I wish we could stop calling them fucking "suspects" just because they haven't gone through the formality of a trial yet.
Yes, a trial is just a formality. Let's not take this whole rights and jury thing seriously. Then we could be like the USSR, or Nazi Germany, or various Latin American dictatorships... you get the idea. The problem with dispensing with the formalities is that you wind up with crimes worse than what you're locking people up for.
The foregone conclusion they're talking about is just that the drives are his.
He's not even being forced to tell the cops his password/passphrase, he's only instructed to enter it unobserved into the system so the disks will be unencrypted.
That's a distinction that only a lawyer would think mattered.
So you can't argue that they cops are learning anything new regarding putting this guy in prison.
Additional counts. Other crimes. All kinds of incriminating stuff could be on the other drives.
If their real interest was in using the stuff on the other drives to pursue other criminals, they cut cut him a deal (somewhat reduced sentence, whatever) to get him to decrypt them. That's a tactic they use all the time, and often with good reason. Here they want an Alice in Wonderland interpretation of the 5th.
Because opening up the contents of the hard drive is not self-incriminating. The incriminating evidence is there, it is just being uncovered.
They already have access to the contents of the hard drive, they just don't understand it. That's their problem. This is not analogous to somebody being forced to hand over incriminating notes under the "foregone conclusion" doctrine. It's analogous to the notes being written in some language the accused invented and only he knows. Here are the notes. You figure them out. Forcing the accused to translate those notes would be requiring him to give testimony against himself.
he's already been incriminated, and ordering him to give up the keys isn't considered to be "incriminating himself" anymore
Yes it is. Further incriminating yourself is still self-incrimination. The ruling on the decryption is based on the idea that the accused is producing evidence rather than giving testimony. Judges and lawyers beat Lewis Carroll hands down.
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.
He has no legal argument to avoid giving them access.
That's what we're debating here at the latest Slashdot legal seminar (worth every cent you pay for it).
My point was that, assuming the 5th means he doesn't have to decrypt the drives (still a very contentious issue - this judge's decision is not the last word), and they really were interested in finding the source and/or creators, they could get him to roll over. It's done all the time. Without it prosecuting organized crime (Mafia or corporate) at anything other than the lowest levels would be impossible.
The police probably have good reason to want access to all the material. It may lead them to the source of these files or even the creators.
If that's what they were really interested in they could grant him immunity for any stuff found on the parts that the FBI didn't decrypt and maybe even offer him a little off his sentence. You're talking about rolling over, not self-incrimination.
Because the FBI didn't have proof yet that the drives were his, therefore being able to decrypt them would imply something the FBI didn't know yet. This has changed now; they now know that he was the owner, therefore it is not self-incrimination anymore.
Legal contortionism. How does the fact that the FBI can demonstrate that the drives are his mean that giving them the password is not self-incrimination?
How about illiteracy in the various state capitol buildings? As an Austinite, I strongly suspect that Texas could claim #1 in that subcategory of illiteracy.
Don't give me that "Texas is always #1" garbage. I can assure you that the NYS legislature holds its own.
Illiteracy is higher in California and New York State than in Texas.
Depends on the study. Your link is to NAAL, but the census bureau table says Texas is #1 for 2003, which is the same year as the NAAL. California is running neck and neck w/ Texas. NY fares much better than in NAAL, though hardly great.
None of this means much without demographic adjustments, and saying "lots of immigrants" isn't anywhere near far enough (besides which all 3 states have large immigrant populations). These stats also don't necessarily say much about the school systems even, since they're measures of adult illiteracy. In addition to immigrants there is lots of internal migration in the US.
Native Texan here -- all those places in Texas where people are moving to for those jobs -- Austin, Houston, San Antonio, Dallas -- what are the politics there? They are all blue (lefty).
That's pretty much the pattern throughout the country. A better characterization of the famous red/blue state split is rural=red and urban=blue. As you would expect, the 'burbs tend to be in the middle. Search on "red rural blue urban" and you'll find loads of stuff on this.
Its on the state level only. State level only... state level.
Even if the Feds find cute ways around it, and it's just a political statement, it's a damn good one. As a damnyankee I don't often say good things about Texas, but I gotta give credit where it's due. Maybe I'll even reconsider the idea of giving Texas back to Mexico.
Places like East Germany had very low crime rates.
In the official stats, but not necessarily in reality. The USSR claimed very low crime rates, but it's easy to rig the stats w/ a totalitarian government. Many people who lived there say the crime was actually quite high. Also, without protections like the Bill of Rights, the easy way to "solve" a crime is to pick someone you don't like, or a plausible J. Random Citizen, and railroad them. Case closed! To the extent that the Bill of Rights is enforced, it makes our law enforcement better.
I might consider moving to Texas if it weren't for some Texans that like to say everything about it is wonderful. They sound like used car salesmen, so I have to figure they're just as truthful. I've known plenty of people who love where they live, but they'll also tell you the down sides. The only other exception I know of is people who've moved to California, who'll tell you that everything there is wonderful. Not the natives though, who'll give you a more mixed and honest picture. My theory is that the migrants aren't used to all that sun, so it cooks their brains or something.
Even a damnyankee knows Texas is big enough for a variety of climates. I highly recommend a place that has winter. Save the Gulf Coast for beach vacations.
There is only one possible meaning, silly-head: there is some electronic record of the message being marked "read".
You're probably right, but it makes no sense. If you receive a letter and open it, that doesn't give the government the right to read it. The lack of protection for email is completely at odds with the Supreme Court's usual "reasonable expectation of privacy" requirement.
I might turn myself into the authorities for negligent homicide on the grounds that I raised my child so badly that they killed themselves over what are quite clearly self-esteem issues.
Another one. You have raised at least one child through their teen years, right?
Slashdot Mirror
I wish we could stop calling them fucking "suspects" just because they haven't gone through the formality of a trial yet.
Yes, a trial is just a formality. Let's not take this whole rights and jury thing seriously. Then we could be like the USSR, or Nazi Germany, or various Latin American dictatorships ... you get the idea. The problem with dispensing with the formalities is that you wind up with crimes worse than what you're locking people up for.
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.
He's already been incriminated
So why hasn't he been charged?
it's a "foregone conclusion"
The foregone conclusion they're talking about is just that the drives are his.
He's not even being forced to tell the cops his password/passphrase, he's only instructed to enter it unobserved into the system so the disks will be unencrypted.
That's a distinction that only a lawyer would think mattered.
So you can't argue that they cops are learning anything new regarding putting this guy in prison.
Additional counts. Other crimes. All kinds of incriminating stuff could be on the other drives.
If their real interest was in using the stuff on the other drives to pursue other criminals, they cut cut him a deal (somewhat reduced sentence, whatever) to get him to decrypt them. That's a tactic they use all the time, and often with good reason. Here they want an Alice in Wonderland interpretation of the 5th.
Perhaps they failed to mention it had symbolic links as well.. :D
Don't be ridiculous. People into CP always use Windows.
Because opening up the contents of the hard drive is not self-incriminating. The incriminating evidence is there, it is just being uncovered.
They already have access to the contents of the hard drive, they just don't understand it. That's their problem. This is not analogous to somebody being forced to hand over incriminating notes under the "foregone conclusion" doctrine. It's analogous to the notes being written in some language the accused invented and only he knows. Here are the notes. You figure them out. Forcing the accused to translate those notes would be requiring him to give testimony against himself.
he's already been incriminated, and ordering him to give up the keys isn't considered to be "incriminating himself" anymore
Yes it is. Further incriminating yourself is still self-incrimination. The ruling on the decryption is based on the idea that the accused is producing evidence rather than giving testimony. Judges and lawyers beat Lewis Carroll hands down.
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.
He has no legal argument to avoid giving them access.
That's what we're debating here at the latest Slashdot legal seminar (worth every cent you pay for it).
My point was that, assuming the 5th means he doesn't have to decrypt the drives (still a very contentious issue - this judge's decision is not the last word), and they really were interested in finding the source and/or creators, they could get him to roll over. It's done all the time. Without it prosecuting organized crime (Mafia or corporate) at anything other than the lowest levels would be impossible.
Nah, J. Edgar is dead. He used to have the biggest pron collection in the country.
The police probably have good reason to want access to all the material. It may lead them to the source of these files or even the creators.
If that's what they were really interested in they could grant him immunity for any stuff found on the parts that the FBI didn't decrypt and maybe even offer him a little off his sentence. You're talking about rolling over, not self-incrimination.
Because the FBI didn't have proof yet that the drives were his, therefore being able to decrypt them would imply something the FBI didn't know yet. This has changed now; they now know that he was the owner, therefore it is not self-incrimination anymore.
Legal contortionism. How does the fact that the FBI can demonstrate that the drives are his mean that giving them the password is not self-incrimination?
Also, if they actually found kiddie pron on the portion that they decrypted, why hasn't he been charged?
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
How about illiteracy in the various state capitol buildings? As an Austinite, I strongly suspect that Texas could claim #1 in that subcategory of illiteracy.
Don't give me that "Texas is always #1" garbage. I can assure you that the NYS legislature holds its own.
Illiteracy is higher in California and New York State than in Texas.
Depends on the study. Your link is to NAAL, but the census bureau table says Texas is #1 for 2003, which is the same year as the NAAL. California is running neck and neck w/ Texas. NY fares much better than in NAAL, though hardly great.
None of this means much without demographic adjustments, and saying "lots of immigrants" isn't anywhere near far enough (besides which all 3 states have large immigrant populations). These stats also don't necessarily say much about the school systems even, since they're measures of adult illiteracy. In addition to immigrants there is lots of internal migration in the US.
Native Texan here -- all those places in Texas where people are moving to for those jobs -- Austin, Houston, San Antonio, Dallas -- what are the politics there? They are all blue (lefty).
That's pretty much the pattern throughout the country. A better characterization of the famous red/blue state split is rural=red and urban=blue. As you would expect, the 'burbs tend to be in the middle. Search on "red rural blue urban" and you'll find loads of stuff on this.
Double check your sense of humor. Also mod GP up as Funny.
Its on the state level only. State level only... state level.
Even if the Feds find cute ways around it, and it's just a political statement, it's a damn good one. As a damnyankee I don't often say good things about Texas, but I gotta give credit where it's due. Maybe I'll even reconsider the idea of giving Texas back to Mexico.
Places like East Germany had very low crime rates.
In the official stats, but not necessarily in reality. The USSR claimed very low crime rates, but it's easy to rig the stats w/ a totalitarian government. Many people who lived there say the crime was actually quite high. Also, without protections like the Bill of Rights, the easy way to "solve" a crime is to pick someone you don't like, or a plausible J. Random Citizen, and railroad them. Case closed! To the extent that the Bill of Rights is enforced, it makes our law enforcement better.
I might consider moving to Texas if it weren't for some Texans that like to say everything about it is wonderful. They sound like used car salesmen, so I have to figure they're just as truthful. I've known plenty of people who love where they live, but they'll also tell you the down sides. The only other exception I know of is people who've moved to California, who'll tell you that everything there is wonderful. Not the natives though, who'll give you a more mixed and honest picture. My theory is that the migrants aren't used to all that sun, so it cooks their brains or something.
"Smash it into the ground" is how you plant it. Maybe they're just concerned about next year's crop.
Fortunately, Texas is turning purple.
I hope you're right. It shouldn't be too surprising since Texas actually has a strong populist tradition.
Ok, that's two good (in my opinion) things I've said about Texas. One more and I'll have to turn in my damnyankee card.
That and the goddamn heat/humidity.
Even a damnyankee knows Texas is big enough for a variety of climates. I highly recommend a place that has winter. Save the Gulf Coast for beach vacations.
There is only one possible meaning, silly-head: there is some electronic record of the message being marked "read".
You're probably right, but it makes no sense. If you receive a letter and open it, that doesn't give the government the right to read it. The lack of protection for email is completely at odds with the Supreme Court's usual "reasonable expectation of privacy" requirement.
I might turn myself into the authorities for negligent homicide on the grounds that I raised my child so badly that they killed themselves over what are quite clearly self-esteem issues.
Another one. You have raised at least one child through their teen years, right?