3 ms·

The same things happens everywhere, but just through a different route (contempt charges, etc.) The court, and by proxy the rest of us, usually finds it intere

by evgen 11y ago

The same things happens everywhere, but just through a different route (contempt charges, etc.) The court, and by proxy the rest of us, usually finds it interesting that for some reason you were able to remember this password on a daily basis while conducting your alleged crimes, but now you suddenly have a memory problem. We have children too, and recognize this pattern... You can claim to not remember the password. We can choose not to believe you.

cm2187 11y ago
They may not believe me but how can they prove it? [edit] plus forgetting a password is the most common thing in the world. My work password changes every 3 months. When I go on holiday for 2 weeks, half of the time when I come back I forgot what the latest password is. Now imagine you have been arrested, slept in jail, had rough questioning, being under intense stress. Forgetting a password in these conditions could very well happen in good faith. The other things is that many of my passwords are stored in my "muscle memory", if I am in front of my usual keyboard I would type them without really thinking about it. But if I am in a room with no computer, I could easily not even remember them. In any case I don't see how there cannot be a reasonable doubt if someone claims to have forgotten a password.
- evgen 11y ago
  They don't have to "prove it", the judge or the jury just has to come to the conclusion that you are not telling the truth and you go to jail.
  - cm2187 11y ago
    I am not a lawyer but the law does say the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Which is a reasonable burden for sending someone to jail.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - deepnet 11y ago
      RIPA trumps proof & only requires prosecutorial assertion. Under RIPA there is no presumption of innocence. Unbelievable yet sadly true. [Edit] -- disagree? Well so far this has been how it has played out in practice - if you disagree I challenge you to show me where proof was presented in the other three cases ? It is requirement by court order, one is then held in contempt of court - it is entirely up to the judge - no jury involved. We shall see whether any proof is offered, none is in the court filing, though they assert exactly what each file contains: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2781972-Lauri-Love-case-directions-April-2016.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2781972-Lauri-Love-c... Or we won't see because this is a secret trial - as the article and court filing state !
      - deepnet 11y ago
        Yup reading the law clearly show the only proof is the prosecution states the contents and date as they do in the filing. The filing contains what they call proof, I believe it better characterised as an assertion. No jury, just a judge decides if Lauri goes to jail and the only thing that can prevent it is if he proves the contrary. Ever try and prove a negative ? Decryption showing no file won't necessarily be sufficient, as the document could still be on a double decrypt in the salt. They want named documents, the defendant gives them up or goes to jail. Interesting to note one of the documents is "pirate" movies. (The court filing literally says "pirate", wtf does that even mean). Suppose the movie was crap and he deleted it. IMHO RIPA 49 is a travesty should not be legal. Quite possibly isn't, we shall see when it gets to the human rights court - though if I had to put money on it the govt. knows its dodgy and won't let it go that far.
      - deepnet 11y ago
        Can no longer edit this but sjy is correct , they accuse and accused denies it they get a jury trial : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25745989 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25745989 Luton terrorist forced to decrypt USB stick by RIPA.

by evgen 11y ago

cm2187 11y ago

They may not believe me but how can they prove it? [edit] plus forgetting a password is the most common thing in the world. My work password changes every 3 months. When I go on holiday for 2 weeks, half of the time when I come back I forgot what the latest password is. Now imagine you have been arrested, slept in jail, had rough questioning, being under intense stress. Forgetting a password in these conditions could very well happen in good faith. The other things is that many of my passwords are stored in my "muscle memory", if I am in front of my usual keyboard I would type them without really thinking about it. But if I am in a room with no computer, I could easily not even remember them. In any case I don't see how there cannot be a reasonable doubt if someone claims to have forgotten a password.

evgen 11y ago
They don't have to "prove it", the judge or the jury just has to come to the conclusion that you are not telling the truth and you go to jail.
- cm2187 11y ago
  I am not a lawyer but the law does say the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Which is a reasonable burden for sending someone to jail.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - deepnet 11y ago
    RIPA trumps proof & only requires prosecutorial assertion. Under RIPA there is no presumption of innocence. Unbelievable yet sadly true. [Edit] -- disagree? Well so far this has been how it has played out in practice - if you disagree I challenge you to show me where proof was presented in the other three cases ? It is requirement by court order, one is then held in contempt of court - it is entirely up to the judge - no jury involved. We shall see whether any proof is offered, none is in the court filing, though they assert exactly what each file contains: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2781972-Lauri-Love-case-directions-April-2016.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2781972-Lauri-Love-c... Or we won't see because this is a secret trial - as the article and court filing state !
    - deepnet 11y ago
      Yup reading the law clearly show the only proof is the prosecution states the contents and date as they do in the filing. The filing contains what they call proof, I believe it better characterised as an assertion. No jury, just a judge decides if Lauri goes to jail and the only thing that can prevent it is if he proves the contrary. Ever try and prove a negative ? Decryption showing no file won't necessarily be sufficient, as the document could still be on a double decrypt in the salt. They want named documents, the defendant gives them up or goes to jail. Interesting to note one of the documents is "pirate" movies. (The court filing literally says "pirate", wtf does that even mean). Suppose the movie was crap and he deleted it. IMHO RIPA 49 is a travesty should not be legal. Quite possibly isn't, we shall see when it gets to the human rights court - though if I had to put money on it the govt. knows its dodgy and won't let it go that far.
    - deepnet 11y ago
      Can no longer edit this but sjy is correct , they accuse and accused denies it they get a jury trial : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25745989 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25745989 Luton terrorist forced to decrypt USB stick by RIPA.