the rest of his life. So why would he comply?
You do realize that the age of consent is 16, right?. Generally i wouldn't go near that. 18+ for me. There are so many girls who are of legal age that are so young looking. I have a 25 year old girlfriend that looks pretty young. So why don't you have sex with people of the legal age. They can still look really young. Its not because they love the child. Or its not even that children turn them on. Children are all they can get because children are easily manipulated. They never having sex with anyone older than 14 because they don't have the mental capacity to score girls any older than that.
when they said intricate folder structure with porn my first thought was of xkcd 981.
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
You don't have to provide the police a key to your house, unless they can convince a judge there is definitely something illegal hidden behind your front door.
This is the crucial issue, which you are glossing over. You DON'T have to provide the police a key to your house, even if they can convince a judge that there is definitely something illegal hidden behind your front door. If the cops show up to your house with a warrant, there's no requirement that you unlock the door for them. If you don't, they'll just break the door down.
What's happening here is quite different. The judge is compelling this man to assist the police who are trying to incriminate him. This is like issuing a search warrant where you are compelled to tell the police where your hiding places are.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
No, it does not fucking matter. It does not matter because unless you have enough resources to defend yourself, your beloved rights amount to wet paper.
And that is a full violation of the fifth amendment against self-incrimination.
I don't give two fucks if it's CP or terrorism - we have LAWS.
Thankfully, these laws don't stop me from triggering a full economic meltdown.
And that meltdown is coming.
Enjoy being enslaved to China for your food - both you and your current offspring.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
> since it is now know that they are owned by him and contain illegal content.
No, it is not known. While at most you could assume they are owned by him, there's no indication of what their contents are.
Pedophiles are animals, and don't deserve rights.
You are an idiot, and I doubt if you even understand what pedophilia is. Most pedophiles are not child molesters. Most child molesters are not pedophiles. Pedophilia is a psychological condition that causes someone to be sexually attracted to prepubescent children. But most people that feel this attraction do not act on it (since to do so is a serious crime). Most people charged as child molesters, on the other hand, are not pedophiles. They are not attracted to prepubescent children. Instead they are attracted to teenagers that are legally children, but biologically most certainly are not.
But the defendant in this case has not been accused of either pedophilia (which is not a crime) nor child molestation. He has been accused of possessing child pornography, which is a crime even if no actual children are involved. Computer generated animation, or even a pencil sketch can get you arrested. You want to castrate people for drawing pictures?
Forgot to check the AC checkbox?
I noticed the lack of prohibiting a keylogger - though technically would(n't?) that count as observation?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
doesn't matter. Child porn was found on a hard drive he owned. He's guilty of possession of child porn. pretty open and shut. The law doesn't care if he was framed.
With all the silliness in the courts anymore, looks like in order to maintain any sort of confidentiality we're gonna have to take a chapter from the military's book on how to keep the secret stuff. . . well . . . secret. ( Not their new book mind you, since the Chinese are stealing secrets left and right these days :D )
Radical, probably. Effective ? Absolutely.
Of your hard drive stack, ensure the top slot is available. Open an old drive chassis and gut it. Fill with Thermite. Place said unit above other drives. I leave it to you to figure out how to wire it out to initiate the burn. Perhaps a key or, for the really paranoid, wire it to fire by opening the chassis ( intrusion switch ) or ( insert your own imaginative idea here ).
The idea here isn't to make an explosive, just some molten metal to wreak havoc on the drives below it. See you recover the keys for those. . . .
( Oh and remember, a little Thermite goes a long way. Don't go crazy with it )
Khybering up another thread, I see...
The Judge said that Feldman didn't have to decrypt the drives to prove he owns it. Since he doesn't claim, the FBI can more or less do what they want with it, and having done so discovered sufficient evidence on the drive to establish that he does in fact own it. Enough to convince the judge that possession is established and thus he must decrypt the drives.
Apparently self-incrimination was tied to ownership, not cryptography.
You're so angry about this you sound like you're a repressed paedophile.
Be honest son, you like the little ones don't you?
I'm sorry you failed basic biology - humans are animals as well.
Well duh. I meant that they aren't capable (or even willing) to make moral decisions. I have no clue what the rest of your post is supposed to mean, so I'm just going to assume that it's supposed to be pedophile apologist drivel and ignore it.
I think that a safe is the more common close analogy. If the FBI can prove to a judge's satisfaction that the safe is yours and contains illegal substances, you can be ordered to open it, and failure to comply is contempt of court. The only difference is that if you refuse with a safe, the FBI has (more destructive) ways to open it themselves.
Number of years in jail does make a difference.
And then they'd do the same thing, probably worse.
The whole "enemy of my enemy" thing never works.
He's already incriminated. The evidence is there that the drives are his. FIfth amendment against self incrimination doesn't provide protection against a search with warrant. Whether it's a house or a disk drive.
You can say no and be sent to jail for contempt, indefinitely, while your lawyer attempts to get the courts to see your vision of constitutional rights vindicated.
Anyway, having been established as having child porn, I think the person in question is fucked. It's just a matter of degrees.
Yeah pedophiles and their pictures of half naked 16 year old girls are sick. I reported my brother yesterday for taking pictures of his daughters football game, sick fuck, doesn't he know there are half naked 16 year old girls bouncing around down there?
What a monster.
that is one festering pile of gibberish you barfed up there
Yes, without being observed. All they want is the decrypted contents. They don't need to know what his actual password is.
You do know that a 17 year old is considered a child in the US right? If you have never seen an attractive 17 year old you are a god damn liar.
This is slashdot, so of course everyone wants to explore the ways to get around this attempt at accessing personal encrypted data, but I hope everyone's not missing the bigger point:
In the first world it is illegal for an individual to possess information. It's just evidence as far as the government is concerned. If he were accused of producing the child pornography, then it would be legitimate that he is facing prison. But simply possessing information will get him sent to prison for what amounts to prosecution for deviancy. This is fascism, this is a socially irresponsible response that does nothing to address the problem, and it is wrong.
'your economic ability'. Doesn't make any sense. You keep saying that, but all I see you doing is posting on slashdot. I'm pretty sure you're just full of shit.
I remember when I had my first beer.
"autonuke"
The geek brings into court over-complicated and improbable scenarios, to be presented in a way which will seriously piss off a judge and jury.
"Suck it in, dolts, it all makes sense the way I tell it!"
There is no more demonized crime than kiddie porn, so it's the perfect kind of case to push the envelope on self-incrimination for the next time they want to force someone to decrypt data in some other kind of crime.
I'm one hour away from full decryption and sellout of the entire USA economy, and you can't stop me.
No, but your mom can. She just called down the stairs that your Hot Pockets are done.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Pedophiles are animals, and don't deserve rights. Rights are for people, not monsters. If I had a pedophile in a room by myself and some one told me I had an hour I would literally put on some latex gloves, shove a huge tube down their pee hole and cut around it, then I would take a hot iron and burn the remaining portion to leave them dick-less but still able to piss out of the "straw." It disgust me that this judge was going to let him off in the first place. Fuck pedos and fuck their stupid shit. They're all scum and I want them to all die in a bloody typhoon of death.
Careful, in some states, you may be considered a pedophile.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
This is how it is supposed to work in our justice system. Before they knew that there was any pron on the drives, you cannot be forced to self incriminate. Once they know there is something there, (in this case by guessing his password on one drive) it is no longer a matter of self incrimination but one of degree, and you can be forced to reveal the password.
The same holds true for a combination lock. If they know you put something illegal in there, through a recording or whatever, they can force you to open it.
You know what happens when you make an assumption, right? You make an ass out of you and umption.
Age of consent where I live is 14. That said, I think it is only that young so that government officials don't get in trouble for partying with high school girls, because they still go after non-government officials pretty hard using other laws.
This is a pedophile. A child molester (potential or otherwise). A rapist. In cases like this it is better to err on the side of caution than to ruin a life. I wish we allowed parents to sue the state for children that were molested when they government knew that he was a sick fuck. Maybe then we wouldn't have to coddle this social cancer so much.
So we are going to lock people up for what they can potentially do now? Well, you first. See you when you get out.
If you have evidence that he raped somebody, as you so clearly do, then you are aiding and abetting a known criminal and deserve to go to jail.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Lets say by ignoring the judges order, he gets 10 years for having , say, 100 photos. The judge gives him an additional 2 for contempt or something.
The alternative is giving the passwords away, allowing them to search, thus finding the additional 900 photos he had. He probably won't get a mere 10 years for those 900. So again, what is his incentive?
.... and here i was annoyed and thought free agency was going to ruin football.
Time's certainly are changing.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
You do realize that the age of consent is 16, right?
Depends on where you are. In some places it's 14, but "18" is the safe age if you don't know the law. I think most physically adult men are attracted to physically adult women, and for women that happens somewhere between 12 and 14.
What if the FBI is lying? It certainly would not be the first time.
What if it's just your average porn stash (Or browser cache) and they're using a broad brush to say anything that "looks" illegal to be illegal?
I have a 25 year old girlfriend that looks pretty young.
In some states, that is enough to be considered pedophilia.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Prove to me this person ilegaly downloaded it and was not given it in an attempt to frame him.
Oh, you can't.
They probably can, at least to the level of reasonable doubt. There's a reason they seized his hard drives in the first place, and it wasn't because they were encrypted.
If the drive contains all his personal photos its possible they were family snaps of his own kids that were technically pornographic because they contained nudity.
The phrase "constitute child porn" seems a bit on the back foot to me.
It's probably more like the court ordering you to unlock a safe when they have a warrant to search its contents.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
Age of consent where I live is 14.
Fine, 14, whatever. My point still stands.
You're quite delusional aren't you? No, you don't have anything in your possession that will enable that nor do you have the skillset to make use of anything like that. Don't be silly and expect us to believe you. We demand proof.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
FIfth amendment against self incrimination doesn't provide protection against a search with warrant.
So? They have the hard drives - let them use that evidence. This is an abuse of the "foregone conclusion" doctrine, which has been used (only since 1976 - it's hardly ancient) to force people to hand over evidence. It originally arose in a case about tax files. But suppose somebody wrote all their records in a language they invented and only they knew. They could be forced to turn over those records, but asking the accused to translate them into plain language would be self-incrimination. That's the proper analogy here. The police/FBI have their physical evidence. Let them figure out what it means.
Conspiracy bits aside, if the FBI found something, why would they demand he open the gates to more?
Could they not simply prosecute him based on just what they have so far? That way there would be no 5th Amendment violation, and they would (should?) have sufficient evidence so far to successfully prosecute him anyway.
[ Realize up front that I think people like they are accusing the defendant of being should probably burn, not in Hell, but in the here and now ... ]
I imagine it's to set a precedent.
If the demand is not successfully defended against, they are more likely to be granted a future order without expending "considerable resources". The next time, they will be able to argue "we could expend considerable resources and crack this drive too, but since it's going to be decrypted one way or the other, you might as well have him hand over the keys now". It's a really thin wedge, given that the FBI claiming someone owns a drive when they don't claim ownership, so 5th amendment considerations would likely still attach, but they might be able to find an agreeable judge to push the precedent a little further.
Using the sparing sector list as part of the key might confound decryption, if the encryption is drive level rather than all in user space where it could be fed a false set of sparing sectors, so it's possible that future SanDisk products (among other SSD vendors) might be immune from use of forensic copies.
I think though, that 5th amendment issues might still attach, if they can't demonstrate that he actually has the keys. It'll be interesting to see if the defense tries to play it that way, and what results, if any, come from that angle.
The "it's manufactured data" angle would also be interesting, since presumably they could have obtained pictures and financial data from other sources to make it appear that way. Given that the FBI has "considerable resources" to expend on this type of thing, it's not that unreasonable to ask how those resources were expended: decrypting the drive, or manufacturing evidence which can only be disproven if the drive is decrypted with the keys he may or may not have in his possession, since if it's manufactured, it might still not be his drive.
I'm glad the court ruled against the forced decryption initially, and it will be interesting to see how this plays out, and whether the FBI gets their wedge, and if so, they are successful in using it to leverage further erosions of 5th amendment in a future case, or not.
How many times have you been right and it turns out it is a monster?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
No. Besides, she looks like she's 17, not 7.
The age of consent is not necessarily legal in all jurisdictions. A lot have clauses surrounding the age of consent. E.g. If you are more than 2 years older than a minor who is of the age of consent then you are guilty of an offence.
they're trying to set a legal precedented to override the 5th for future cases, IMHO.
I am not a lawyer, but I suspect that even the most evil SC we can imagine will determine that if a suspect is not subject to prosecution in the absence of an action, then that action is protected.
Imagine again. The Rhenquist SC (generally less evil than the current Roberts SC) said http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herrera_v._Collins that provable actual innocence of a crime is no reason to bar a State from executing someone once they've been sentenced by a court.
An SC that says we can execute someone who can prove they did not commit the crime would certainly be able to authorize anything a prosecutor wants to do. Ironically the generally-more-evil Roberts SC today issued a ruling that substantially undoes the one I cited.
I am not so sure about siding with the pedos on this but, well, you seem to have a whole set of "facts" and not one actually factual argument. The age of consent, for instance, varies depending on where you are. The reasons for pedophilia are fairly well understood these days I understand. Manipulation, grooming is what they call it if I recall the movie correctly, is done due to social need to keep it quiet. The mental capacity of pedophiles spans the entire spectrum.
And that's just that post. I could go on with the rest (assuming you're all the same AC) but I'm not going to bother.
I'm not a fan of pedophiles but I am a fan of facts and honesty. It's what we do here. We're geeks, nerds if you prefer, and we tend to enjoy working within the realm of reality.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I don't get this at all.
Firstly the just says the 5th amendment prohibits the government from requiring he provide evidence with which to charge and possibly convict the defendant. That was a fact set in stone.
Then the FBI claims that one of the drives have been cracked and they have proof of offending material as well as data present which proves ownership of the drive.
Great. But how does the collection of additional evidence change his constitutional rights against self-incrimination? Perhaps I'm just a big dummy, but providing the government with MORE information is still providing the government with information which incriminates.
Seems to me the government is probably lying about having cracked his drive and wants a fishing license. If they had REAL evidence, they wouldn't need to decrypt any further than they have.
And pedophile has a normal word meaning - i.e. pedo (child) - phile (affinity/attraction to). So a paediatrician is a pedophile, and so is a childcare worker - but not in some sick way of course, context matters.
Well, if she's playing football (wow) then there's not going to be any skin to see through the padding. Dance recital would have made more sense to make your point.
Your Honor,
This data isn't encrypted, these are records for my business written by a program that I do not have the source code for, and the company that wrote the program was incorporated in Outer Mongolia and is out of business. And your honor, the program that would be able to read these records was accidentally destroyed last month, and I have no backups.
--------
Let them prove me a liar.
When the summary says "numerous files which constitute child pornography", are we talking about nude photos of kids (e.g., his own, or friends') in the bath or something like that? In that case, I can totally understand them wanting more substantial evidence against him.
Also, is having "an intricate electronic folder structure comprised of approximately 6,712 folders and subfolders" a crime now? Good God. I have over 10,000 in my home directory alone. Looks like I should expect the FBI to come knocking any moment.
No. Besides, she looks like she's 17, not 7.
But child pornography, in most instances is not depicting sex with children, but sex with underage minors, for instance, a 17 year old, or someone who looks like they are 17.
Yes, people who want to have sex with children is wrong, but the law is expanded far beyond this and people get crazy with the CP label because the law is far too wide. Just like peeing in your back yard can get you slapped with a "sexual offender" label for life, so can publicizing photos of your 25 year old girlfriend who looks 17 get you labeled as a CP distributor.
This is why I don't jump off the deep end and call this guy a monster. For all we know the CP he enjoys looking at is 20 year old women that look young. I sure wouldn't fault him for that. If it is photos of kids, then I agree, he is one sick bastard. But we don't know that, because the law is too broad, so why assume? it just gets you worked up. If you were a juror, that is exactly what they would be going for, too.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Your understanding is horrifically wrong. Your guess at "facts" is laughable. It wouldn't be laughable except you're in the minority and won't actually have any impact. What pedophiles need is mental health care, not prison. Unless, of course, they've actually caused harm (only a small percentage has, you're mistaken with your assumptions that you seem to think are facts) and if they've caused harm they need to see the inside of a correctional facility until they've reached the point where they're able to accept the help from mental health and are able to not harm in the future.
I did a whole bunch of research (I was bored, drinking, and legitimately curious as I don't see the attraction and wanted to understand) for a Fark thread at one point. I, too, thought similarly to how you seem to think. I was wrong, very much so, and have no problem changing my views based on the facts. You're a zealot on a witch hunt and will be seen as one as the tides turn. They're already starting to turn with more people being made aware of the facts and changing their views of registries and extreme punishments.
Actually seek out the facts and respond accordingly if you want. It is not difficult. Follow some links, read some studies, and then make up your mind. Until then you're operating based on myths and hyperbole. If that's what you want to do then all the more power to you but the rest of the world isn't going to join you and will find your credibility lacking.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Shouldn't a warrant be required to even get the drives to attempt to decrypt them? Even TFS says he hasn't even been charged with a crime yet, so how do they even HAVE the drives? IANAL, but sounds like a pretty easy case for dismissal of evidence.
I'm one hour away from full decryption and sellout of the entire USA economy, and you can't stop me.
Is the US economy encrypted?
Maybe that's why I have so much trouble understanding it...
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Does this mean the U.S. government is just a bunch of pervs and wants to see this guy's kiddie porn stash?
I assume you mean after a fair trial.
Besides that, I too am interested in how they "cracked" the encryption.
My guess is that they used knowledge of the offender and brute force to obtain the password ( the weakest link).
I was, and still am, under the impression that encryption done properly is virtually impossible to decrypt without the key.
Theethinks he doth protest too much?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
This is a pedophile. A child molester (potential or otherwise).
Did you really just go there? Every man is a potential rapist. Every woman is a potential prostitute. Let's lock up everybody now.
Too bad he doesn't work for the IRS, he'd be immune.
and I wont stand by silently while you attempt to murder an Inocent until proven guilty individual. If needed, I will shoot you in defense of said individual as you've proven yourself to be just another rabid animal in need of removal. Sorry but that's the only way our society will continue to stand. Read Robert Heinlenns - Star Ship Troopers and pay attention to the Moral History class early in the book. This is before the crap movie used the same name and didn't even relate to Heinlenns work.
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
You're going to hell heathen terrorist as that's exactly the same attitude of Al Queada
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
Absent any proof there was child porn on the drives the suspect couldn't be compelled to decrypt them to provide that evidence.
The FBI however was free to try and decrypt the drives.
After proving that drives at least contained some child porn it was no longer possible.
Imagine the same scenario with a house. The police think you have a grow op. But they don't have any actual proof of a grow up. They have a power bill, show up at your door and you say 'sorry, I run a server farm, not a grow op, no you cannot come in'. The police not believing this story keep snooping around, they watch you bring in lamps and fertilizer and numerous suspicious people bringing packages out. Eventually they get some sort of valid evidence that you have at least one growing illegal plant in your house. Now they can get a warrant, and you have to let them in.
You don't have to provide the police a key to your house, unless they can convince a judge there is definitely something illegal hidden behind your front door. Then you're boned.
Better analogy: the police suspect you have a grow op. They cordon off your house, and proceed to try to pick the lock on your front door. Having done that, and gone in and found evidence of wrongdoing, they are now asking a judge to compel you to unlock all your other properties, so the FBI may conduct a further fishing expedition to see if you have anything else they can charge you for.
we're all about to become "child porn suspects".
I'm guessing it's this part of it that protected him:
"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"
There's no clause in the fifth amendment that says "...but if we have good evidence you're guilty, then you have to tell us what we need to know in order to get more evidence."
The police put you in a room and say "CONFESS", and you refuse. Judge says "that's right--you don't have to confess to anything. In fact, you don't have to say anything at all. You can remain silent."
Later, the police find some evidence that suggests you really did something illegal. And really socially repulsive.
Judge thinks for 2 seconds and realizes "Who's going to defend a kiddy diddler? I can rule however I want against this guy and get almost no political backlash. But if I "defend the constitution", I'm a liberal judge letting a monster get away on a technicality." Not a difficult decision for a pragmatic public servant. "Let the beatings begin.".
First they came for the child rapists and I said nothing because everyone would think I was one, too.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Do you ever wonder how many pedophiles refuse to seek help for their condition because of people like you?
You sound molested.
Spoken like a true republican.
doth protest too much.
He's referring to the cheerleaders, numb nuts.
It clearly means the poster isn't paying any rent to his mum for the basement.
That's only because it's more expedient for the police to break your door down then to have the judge order you to give them a key. But make no mistake, a judge could issue such an order, and if you refused to comply hold you in contempt of court and held in jail indefinitely until you do.
The prosecutor should have to make his case as if the defendant is in absentia.
I like to think that Dennis Hopper would play Khyber in the movie adaptation of Slashdot.
Wouldn't handing over an encryption key be equivalent to saying: "Yes, this is my computer/data."
Until he hands over that key, he could deny it is his computer, or that he ever had the key. He could claim it was planted there. But as soon as he provides a key, he has admitted it is his computer. And doesn't forcing him to do that violate the fifth amendment?
Even TFS says he hasn't even been charged with a crime yet, so how do they even HAVE the drives?
They get the search warrant before they arrest somebody.
It's probably more like the court ordering you to unlock a safe when they have a warrant to search its contents.
Last I heard, the FBI can't prove he owned the drives. It is more like the court ordering you to unlock a rented locker (with a combination lock) in a gym, before they can show it was you who rented it. By unlocking it, you proved the content are yours.
This is the crucial issue, which you are glossing over. You DON'T have to provide the police a key to your house
How sure of this are you? Lets extend the analogy to the situation where you have a saferoom in your house, that the cops are simply unable to break into. They hear banging and "please let me out. Im a child and Im being abused" faintly from behind the door. Do you think they cannot get a court order to force you to open the door?
There are places I can go to castrate the mentally ill? holy fuck, someone book me a vacation there! Talk about a once in a lifetime experience.
Oh hey, there is my short yellow van that I go to the special place with my friends in, we're going on a field trip to Africa today... yaaay.
PS My mommy says Im handsome.
They managed to decrypt one of them. As we know, the FBI has nothing better to do with their time, and they have a good idea of the sort of passwords he uses, so they'll probably crack the rest in a little while, if they don't just throw them in a box for the 10years he's in prison and crack them with computers that run at 2^5 times the speed of their current machines then.
Depending on what he has on there, they may not be able to lay out powerful enough threats to make him decrypt the remaining drives, but I don't think this particular guy is what most of us are really concerned about in this case. What IT professional doesn't have an encrypted drive around with hacker tools and perfectly legal stuff they don't want decrypted? Say my neighbor downloaded something sketchy and they know I frequently use his wireless...decrypt my drives for them and have it reported that I had "intricate filesystems containing zillions of porn images and suspicious tools" or spend a few months in jail for contempt? Hence why your normal /.er is all excited about the implications here.
Ok, while not what is going on in this case since stored his files directly and relied on simple encryption, which ultimately is stupid.. But lets say you just setup a freenet node, insert all your stuff into the freenet-cloud and delete your local copies. ( or something similar.. )
Then you store the keys/links in an encrypted ( and if you are smart, hidden ) volume. Would that constitute possession of ' bad information'? You don't have the actual banned data and you just know how to get to it, no better or worse than google search.. It also doesn't prove you ever accessed it, as long as you don't keep browsing history.
Now that isn't to say that i would want a pedophile finding a way to hide, but i can see this becoming an issue for other people who are declared 'political dissidents' as that line is slowly moved to include more and more people over time.
The age of consent in california is 18. Most places in the us its 17-18 theres a few where its 16.
or gets off to the thought
By that logic we have to arrest all men who like adult rape porn, and adult japanese porn too since so many of the women are pretending not to want it..
I think the hiding places analogy he used is better.
They know you've cached things in the woods on three different occasions, but they don't have the resources to find them. They tore open one cache here and found evidence of crimes and you are now ordered to show them the other two caches. The judge now orders you reveal the other two locations. If you don't comply, they can either search obvious places (dictionary attacks) or sweep the whole forest (brute force). Either way it's far harder than holding you in contempt of court.
How many times have you been right and it turns out it is a monster?
Hahahahaha, trick question! They always turn into human form after I kill them! Sometimes they even end up looking like the friends and family members whose appearance they mimicked after they killed them and hid the body.
I always kill the monsters. They killed my loved ones, so I kill them.
On my work machine:
"So why don't you have sex with..."
If you find only one take-away from this thread, make it this:
Sex is NOT compulsory, for anyone, under any circumstances.
You are equating attraction with having sex, and having sex with forcing/manipulating sex. This is the mother of all slippery-slope arguments.
I suspect this was basically an unintentional confession of your underlying thought processes, and if we had the opportunity to investigate further, I bet we'd find a whole lot more under this particular personal rock of yours. I find it disturbing at the outset that your thought process seems persistently to be, "Well, if you're attracted to something, of course you are going to have sex with it, therefore...". This may be true for you. Thinking this way of "compulsory sex" may in fact be the basis of some favorite rationalizations of your own behavior. It is not true in any wider sense. It is precisely this type of non-reasoning that seems most descriptive of the thought processes of the "animals" you keep railing against.
"Generally i wouldn't go near that."
So, take two. To use the phase where it's more appropriate than I've ever seen it be...
What does that even mean?
Can I translate this to the equivalent of "That's so repugnant I'd usually never do that mostly"? Like I said, like to know what else is under that rock.
I think it's time for you to do a bit more introspection, and a bit less dispensing dubious analyses and planning rage-killings.
I really don't see how it applies to self incrimination. This is really no different than handing over a combination to a safe.
The point of the 5th is to not force people to talk not make it impossible for police to investigate and prosectutors to gather further evidence.
We live in a world where advertising is considered protected free speech to get around laws preventing overt advertising in areas and corporations are "people", government wrongdoings are protected under the umbrella of "national security", but an ordinary citizens have to divulge information that could basically be considered a means of self incrimination.
I assure you, I am not, by any modern clinical definition, a pedophile. I am an activist working against child abuse and I volunteer to work with children who have been abused. The most disturbing moments of my life have been from seeing the result of a pedophiles selfish and evil whims inflicted on a child. If I ever had a single stray thought that it might be okay to think about a child sexually, I would end my life then and there. Why? Because I am a decent person (or, at least, not a bad one). If pedophiles cared about anyone except themselves, they would do the same.
AC, I commend you for your work with the victims. I doubt if it's something many here (and certainly not me) would volunteer to do. I think the criticism you've been taking has been for your "hang-'em-all" attitude.
Question though - have you found out why child molesters do it? I read once that rape wasn't a sexual act - it was an act of violence expressed in a sexual way. In your opinion, does pedophilia have that aspect as well?
I'm quite serious - and again, thanks from this part of society for carrying the can.
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
-What's the password?
-12345.
-Didn't work.
-Well, then either the drive isn't mine or you guys screwed the filesystem.
He can own it.
Are you off your meds or something? I have no idea what /. would need to save me from. Certainly not from you.
That's fine, but the key is that you're not the government.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I'm imagining a hard drive with a built in set associative flash cache and the ability to load data into the cache without writing it to the disk. Then you put a key part of your encryption keys into the cache without writing the to the disk.
If someone makes a bit copy of the drive, they will invalidate your cache and erase your keys.
Sure it would be possible to copy the cache before copying the disk, but that would involve popping open an ASIC and extracting the bits the hardway.
They know where the hiding place is.
Since this is a safe that really can't be cracked (unlike traditional safes). We have two choices in society. Outright ban encryption and anyone caught with encrypted files is automatically guilty...or the keys are not considered self encrimination
Encryption is useful and important for many reasons, it is also a game changer that would make law enforcement fairly useless and cause major problems in society if law enforcement can't obtain warrants to obtain the key.
Wrong. Normal people can accept the consent of their objects of attraction. A pedophile can only rape. That is the difference, and that is why they need to be put down.
There is no way for a pedophile to fulfill his sexual urges without harming a child. They either molest, or they look at child porn. Either way, their sick minds have tainted a child for life. Yes, this includes drawn images because those normalize sexualizing children, and the "artist" had to get inspiration from somewhere (I wonder how much of this so-called "harmless" material is just traced photographs). You can argue that sex isn't compulsory, but a pedophile who doesn't rape a child is no better than one who does, he is just another predator waiting to pounce.
We have two choices in society. Outright ban encryption and anyone caught with encrypted files is automatically guilty...or the keys are not considered self encrimination Encryption is useful and important for many reasons, it is also a game changer that would make law enforcement fairly useless and cause major problems in society if law enforcement can't obtain warrants to obtain the key.
The Bill of Rights can be a real PITA, but we shouldn't make exceptions just because somebody thinks it's expedient. If there is a problem with the Constitution, then there is a well defined process to amend it.
Afraid not! I'm a registered Democrat. Luckily, if there is one thing that both parties can agree on, it's that pedos are the scum of the earth.
Anyone who quotes Henlein to make a point had serious issues with reality. He was one sick crazy dude.
I have no mod points and commented in this thread so all I can reward you with is the knowledge that you earned a chuckle from me. Thanks. ;)
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
It sounds like a trap. They let him into the system unobserved, and then he deletes everything instead of decrypting it. Now he's in deeper shit for destroying evidence. Except, of course, they've got a backup copy of everything. But they can still pin him with tampering/destroying evidence.
Fact: As many as 1 in 4 girls is and one in 6 boys will be sexually abused before age 18. One out of every seven victims of child sexual abuse is age five or younger.
So which is it? Are a small percentage of pedophiles molesting thousands of children each, while the others take the blame? Is the number of pedophiles so huge that even a small percentage a large group? Or, could it possibly by that pedophiles, who are dispositioned to abuse children, tend to do so, be it through actual rape or by pornography? Face it, for all practical purposes, pedophile = child rapist. There is no way to write sound public policy while denying that fact.
On what grounds would they cordon off your house? If a judge says 'go ahead and cordon it off for public safety' they pretty much can.
Tough.
Seriously.
You can bring all that up in an attempt at a legal defence. But in the narrow portion of 'when can they snoop around' you're pretty much screwed.
"but a pedophile who doesn't rape a child is no better than one who does"
Yes, he is.
By every single moral premise... ever. If there is a "monster" here, it is you, by supporting this notion.
Thinking is not the same as actions. Ever. That you found a particular social pariah you can get away with these outlandish claims against, because few will stand up to your immoral stance, due to concerns about their own social popularity, does not change this.
Thinking "I want to have sex with J-Lo" is not the same as being willing to rape her for it, much less to actually do so.
Thinking "I could kill that asshole" that cut you off in traffic, does not make you morally culpable for murder.
Thinking "the government is corrupt" does not make one guilty of treason or a terrorist.
What you are describing is "thoughtcrime", and if Orwell's 1984 hasn't told you enough about where that leads, there's little I can say about it to make you change your mind. I'll simply note my objections, as it is morally required.
Frankly, I'm betting the more likely scenario here is that you're the kind of guy who would be looking for people to call "n-ggers" and "f-ggots", for the easy ego boosts, but society doesn't let you get away with targeting them anymore, so you're going with whatever you've got to work with. But regardless, I won't acknowledge your immoral stance here as moral. Period.
Indefinitely - Federal courts allow for 18 months as maximum for contempt. State laws vary greatly, include many that are unlimited.
The longest served to date has been 14 years.
http://www.psmag.com/legal-affairs/a-most-uncivil-contempt-3464/
I have met a few before, after they were already arrested. (Generally speaking, I don't deal with the offenders at all.) They were all dishonest and evasive, and claimed to have done no harm (if they admitted to anything at all). The only one that I can say that I don't think was motivated by sex was one particularly horrible crack addict who had raped a girl in an abandoned house. I'm not sure what to make of that one. The others, I do not know, as my interaction with them was not extensive. I admit that I have no desire to understand them, and I can see how that is a problem that might cloud my judgement, but I will not change my hardline approach to this because of that.
"new victims" They accused him of possing kiddy porn didn't they? Not *making* it. I notice its usual to conflate the two these days, but that's marketing too. An image of a murder victim is not the same as murdering a person.
" "6712 folders" and seven hundred thousand plus images they contain."
They said files not images. The computer in front of me is a vanilla Windows 7 machine, with some apps on it, it has greater than 32000 folders and more than quarter of a million files (its taking too long to count them). I can't be bothered waiting for it to do the count. I've also visited 4chan,
So they are marketing it, and so did you.
Pay attention to any politician or cop who has to testify under oath. Use their magic words "I don't recall". At this point they already know the drives are his.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
"If am coerced into giving you evidence ..."
That's the legal distinction. You CAN be forced to hand over evidence. You can't be forced to testify. If the cops have evidence that something I have is evidence of a crime, they can get a court order and take possession of that evidence.
The current ruling is that the files are evidence, so he can be forced to hand them over. Before any drive was decrypted, it hadn't been proven that the he COULD decrypt the drives. Maybe he bought them used and the previous owner encrypted them. The judge's earlier ruling was that he couldn't be forced to SAY "I can decrypt those files (they are mine). Giving up the key would be equalivent to testifying that the files were his. That would have been testimony and therefore protected under the fifth amendment.
Now that the judge is satisfied it's proven that the encrypted drives ARE his, the big question is "what is on the drive" and that's a question of evidence, not testimony. As evidence, it's not protected by the fifth amendment protection against TESTIFYING against useful.
And what do we do with witches? We burn them!
Bullshit. You are advocating a witch hunt, based upon a logically flawed association fallacy. I'm glad that you have nothing to do with our criminal justice system. You are as sick as those who you claim to target.
[citation needed] You are clearly fabricating statistics, then using a clear fabrication to justify a deplorable conclusion involving circumvention of due process of law, followed by cruel and/or unusual punishment. You are a horrible person. I don't know how you sleep at night.
in court demonstration of how the one hard drive was protected, steps they took to try to get into it, what finally did work, and how they found what they say they found.. AND reveal to the court exactly what it is that they found... along with a full audit and custody trail of the confiscated equipment from initial seizure to present day.
if they can't or won't do that.. it's all make-believe to try to coerce cooperation or confession from the suspect...
A good prosecutor never lets something like the law get in the way of a conviction.
I am John Hurt.
The vast majority don't actually classify as pedophiles. There's an actual definition to the word you're using. You can't just assign new meaning to it and consider it good. Well, you can but nobody will take you seriously.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
In prison I think it's most likely in all degrees.
I more or less agree with your perspective, but I'm wondering if you might be a little paranoid about how often major CP investigations/prosecutions are for something other than "real" CP. Do you have any specific examples of people being convicted for CP when all they had were pictures of people who could easily be on either side of 18?
... They have the drives because they got a warrant for them.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Justice isn't only about being fair, it's also about getting revenge and punishing the weird.
Why else would we lock people up for involuntary manslaughter and looking at nude drawings of children?
Pedophiles are basically 21st century witches. Burn them all.
It wouldn't be laughable except you're in the minority and won't actually have any impact.
Heheheh. Stepped outside lately? Compared to what some politicians, pundits, and others say, he's actually pretty moderate. He didn't even advocate using them as slave or contestants on a televised show where you fight to the death, much less that it should be legal to vivisect anyone who might maybe have glanced at a child once perhaps.
Ok, bad day for me. . . . that's pretty obvious now that you point it out. . .
Yes, but in the sumary, doesn't it state that they couldn't prove the disks were his? Potentially they still can't prove in, in which case decrypting them would prove they are his thus we still have a 5th amandment issue. That said, the decrypted disk may contain enough information to make them be undoubtly his.
The password is in his head. You saying they have the right to extract it?
This is some hellish hyper Orwellian shit going on right here.
Child Pornography has been used by government officials and politicians worldwide to "install" them into the computers of their political enemies and blackmail them. Remember that famous case concerning a prominent Swedish politician where his computer was hacked with NetBus (or BackOrifice, either one) and loaded with kiddie porn, and the police get tipped-off "coincidentally" to investigate, ending that guy's career and ruin his life forever?
That is why civilized society like Japan, CP is legal to possess (but illegal to resale / transfer). If you want to catch the real monsters, you will have better luck in Catholic churches and synagogues.
New Economic Perspectives
Before any drive was decrypted, it hadn't been proven that the he COULD decrypt the drives.
That still hasn't been proven. Maybe he forgot the passphrases years ago. Also, he has already handed over the evidence. It's not his fault if the FBI is too stupid to crack all of the encryption. What he is being compelled to do now is help the prosecution make their case against him more compelling, at least to a jury, by giving them the rest of the passphrases. That's a pretty clear 5th amendment issue. Yet another judge who wipes his ass with the constitution. Anything in the name of child porn. Every right will eventually be lost to a combination of child porn and terrorism. The two greatest weapons of pro police state fascists.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
It's pizza rolls. Can't afford hot pockets any more. No inflation though. They have been hedonically substituted.
No. It's more like the court ordering you to give the prosecution some additional evidence to help them ruin your life and/or kill you. There is no way for the court to know or to prove that the suspect has any idea what those passphrases actually are. Suspect says he doesn't know them. Court tells him that if that is true then he is fucked because the court doesn't believe him. He then gets life in prison without a trial for contempt because the judge doesn't believe him.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
I'm not arguing about whether it's right or wrong.
I'm just pointing out that in a number of ways, forcing someone to decrypt an encrypted disk isn't that dissimilar from compelling a defendant from unlocking a combination safe. In both cases, it unlocks a trove of data, and can give the prosecution evidence to help them ruin the defendant's life.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
very approximate.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
You're not a very good troll, you know.
Normal people can accept the consent of their objects of attraction.
Then I suppose we should toss people who can't get girlfriends in prison.
A pedophile can only rape.
You're an imbecile. A pedophile is not necessarily a child molester.
There has never been a case of which I am aware that a pedophile was caught the very first time he raped or molested a child. By the time a pedophile is actually caught for sexual abuse or CP, they already have a history of doing so.
is quite compatible with the GP's claim that most pedophiles are not child molesters.
but I will not change my hardline approach to this because of that.
And I hope absolutely everyone ignores the garbage that spews from your mouth and fingers.
Yeah, I have been watching. It appears as though the rhetoric and fear are starting to lessen but my "finger on the pulse" may not be so fine tuned as I am hoping it is. For a while it was getting scary but then they actually DID find people who were on The List® for drunken pissing in an alley. Then they did find Important People® on The List® and seem to have relaxed a little bit. I could EASILY be mistaken though. Easily... It may be just my area, just my news feeds, just my biases, or just dumb luck and I'm blind to it all. However, from my perspective, it has lessened a smidgen over the last six months or so.
There but for the grace of God go I...
I'm agnostic (I'd not dare to hazard a guess, nor am I presumptuous enough to claim to know but I suspect there isn't a divine being) but that statement still means a great deal to me. I don't think those who advocate death, slavery, islands in the Pacific without food or water, castration, or worse have actually heard that quote. If they have heard it then I'm not entirely sure they have given it thought or actually understand it.
Someone needs to challenge those laws as being "cruel and unusual." ACLU doesn't seem inclined. Given the amount of bad press that they'd get I'm not surprised. Maybe we need a kick-starter type of program? I'm sure that would go over about as well as a fart in church.
Hmm... That's a lot of religious metaphors. Oh well. Anyhow, I'm not sure if a "good" lawyer would even want their name attached to such actions. I am, of course, in no way advocating abuse (nor pictures of abuse) for anyone regardless of the victim's age. If anything I think more sex offenses should be categorically forced to include mandatory mental health and rehabilitation as a priority punishment. I also think that we, as a society, need to reduce some of the attached stigma so that those who are a risk can safely seek mental health as an intervention instead of attempting to curb the behavior on their own.
When I was doing a bunch of reading/studying for a Fark thread I found out that the vast majority respond overwhelmingly well to therapy with group therapy and (oddly enough) polygraph tests. I was quite surprised... I had been told (but really wasn't sure of and certainly didn't believe) that there was no hope at rehabilitation. I was downright shocked when I discovered the link between effectiveness and the polygraph examination as I was under the impression that the polygraph was categorically useless.
Anyhow, I spent a good three days worth of time (probably akin to 12 to 16 hours) researching, reading studies, reading statements from victims and from offenders, as well as researching the punishments. I looked at the statistics and looked for evidence to support my prior beliefs (I had my reasons, I know it was the wrong way to go about it but it was actually a last-step type of thing just to be sure, changing my mind isn't easy) and found out a great deal about them. You know how everyone says that they're not curable and that they'll just go on to commit more sex crimes when they're released? (It's a pretty common assumption, statement, or "fact.") Well, sex offenders have just about the lowest rate of recidivism in all the various criminal classes/types. Just about the only thing, according to DOJ or FBI (I think it was FBI, it was a year or two ago that I did the research) statistics just about the only people less likely to re-offend are those who are convicted of murder. Yeah, murder... I can see people only needing to murder once and getting released, finally, to never feel the need to be a murdering bastard again. I was shocked to learn that they are closely followed by sex offenders who are actually recidivists a miniscule number of times per capita. I was pretty shocked. Feel free to look it up if you're interested, it was pretty amazing.
I guess I have typed enough at this point. Sorry for the novella but the subject was interesting for a time and having the chance to use that information a second time is somehow mentally rewarding. It is as if that time I spent looking the information up, reading it, digesting it, and adjusting my views accordingly wasn't wasted. Imagine that? *chuckles*
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
If it were there would be none of these issues as males would just convert to islam or a religion that recognises the early jewish law books and marry a very young girl.
they only know theirs files on the drive not what they are.
Forgot to take your medication today?
Re: You have a problem here. All the feds have to do is go before the judge, start with an archived copy of the original disk which can be proven to be bitwise identical, apply the correct decryption process, and when out pops all the data they claim was there you'll have to explain how they got the original encrypted bytes to decrypt directly into the alleged criminal data.
I can make you a one-time pad that can decrypt any X of length $L_x$ into any Y also of length $L_x$. Just fucking XOR the values of X and Y and call that Z = (X) xor (Y) . Now, Z is the XOR-decryption-encryption key that will transform X into Y. That can be done for every fucking Y possible in the world. Of course, this is charlatanry. You're not going to use a one-time pad of length 1-terabyte, or are you?
But it's trivial. Say that my code is "12345". Say that I want to decode that into "fuxor". Set Z = "12345" xor "fuxor", and say that Z is the encryption key. Now, (Z) xor ("12345") = "fuxor". Tada. La Voila.
But what if instead I wanted to prove that "12345" really encoded "itsCP" ?? Well, claim that Z_2 = "12345" xor "itsCP". Now, (Z_2) xor ("12345") = "itsCP". Ohmifuckinggod, the code "12345" decodes into the obvious claim that "itsCP"!!! There can be no other answer!!! Hang'em!
And that can be done for the noisy chaff that is encrypted data too. It's like the Queen in Alice Wonderland explaining what words mean: "I can make them mean anything I want them to mean!"
in other words, tl;dr: I can make a one-time pad to prove it's anything...
Yes, you can be compelled to unlock the door.
They could move to an Islamic country or a country that follows Deuteronomy (22 28-29, hebrew), and marry a little girl.
That would be good. Their children could fight against you and your religion (US law)
Lots of posts above say the law enforcement officers in the article must be lying. I can think of a scenario where what they are saying makes sense.
Imagine the following setup. Windows 7 desktop computer, two disk drives. Strong encryption on the d drive. They break the Windows 7 system after some effort. In the browser cache and perhaps logs the see that he has some nasty pictures, has downloaded and spent a large amount of time looking a jpegs on the D: drive in folders with names implying child porn. Nude girl pictures organized by age or whatever. Some of the file names may be relatively well known file names. There are likely enough pictures that can be seen on the C: drive to convict.
The idea is that he boots up windows and unlocks the d drive manually every time he feels the need. You can tell some of what is on it by paths and such.
That said, I personally do not think this is constitutional unless he is given immunity from what is found there if forced to disclose the password.
What if it's a combination lock that you forgot how to open? On a safe so good they can't crack it open?
Deuteronomy 22 28-29 in ancient Hebrew states that if a man rapes a young girl he keeps her and pays her father some money.
Deuteronomy also says to kill those who say to follow another god/judge/ruler. You want us to follow US religion/law.
In Dueteronomy the man is ba'al: master
The God of Deuteronomy is worthy of worship.
Your prison state and religion is not (USA), though you people demand world wide obeyance.
Considering the allegation against this man, this is pretty damning for him whether he truly was guilty or not to begin with. Saying you were accused of child pornography and even found innocent is still going to stop anyone from wanting him..
This thread has 78 posts, almost 20% of all comments on this story as of when I am typing this sentence. If he's trolling, he's pretty good.
Deuteronomy 22 28-29 in ancient Hebrew states that if a man rapes a young girl he keeps her and pays her father some money.
Deuteronomy also says to kill those who say to follow another god/judge/ruler. You want us to follow US religion/law.
In Dueteronomy the man is ba'al: master
The God of Deuteronomy is worthy of worship.
Your prison state and religion is not (USA), though you people demand world wide obeyance.
.
Deuteronomy 22 28-29 (In hebrew)
2 Samual 12 (little lamb).
Marrying/keeping young girls is fine in the deuterocanonical religion.
Overthrow the global US religion that denies males sweet nice cute young girls.
There is no pursuit of happiness nor freedom of religion in america. I has it's own religion. Overthrow it.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that this guy is, indeed, guilty. Legally, however, he's no more than a suspect until proven guilty. Since when are defendants required to assist in incriminating themselves? I thought that your constitution protected against that? It's a very, very slippery slope this judge is going down here.
Well, as according to the NRA all honest Americans are Militia and according to your own government you are at various wars, I can see an opportunity :)
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
I think that a safe is the more common close analogy. If the FBI can prove to a judge's satisfaction that the safe is yours and contains illegal substances, you can be ordered to open it, and failure to comply is contempt of court. The only difference is that if you refuse with a safe, the FBI has (more destructive) ways to open it themselves.
Except how can they PROVE you have illegal substances in a safe they cannot see in? They have to convince the judge to give a warrant because, well we "found evidence"
Warrants tend to come before charges.
Warrants require probable cause, not arraignment. There have been a great many charges brought because of evidence recovered by warrants.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
I see no way that a judge has the power to compel a defendant to do anything other than appear in court to face his accusers, and send him to prison if convicted. It's a fundamental right to hire an attorney to speak on your behalf and put the burden of proof on the prosecution. There's just no way contempt of court applies.
I think you and others here are missing that this Anon very likely was sexually assaulted as a child or knows something intimately who was. Anon is writing like someone with a very personal take in this. Personally, I think "molest" is a bullshit word to make light what would count as rape and sexual assault were the victim older. I don't know where anon gets those factoids from as there was no citation, but I think that final bit about no punishment being too harsh for pedophilia and the beginning bit about pedophiles never avoiding children is enough for me to dismiss this person, even if I do think pedophilia is disgusting and child rapists are horrible. Anon can't process that child pornography include these scenarios which lead to ridiculous outcomes:
1. photos of your 18 year old girlfriend wherein the age of the photo can't be determine
2. photos of your 35 year old wife dressed in naughty catholic schoolgirl outfit
3. photos of your 16 year old legally married wife whom you live with and are presumed to have had sex with
4. photos of yourself looking suggestive when you are under 18
5. photos of your 16 year old girlfriend nude when you are 16 years old too
6. photos of your 6 year old child in the bathtub, naked, laughing and playing with toys
He handed over the evidence. If he were the last living speaker of a previously unrecorded language and they couldn't interpret his seized personally diaries, it's tough luck on the prosecution. How can he be compelled by court order to do anything beyond appear in court and let his lawyer speak for him? It can't possibly stick.
...and I absolutely cannot figure out the passphrase to save my life. I have some old code on that drive that I want back. I think it is on that drive anyway. Oh well.
Now that drive is several years old.
I guess it is plausible that this dude forgot his passwords, but to forget 6?
Question, are there unencrypted timestamps anywhere (either the drive itself or on the PC he used to access the drives) that can prove when he last accessed those drives?
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
They can and should have done something.
Common Law legal definition of assault:
"An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability." [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault ]
Note the use of the wording "threat.." to "..cause the harm."
In law school I read case to demonstrate this principle. A person (a black person, in the case) who's lunch tray was yanked out of his hand in the company lunch room. Although, the timing of the case had some real relevance to affirmative action at the time, the courts came down that that action was an "assault."
The way to look at it is: Assault: fear of injury, followed by Battery: the actual "hitting."
Sue the kids, the parents and the police in your area of the rock-throwing-assualt-zone.
Or (1) Avoid that area, and instruct your children there is plenty of trouble in the world, don't look for it, learn to avoid it. (2) Explain what "selective enforcement" is. Or (3) Explain how the U.S Judicial system and the police actually "do their jobs", in the hopes the next generation can try and fix what is now broken (Legislation and enforcement paradigms.)
Three choices... pick two..
What IT professional doesn't have an encrypted drive around with hacker tools and perfectly legal stuff they don't want decrypted?
People tend to overestimate the number of people that are like themselves. Just because you have such an encrypted drive and you know of other examples doesn't mean that it's most, let alone your implied virtually all.
Say my neighbor downloaded something sketchy and they know I frequently use his wireless...decrypt my drives for them and have it reported that I had "intricate filesystems containing zillions of porn images and suspicious tools" or spend a few months in jail for contempt?
I'm afraid if the feds have a search warrant for your property, you don't have the choice to refuse. That's kind of what a warrant is. You don't have a right to refuse access because it's an encrypted drive any more than you have a right to refuse access because you have very good locks on your house.
If you have something illegal but unrelated to the "sketchy" file, than bad luck, you may be prosecuted. That's the risk you took when you did the illegal thing. Encryption doesn't give you some kind of right to do illegal things with impunity.
If there is nothing illegal than you're in the clear.
Note, this isn't a justification for fishing expeditions by law enforcement, any more than it would be for a house search warrant. The point I'm making is that it isn't any different from the long standing precedent of search warrants for property. A failed search for stolen goods may still end up with a drug violation being prosecuted.
The legal distinction is between being required to:
a) "Testify" against yourself, which is protected by the 5th.
and
b) Being required to produce documents, for which the "existence, control, and authenticityâ has been established. Which is not protected by the 5th.
There's no dispute that the files on a disk are documents. And having established "existence, control, and authenticityâ, by cracking one of the disks, he's being required to produce the rest of them.
This case is a classic example of "foregone conclusion", not an abuse of it.
Having said that, clearly the digital age has brought uncertainty to this general area, and a new law that is clear about where the lines are would be better than navigating case law, and trying to apply it to new circumstances.
> an intricate electronic folder structure comprised of approximately 6,712 folders and subfolders, approximately 707,307 files Somebody foudn the C:\windows directory :)
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
17 is still the age of child pornography. You see all child porn laws deal with 18 as the threshold - even when in some states the legal age of sexual consent is 16 years old.
So basically, in certain states you can pickup a 17 year old, have sex with her perfectly legally, but if you happen to snap a pic while doing it then you're one of those dirty child pornographers that everyone wants to castrate and burn at the stake.
No, I'm saying once the "existence, control, and authenticityâ of documents have been established beyond reasonable doubt, the defendant has a duty to produce them.
Not doing so is contempt of court, and would probably add to his sentence.
This is true regardless of what novels you chose to mention.
Here's a fun one. You can have pictures of a nude kid, of any age. Nudity alone doesn't constitute pornography, even in the case of children. Nudity, of the child at least, isn't even technically required for it to be considered actual child pornography according to the law.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
So they cracked one drive that shows it contains his personal, private data and also contains child pornography... This isn't enough to convict based on.......?
Do they just want the numbers to look bigger once they convict? I don't get why what they have isn't enough.
I do see your point. On the other hand, if I have some evidence of your innocence locked in a safe and I'm ordered to turn it over, I have to unlock the safe and hand you the evidence. I can't just hand you the safe and say "good luck".
More accurately, if it's good encryption, it would be more like encasing the paper evidence in concrete, then handing you the block of concrete.
There are two sides to this question. The fact that the judge ruled he did NOT have to decrypt it, then when the facts changed ruled the other way means that the judge is considering both sides.
If they really broke so much of his encryption and found child pornography related stuff, why has he not been charged? Sounds like they don't have any real proof at all and want HIM to provide them with something to use. I don't need to be a judge to say that would come under the fifth.
Some people feel that if you use encryption, you must have something to hide. That idea is often promoted by prosecution in law enforcement. Ever written a short letter to someone? Why didn't you use a post card? "Do you have something to hide, citizen!?" Of course not. That logic needs to be shot down right up front. If someone encrypts their hard drives, it's not because there's evidence of a crime. It may just be because what is on them is nobody else's business, even the government's.
Why not ask the government sometime if you can look through their hard drives. Expect to hear words like "confidential" and/or "national security" or "executive priviledge". Ok. Maybe those things apply sometimes. How about these words: "private", "personal security" and "personal priviledge". Don't those words apply too?
It wouldn't be so easy to be critical of such things if the law worked both ways.
Do you have any specific examples of people being convicted for CP when all they had were pictures of people who could easily be on either side of 18?
I was reading just the other day how the entire Traci Lords series of videos (100+, IIRC) is now considered illegal. As well as the Vanessa Williams Penthouse issue, since she posed in that too. The videos and that issue were best-sellers in the 80's.
Dozens of known pornographers, including big corporate ones like Penthouse, got tricked by her deception about her age (using a friend's birth certificate). Nobody knew because she apparently looked several years older than she was, and apparently she was incredibly popular with average people at the time (who were not pedophiles).
So, go ahead and find a private collection of these, digitize them, and put them up for sale on a website. Let's see what happens.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Justice isn't only about being fair, it's also about getting revenge and punishing the weird.
The entire Western "justice" system is based on vengeance. Which is kinda funny when people start claiming that it's a Christian establishment. I've read what he said, and it wasn't that.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
This tells us that the FBI is not all it is cracked up to be. In other words, they can't decrypt. Interesting to know.
Read point 25 of the affidavit www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2013/04/fedswantdecryption.pdf I won't post the filenames here
If the FBI can prove to a judge's satisfaction that the safe is yours and contains illegal substances, you can be ordered to open it, and failure to comply is contempt of court.
This is probably factually true, but completely unreasonable. If you can prove that the safe contains illegal substances, you don't have to open the safe at all. You already have the proof you need.
If you need to open the safe to see what's in it, you didn't have enough proof to compel opening of the safe.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
We have two choices in society. Outright ban encryption and anyone caught with encrypted files is automatically guilty...or the keys are not considered self encrimination
There's a third choice. Respect the right of people to do whatever math they want, AND respect their right to be free from self incrimination. Imagine that, respecting the rights of the people. Bet you never thought of that.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I did not think they let girls that young play in the lingerie football league.
The gratuitous description of his file structure makes me think there is a small typo in the write up. I believe they actually caught him with a huge stash of Child Object Porn.
Actually he's not coming until he's done making his pocket hot!
Everyone's a potential rapist, dimwit.
They can probably go get a judge to decree that unicorns and puppies shall be utilized to magically open the door under the right circumstances, and they can even charge you with something when it fails to happen. But it doesn't mean those charges should hold up in court, because we have laws against that sort of bullshit behavior by the legal system.
But too obvious. I suspect most people are simply replying to him in case he's actually serious.
It's good to know that slashdot presumes that I can do whatever I want illegally as long as I store the incriminating information on an encrypted disk.
Seems like his mistake was putting it on his own hard drive; he should have stored everything in an encrypted volume somewhere publicly accessible in the cloud. Access the file from a couple of different IP addresses every now and again. The more people have physical access to the file, the stronger your argument that decrypting the file would give the government something it can't already prove, i.e., that the file is yours. Just make damned sure you trust your encryption.
A friend of mine got married at age 18 to a woman who was 16. She was emancipated through the process. She was working at a strip club at age 16-17. I'm not sure if an emancipated woman can strip legally (and that is definitely information I wont be searching for at work), but she was working at a legit place. Maybe since it's local, state law would apply and not federal law. Either way, every man who saw her was technically participating in CP. She didn't look too much older, but I doubt anyone would have assumed she was under 18.
Change the firmware of the drive to detect an attempt to read the data without the encryption key and write random data to the drive instead.
Or
Don't store all of the data locally, store 1/3 of it in 3 different places. If they lose connectivity with each other, initiate lockdown or wipe.
I wholeheartedly support the protection of "Freaks" getting away with their "nastiness". When you have somebody causing actual harm, you can have at them.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
You know, Mary Mother of Jesus was 14 when she gave birth. Back in the day, it was common for 25-30 year old men to marry 13 year old girls and nail them and have children. You know, back when America was young. 150, 200 years ago.
I get the thing about how you shouldn't want to have sex with a 5 year old; but sometimes I wonder if pedophilia isn't largely a manufactured condition, what with "she's 12 dude wtf" going on when she has bigger boobs than your damn Playboy model wife. My cousin had large Cs when she was 11, she got called a whore just 'cause her boobs were so big... middle school boys are assholes.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I just thought I'd follow up and see how your progress was coming along Pinky. Man, the internet is the one place you can be perfectly honest and, instead, you opted to tell lies. I'm disappointed.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I'm sorry, but while I can accept that that's the way the coruts are ruling, I can't accept that as valid constitutionally. To me it looks horribly corrupt and subject to tremendous potentiality for abuse. (If I have to give you the evidence, then I don't have it to prove my innocence. If I give you access to my signing key, then you can forge messages and claim they came from me. etc.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Did you just publicly describe how somebody might acquire known illegal material?
Wait - no. I found you:
http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20130529/UPDATE/130529028/Man-threatens-blow-up-state-building-over-misspelled-sign?odyssey=mod|breaking|text|Home&nclick_check=1
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
If they are established beyond reasonable doubts - surely that's all the prosecution needs. If they need to see them that doesn't sound like 'beyond reasonable doubts' to me at all.
Of course that is ignoring the fact that prosecution already have the storage devices in their possession. Rendering any 'producing' argument moot.
I'm sure PLA MUCD Unit 61398 has you beaten to the punch.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
By that same argument, the guy now has every reason to claim the stress has caused him to forget the key. Anything they throw at him for that would be better than playing along with the "we know you have kiddie porn" line.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Pedophiles are deranged. Mentally ill. Sick. You can't reason with them because their brains do no work like normal people. The only thing that they respond to is force.
OK, Dr. Let's see your credentials?
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Yea well, dogs are dogs. Your stepfather is a person (who can reason, etc - as evidenced by his attempts to suppress/correct his impulse).
I bet you would have made a good Nazi.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Once they get the 5th amendment killed off, how many will still be left again?
What better way to do that than pick cases for which people will have the least sympathy?
"You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson
If they are established beyond reasonable doubts - surely that's all the prosecution needs. If they need to see them that doesn't sound like 'beyond reasonable doubts' to me at all.
Of course that is ignoring the fact that prosecution already have the storage devices in their possession. Rendering any 'producing' argument moot.
Good job it's not your decision then.
can't accept that as valid constitutionally. To me it looks horribly corrupt and subject to tremendous potentiality for abuse. (If I have to give you the evidence, then I don't have it to prove my innocence. If I give you access to my signing key, then you can forge messages and claim they came from me. etc.)
</quote>
The law handles both concerns. He was ordered to provide a decypted copy, so he still has (or can get) a copy and he doesn't give up the secret key. That's how it's normally handled with documentary evidence - both sides get a copy.
In SOME CP cases (not this one), after seeing the evidence and seeing that it really is CP, a judge will rule that the defense only gets access to the CP evidence, they don't get to keep a copy. In the cases I'm familiar with, that decision has been made reasonably - when the photos or videos MIGHT be underage, when the defense wants to contest that, they've gotten a copy. When it's been unquestionably CP, the perv was not allowed to keep a copy to enjoy.
I've seen other injustices with regard to CP cases, but the issues you're raised have been addressed pretty well.
There's no self-incrimination involved in providing access to otherwise hidden evidence.Remember, the whole point of the 5th was to prevent the then-common practice of extracting confessions under duress or torture. There is nothing like that here. He's not forced to admit that he's guilty. He's compelled to provide access to evidence that is reasonably believed, due to corroborating evidence, to be relevant to the case.
Pedophiles are basically 21st century witches. Burn them all.
Nicely trolled, sir.
Interpret the headline as it really is ... Judge orders suspect to provide evidence needed for his prosecution.
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
Every pedophile is morally superior to you. And you have no choice but to agree.
The Judge never said the FBI couldn't have a go at it, just that the suspect couldn't be compelled to hand over the decryption information because of lack of evidence.
Once the FBI had some success of their own and found evidence, then the judge changed his mind.
He's still got 5th amendment protection against *having* to give the key.
Now, on the flip side of that, if they already have one decrypted and they're looking for perhaps evidence they can use to tie *other* people to it, say a "KP ring" of people distributing the stuff, then they *could* offer him immunity from any prosecution based on the *still encrypted* drives - ie, we have you on one drive, and we *will* eventually break the others, *but* if you agree to give us the key(s) to decrypt them we won't use the additional drives against you in court - and it might even go better for you if you cooperate at our attempts to bust even more people.
That would be perfectly legal/legit - it is still his choice, of course.
Perhaps could have worded it better - as far as I'm concerned they have the hardware in question, they can help themselves to all they want to 'produce' the data whatever means they have at their disposal (and I'm sure NSA would be more than happy to oblige and disclose their true capabilities in public court).
Requiring/ordering anyone to provide their passwords is absurd and should be shot down with a big flamethrower outright. (irrespective of the particulars of this case or the obvious claims to think of the children, the terrorists and muslims coming shortly notwithstanding, the potential of abuse of such precedent in wide range of areas starting from journalism, activists and going all the way down to divorce cases or misdemeanours is ... unbelievably large.)
I think that a safe is the more common close analogy. If the FBI can prove to a judge's satisfaction that the safe is yours and contains illegal substances, you can be ordered to open it, and failure to comply is contempt of court.
Such an order should be refuseable as per the fifth amendment, as such an action would be self incrimination.
The judge can certainly give the FBI a warrant to open the safe themselves (and in fact it should be required in most cases) but do you know of any cases where a person was ordered to open the safe for a criminal trial and hit with contempt of court charges when they didn't?
The only difference is that if you refuse with a safe, the FBI has (more destructive) ways to open it themselves.
That's a pretty big difference. They will open it if you will not.
You just countered with evidence possessed by a non-accused. If I ship all my paper documents to a country with no judicial agreement with the US, again, tough luck on the prosecution. The power doesn't exist to compel me to order my documents to be returned to convict me.
So, the FBI has decrypted one drive. On that drive they found child porn. The judge says you must decrypt your other drives. A lot of people here say that violates his 5th amendment rights. Nowhere in the article does it say they want him to decrypt the drives so they can use the data against him. They already have child porn of his. they can, and will, get a conviction. They don't need the other drives to use against him. They want the other drives to gather data on other people he maybe traded with, or to identify victims. Un-encrypting the drives only violates this mans rights if they use the evidence agains him. Again, nowhere does it say they want to do that. What the article does say is, they have evidence that he possessed child porn. Also, for those concerned about charges, if he isn't being held in custody, prosecutors have as long as they want to file charges. The thing with charges though, is that the constitution grants you the right to a speedy trial. Once you file charges, you have to go to trial within a certain amount of time. If you hold off filing while the investigation is ongoing, you have time to collect evidence. Lack of charges doesn't mean lack of evidence. It means they haven't filed charges yet.
The only sick fuck I see is you.
Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
The order was suspended on June 4.
"Federal judge suspends order that child porn suspect decrypt own computer files or face contempt" http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/deadline-is-today-for-west-allis-man-to-decrypt-suspected-porn-files-b9926078z1-210121531.html
"Earlier court order requiring a Wisconsin suspect in underage porn case to decrypt his hard drives for the FBI by the end of the day Tuesday -- or face contempt of court -- has been lifted." http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57587670-38/judge-child-porn-suspect-doesnt-need-to-decrypt-files/
Ruling: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2013/06/Decision-Order-DOC-8-re-Motion-to-Stay.pdf
http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
While I agree that they need to find out what is on those drives I don't agree with their method. At a minimum they should rule out a reason not to decrypt them by giving him immunity when it comes to non child porn related materials.
You just never know if someone could be thinking I don't have child porn, but I do have a ton of pirated software,movies, and music. So if I actually did decrypt it for them it would prove my innocence, however it would give them the power to charge me for pirating.
Version two. You may have information that could hurt your life, like evidence you're cheating on your wife. I don't condone cheating, it's wrong, but you shouldn't have to turn your life upside down to prove innocence to something entirely unrelated.
That's why they should destroy any unrelated obtained data and seal it from the public.
If that were the case I would agree with them telling him to decrypt it.