Yes, there are two things at issue: was he entitled to it at trial, and is he entitled to it now. He lost before trial, and I thought the article said he was asking for the data back now as well.
His right to have the government produce the data before trial relies on the possibility of the government using it against him. While it remains encrypted beyond the government's reach, it has no evidentiary value, and thus there is nothing for him to defend against.
*if* it really has evidentiary value that could help in the defense, it is a document subject to the warrant, and the government is entitled to see it too, having been lawfully seized. The law does not tolerate absurdities, and letting him have the evidence in the hands of the other party yet still deny the other party its use would be an absurdity.
Also, the moment it is rendered readable, he would be obligated to turn that data over, or be subject to very strong sanctions--particularly, those for destroying evidence, which causes it to be construed as having the worst possible meaning for the party who destroyed it.
>That would be true IF they knew that the data on >the HDD was stolen, they dont.
The blindfold on Lady Justice aside, the law need not ignore common sense. Given that he was convicted of stealing the data, it is flatly unreasonable to believe that it is not on that hard drive.
Given that, the only way that he can make a claim for the return of the physical drive is if all stolen date is wiped beyond recovery--and I'm not sure that that standard can be met.
Probation (parole in this case, i believe) cannot be imposed upon the court, but is agreed to by the criminal. It is a release of the wrondoer on terms and conditions. A universal term is a waiver of search & seizure rights; an agreement to be searched at any time.
On the other hand, events prior to probation generally aren't at issue in whether the probation/parole is violated or not, so this just wouldn't matter.
That's the wrong analogy. A closer (but still not as strong) case would be that it was a very valuable banana, which was never found, but that you are found driving a car that you have just bought while you have no other visible means of support.
We're not talking about seizure of assets *used* in a crime; we're talking about the *fruits* of the crime.
btw, a banana is an herb, nto a fruit, or so they told us at the Hawaiin botanical grrdins . . .
That's not the law, though. They can't go poking around for the marijauana, in places where guns wouldn't fit, but if they find it incidental to a legal search, such as bales in plain view in the living room table, or in the gun rack, it's admissible evidence.
However, if you are stopped in an illegal search, and they find and confiscate an illegal gun, they can't use that illegal gun, but they'll never get it back. Or in your case, if the warrant was illegally obtained, you couldn't get the drugs back, but they couldn't prosecute you.
The sentence in a criminal case doesn't tend to include "and you can't keep the money, either."
The material was seized due to a warrant and the belief that it was part of a criminal act. He has been convicted of that act. The data is *what* he's been convicted of stealing. If there are parts of the data that are not stolen, he has the means to get them back.
To put it another way, the problem is that the property in question isn't his--he stole it from someone else, and isn't entitled to that portion of the data any more than a crack dealer is entitled to get his inventory back.
I'm not suggesting that he can be forced to turn over the key; I don't think he can (unless given immunity). However, wihtout that, I don't believe that he's entitled tohis data back.
Also, as a legal issue, it makes no difference whether we plead or was convicted at trial; he is now guilty for all of the laws purposes.
Oh, come on. Does anyone seriously doubt that Reagan himself couldn't remember?:) With nixon, the qustion was "what did he know, and when did he know it?" With Reagan, it was "what did he know, and when did he forget it . .."
The rest of his administration, though, showed a collective suspcious memory lapse that wouldn't be topped until the current administration . . .
>By what right does the government claim the >property (i.e. the encrypted data)?
As the proceeds of a crime of which he has been lawfully committed. Burglars don't get what they stole back either.
>IANAL
but I am:)
>Suppose I commit a violent crime and in the >process steal a gun. During my arrest, the >government finds a safe that they cannot open >(for either legal or technical reasons). In fact, >they cannot even determine if anything is in the >safe. It could contain the gun I stole (that >they never recovered) or it could be my >(perfectly legal) tax filings.
If your tax filings are perfectly legal, you don't want them to see them--they'll show your income from criminal acts:)
The IRS doesn't care how you get your money, as long as you hand over their cut. Some hookers hire accountants to keep track of thier earnings to avoid problems with the IRS . . .
[read my disclaimer somewher else in this thread:) ]
>I believe that if the government offers him >immunity from any new prosecution, that he may >not claim the right not to self incriminate >because he would not be.
You are correct. This came up a few times with the assorted Clinton issues, for example. This would certainly be a way to force him to surrender the key. [But this doesn't mean that he's entitled to get the data back.]
And btw, a memory failure that is not credible *can* and usually is prosecuted as perjury.
Iam a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. If you need any, see a lawyer licensed in your jursdiction.
You're close. Let me elaborate (hmm, how could you possibly stop me?)
Speech cannot be coerced, but "attributes" can. You can't be forced to give information, but you can be forced to provide a blood sample, a handwriting sample, or even to repeat a phrase in a lineup (I've never heard of this used for anything other than identification by a witness. I can't back it up, but I believe that that's about as far as it can go).
So here he can be forced to turn over the data, but he can't be forced to communicate the code. However, if perhaps there were sensors on the keyboard to verify identity, he could probably be required to type a *particular* code.
But as you and others are suggesting, the fifth amendment only applies to him surrendering the code--it has nothing to do with getting back the data, which would be a fourth amendment issue.
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice.If you need legal advice, see an attorney licensed in your area.
You've turned the presumption of innocence sideways. He was convicted; there is no longer a relevant presumption.
He was convicted for stealing electronic information. It takes a stretch of the imagination to think that there is more than a remote chance that the data does not include the fruits of his crime.
The state does *not* have have to prove a connection to each and every apparent proceed of his criminal enterprise--*especially* when there is a simple way to check.
He *has* been convicted, and it defies logic to suggest that that this data isn't part of his crime. *He* now has the burden of proof, not the government.
This is not an erosion; I believe that this is exactly the outcome you would see from a court staffed by the founding fathers. I'm just about all the way out to the extreme on the rights of individuals in the face of the government (just l like the folks who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights), but in this case the law is on the government's side.
No, that's not a trojan satellite. A trojan satellite shows up in a place where we would *expect* a satellite, and therefore send probes and astronauts to explore it. It thus gains vital information about us, steals our technology, and uses our DNA to create an army of clones.
They are a serious security threat. The first probe to an apparent sattellite should send a series of ^D to close any trojans before landing.
>The University may cut the final check, but it's >the students' dime in the end.
Uh, no. But you already knew that, didn't you?
Of that dime, a penny or two are the students'. What students pay is dwarfed by what contributors and endowments pay at private schools, and by what governments pay at public schools.
Think fishing--trolling your bait to see if anyone takes it. Rather than a fish, the reaction is what the troller seeks.
The current usage comes from usenet, where clever trolling was once respectable--wrap something nicely to see who bites. Blatant trolling, such as a recipe for cat casserole in net.pets, has always been disrespectable. Kremvax, for example, was an excellent troll. I've never heard of a clever troll based on crossposting.
Most of what we did on the departments alphas at Iowa State sucked cycles--when they were running, which was a small fraction (Gad, SAS is a pig). It turned out that (most of the time) an extra 32M or 64M for each extra user was enough to avoid most of the swapping, so that unless both jobs launched at the same time, the person sitting at the unit would never even notice the extra users.
At about 6, she'd ask for "daddy's game", the one with colored faling sticks (xjewel?), in preference to the games we had for the mac and the like. She also would ask me to play "the kitty" game--nethack, where the kitten follows you--while telnetted into my linux box.
I came home and panicced when I found my freebsd box off--i thought my wife had hit the power. Nope, my daughter had rebotted to play a dark-side game, and then turned it off (internet is only through freebsd).
1) mass-market software. Interpreted BASIC was nothing new, but marketing software to individuals was innovative.
2) The usable footnote in Word 1.0. I know the lion's share of readers here don't go back that far, but footnotes on a micro before that were a bear--really no better than a typewriter. A method of automatically landing them on (usually) the right page was a God-send. OTOH, you sometimes ended up with bizarre gaps as it erroneously moved to the next page to get enough room. I was shocked about three months ago to find that the current versions can still do this, and there's still no fix other than to write an extra paragraph to fill space . . .
3) Bob?:)
Good Lord, they're about due for another one, aren't they? Oh, wait, they already did it--they invented a new way to abuse monopoly power [using it to advance a product they didn't care about just to destroy a competitor, forgoing the revenue in the process]. OK, we're safe for another ten years.
AT&T/TCI/@home, and cfu--the municipal utility. I called both, and it was five bucks a month cheaper on both my cable and my internet with the muncipal utility--and one bill with everything from sewer to internet (hmm, depending upon your taste, those could be the same).
Free installation and first month (from both, I think) due to the shortage of modems at the time. Now I pay $25 total for service & modem. They want an extra $5 if you want a second computer (but it seems you provide your own hub & wiring), and the terms of service explictly prohibit sharing an IP with linux or that dark-side program (but how could they tell?).
I have no idea how to configure it. I put in my two install disks for FreeBSD, and it took care of absolutely everything. Since I wanted to massively rearrange the hard drive, I called and got an ip that I could grab, changed the address in in my old configuration, and stashed about a gig of/home elsewhere. I think I've only seen it go above 500k/s download once, but it seems to me that it stayed near that when I was uploading the disk.
Competition in cable is such a wonderful thing.
Oh, and the deciding issue wasn't that it was $5/month cheaper, but that I called both places, and the cfu folks knew what was going on, while the @home folks could barely figure out which out of state tech support might be able to answer questions . . .
Do you really think that anyone who contributed to quantum mechanics was sober at the time?
And then there's the coswine function from inebriated mathemeticians. Sine is from the unit cirecle, the hyperbolic sine from the unit hyerbola, and they'd had enough that they started working with the unit square . . .
Slashdot Mirror
(oops, typo)
Yes, there are two things at issue: was he entitled to it at trial, and is he entitled to it now. He lost before trial, and I thought the article said he was asking for the data back now as well.
His right to have the government produce the data before trial relies on the possibility of the government using it against him. While it remains encrypted beyond the government's reach, it has no evidentiary value, and thus there is nothing for him to defend against.
*if* it really has evidentiary value that could help in the defense, it is a document subject to the warrant, and the government is entitled to see it too, having been lawfully seized. The law does not tolerate absurdities, and letting him have the evidence in the hands of the other party yet still deny the other party its use would be an absurdity.
Also, the moment it is rendered readable, he would be obligated to turn that data over, or be subject to very strong sanctions--particularly, those for destroying evidence, which causes it to be construed as having the worst possible meaning for the party who destroyed it.
>That would be true IF they knew that the data on
>the HDD was stolen, they dont.
The blindfold on Lady Justice aside, the law need not ignore common sense. Given that he was convicted of stealing the data, it is flatly unreasonable to believe that it is not on that hard drive.
Given that, the only way that he can make a claim for the return of the physical drive is if all stolen date is wiped beyond recovery--and I'm not sure that that standard can be met.
[read my disclaimer elsewhere in this thread]
Probation (parole in this case, i believe) cannot be imposed upon the court, but is agreed to by the criminal. It is a release of the wrondoer on terms and conditions. A universal term is a waiver of search & seizure rights; an agreement to be searched at any time.
On the other hand, events prior to probation generally aren't at issue in whether the probation/parole is violated or not, so this just wouldn't matter.
That's the wrong analogy. A closer (but still not as strong) case would be that it was a very valuable banana, which was never found, but that you are found driving a car that you have just bought while you have no other visible means of support.
We're not talking about seizure of assets *used* in a crime; we're talking about the *fruits* of the crime.
btw, a banana is an herb, nto a fruit, or so they told us at the Hawaiin botanical grrdins . . .
That's not the law, though. They can't go poking around for the marijauana, in places where guns wouldn't fit, but if they find it incidental to a legal search, such as bales in plain view in the living room table, or in the gun rack, it's admissible evidence.
However, if you are stopped in an illegal search, and they find and confiscate an illegal gun, they can't use that illegal gun, but they'll never get it back. Or in your case, if the warrant was illegally obtained, you couldn't get the drugs back, but they couldn't prosecute you.
The sentence in a criminal case doesn't tend to include "and you can't keep the money, either."
The material was seized due to a warrant and the belief that it was part of a criminal act. He has been convicted of that act. The data is *what* he's been convicted of stealing. If there are parts of the data that are not stolen, he has the means to get them back.
To put it another way, the problem is that the property in question isn't his--he stole it from someone else, and isn't entitled to that portion of the data any more than a crack dealer is entitled to get his inventory back.
I'm not suggesting that he can be forced to turn over the key; I don't think he can (unless given immunity). However, wihtout that, I don't believe that he's entitled tohis data back.
Also, as a legal issue, it makes no difference whether we plead or was convicted at trial; he is now guilty for all of the laws purposes.
Oh, come on. Does anyone seriously doubt that Reagan himself couldn't remember? :) With nixon, the qustion was "what did he know, and when did he know it?" With Reagan, it was "what did he know, and when did he forget it . . ."
The rest of his administration, though, showed a collective suspcious memory lapse that wouldn't be topped until the current administration . . .
>By what right does the government claim the
:)
:)
>property (i.e. the encrypted data)?
As the proceeds of a crime of which he has been lawfully committed. Burglars don't get what they stole back either.
>IANAL
but I am
>Suppose I commit a violent crime and in the
>process steal a gun. During my arrest, the
>government finds a safe that they cannot open
>(for either legal or technical reasons). In fact,
>they cannot even determine if anything is in the
>safe. It could contain the gun I stole (that
>they never recovered) or it could be my
>(perfectly legal) tax filings.
If your tax filings are perfectly legal, you don't want them to see them--they'll show your income from criminal acts
The IRS doesn't care how you get your money, as long as you hand over their cut. Some hookers hire accountants to keep track of thier earnings to avoid problems with the IRS . . .
[read my disclaimer somewher else in this thread :) ]
>I believe that if the government offers him
>immunity from any new prosecution, that he may
>not claim the right not to self incriminate
>because he would not be.
You are correct. This came up a few times with the assorted Clinton issues, for example. This would certainly be a way to force him to surrender the key. [But this doesn't mean that he's entitled to get the data back.]
And btw, a memory failure that is not credible *can* and usually is prosecuted as perjury.
That's the example I tried to come up with, but I couldn't conceive of anything physical that couldn't be opened :)
Iam a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. If you need any, see a lawyer licensed in your jursdiction.
You're close. Let me elaborate (hmm, how could you possibly stop me?)
Speech cannot be coerced, but "attributes" can. You can't be forced to give information, but you can be forced to provide a blood sample, a handwriting sample, or even to repeat a phrase in a lineup (I've never heard of this used for anything other than identification by a witness. I can't back it up, but I believe that that's about as far as it can go).
So here he can be forced to turn over the data, but he can't be forced to communicate the code. However, if perhaps there were sensors on the keyboard to verify identity, he could probably be required to type a *particular* code.
But as you and others are suggesting, the fifth amendment only applies to him surrendering the code--it has nothing to do with getting back the data, which would be a fourth amendment issue.
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice.If you need legal advice, see an attorney licensed in your area.
You've turned the presumption of innocence sideways. He was convicted; there is no longer a relevant presumption.
He was convicted for stealing electronic information. It takes a stretch of the imagination to think that there is more than a remote chance that the data does not include the fruits of his crime.
The state does *not* have have to prove a connection to each and every apparent proceed of his criminal enterprise--*especially* when there is a simple way to check.
He *has* been convicted, and it defies logic to suggest that that this data isn't part of his crime. *He* now has the burden of proof, not the government.
This is not an erosion; I believe that this is exactly the outcome you would see from a court staffed by the founding fathers. I'm just about all the way out to the extreme on the rights of individuals in the face of the government (just l like the folks who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights), but in this case the law is on the government's side.
No, that's not a trojan satellite. A trojan satellite shows up in a place where we would *expect* a satellite, and therefore send probes and astronauts to explore it. It thus gains vital information about us, steals our technology, and uses our DNA to create an army of clones.
They are a serious security threat. The first probe to an apparent sattellite should send a series of ^D to close any trojans before landing.
:)
I've never seen the writecode password befroe.
cipherpunk/cipherpunk and cypherpunk/cypherpunk are both commonly in use.
>The University may cut the final check, but it's
>the students' dime in the end.
Uh, no. But you already knew that, didn't you?
Of that dime, a penny or two are the students'. What students pay is dwarfed by what contributors and endowments pay at private schools, and by what governments pay at public schools.
Think fishing--trolling your bait to see if anyone takes it. Rather than a fish, the reaction is what the troller seeks.
The current usage comes from usenet, where clever trolling was once respectable--wrap something nicely to see who bites. Blatant trolling, such as a recipe for cat casserole in net.pets, has always been disrespectable. Kremvax, for example, was an excellent troll. I've never heard of a clever troll based on crossposting.
Most of what we did on the departments alphas at Iowa State sucked cycles--when they were running, which was a small fraction (Gad, SAS is a pig). It turned out that (most of the time) an extra 32M or 64M for each extra user was enough to avoid most of the swapping, so that unless both jobs launched at the same time, the person sitting at the unit would never even notice the extra users.
>Very few people started out on linux.
At about 6, she'd ask for "daddy's game", the one with colored faling sticks (xjewel?), in preference to the games we had for the mac and the like. She also would ask me to play "the kitty" game--nethack, where the kitten follows you--while telnetted into my linux box.
I came home and panicced when I found my freebsd box off--i thought my wife had hit the power. Nope, my daughter had rebotted to play a dark-side game, and then turned it off (internet is only through freebsd).
Err, publish/subscribe. Publish/Perish is academia
But on a fast machine for the time (SE/30 8mb), it was painfully slow to use and I gave up on it.
1) mass-market software. Interpreted BASIC was nothing new, but marketing software to individuals was innovative.
:)
2) The usable footnote in Word 1.0. I know the lion's share of readers here don't go back that far, but footnotes on a micro before that were a bear--really no better than a typewriter. A method of automatically landing them on (usually) the right page was a God-send. OTOH, you sometimes ended up with bizarre gaps as it erroneously moved to the next page to get enough room. I was shocked about three months ago to find that the current versions can still do this, and there's still no fix other than to write an extra paragraph to fill space . . .
3) Bob?
Good Lord, they're about due for another one, aren't they? Oh, wait, they already did it--they invented a new way to abuse monopoly power [using it to advance a product they didn't care about just to destroy a competitor, forgoing the revenue in the process]. OK, we're safe for another ten years.
AT&T/TCI/@home, and cfu--the municipal utility. I called both, and it was five bucks a month cheaper on both my cable and my internet with the muncipal utility--and one bill with everything from sewer to internet (hmm, depending upon your taste, those could be the same).
/home elsewhere. I think I've only seen it go above 500k/s download once, but it seems to me that it stayed near that when I was uploading the disk.
Free installation and first month (from both, I think) due to the shortage of modems at the time. Now I pay $25 total for service & modem. They want an extra $5 if you want a second computer (but it seems you provide your own hub & wiring), and the terms of service explictly prohibit sharing an IP with linux or that dark-side program (but how could they tell?).
I have no idea how to configure it. I put in my two install disks for FreeBSD, and it took care of absolutely everything. Since I wanted to massively rearrange the hard drive, I called and got an ip that I could grab, changed the address in in my old configuration, and stashed about a gig of
Competition in cable is such a wonderful thing.
Oh, and the deciding issue wasn't that it was $5/month cheaper, but that I called both places, and the cfu folks knew what was going on, while the @home folks could barely figure out which out of state tech support might be able to answer questions . . .
Do you really think that anyone who contributed to quantum mechanics was sober at the time?
And then there's the coswine function from inebriated mathemeticians. Sine is from the unit cirecle, the hyperbolic sine from the unit hyerbola, and they'd had enough that they started working with the unit square . . .
In about 1993, the US bottled version was changed for the worse--much worse. It was seriously watered, and I don't know what else.
On the other hand, some yeast slipped through, and a friend cultured it, but I think my sample went bad years ago . . .
Also, before ordering it on tap, check how long the keg's been open. Somewhere around three days seems to be the cutoff . . .