Child Porn Suspect Jailed Indefinitely For Refusing To Decrypt Hard Drives (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A Philadelphia man suspected of possessing child pornography has been in jail for seven months and counting after being found in contempt of a court order demanding that he decrypt two password-protected hard drives. The suspect, a former Philadelphia Police Department sergeant, has not been charged with any child porn crimes. Instead, he remains indefinitely imprisoned in Philadelphia's Federal Detention Center for refusing to unlock two drives encrypted with Apple's FileVault software in a case that once again highlights the extent to which the authorities are going to crack encrypted devices. The man is to remain jailed "until such time that he fully complies" with the decryption order. The government successfully cited a 1789 law known as the All Writs Act to compel (PDF) the suspect to decrypt two hard drives it believes contain child pornography. The All Writs Act was the same law the Justice Department asserted in its legal battle with Apple.

Comments

Re: Surely a fundamental human rights breach?

[TheReaperD]

Sorry but, as much as we may loathe someone, everyone is equally protected under the Constitution. If you don't like it, move to a country without fundamental rights and see how you like it. I hear North Korea is a good choice if you don't care about rights.

Re: Surely a fundamental human rights breach?

[BlacKSacrificE]

This counterargument is bad. You need to stop parroting this quote.

The framing of this counterargument accepts the basic premise that the only people who have something to hide are "bad people", and that if you're not a bad person then you won't have anything to hide.

You need to engage with this presumption that the only people who have something to encrypt are pedophiles.

The best free speech analogy is not this "hurr I have nothing to say" retarded horse shit, but a defense of hate speech on the basis that the sword that defends good free speech (political dissent, etc...) must necessarily defend objectionable speech. This context means that, yeah, pedophiles use encryption, and we object to that, but we can't defend our need to encrypt things we all agree need to be encrypted without also defending pedophiles.

And that's a shitty trade-off and we all feel bad about it, but it's not ambiguous or up for debate; there's no way we can evaluate this ethical dilemma and end up putting the prosecution of pedophiles and terrorists ahead of our own encryption needs.