9 ms·

This is an important constitutional issue! The subject may be deplorable, but the root issue is not. If it is a "foregone conclusion", then they should have n

• INTPenis 10y ago
  >Investigators say they know child porn is on the drives. His sister saw some of it and the suspect is said to have shown his family an illicit video, too. So that's their basis for this "foregone conclusion" apparently. That at one point in time it was witnessed. That is very dangerous logic. The sadest thing in this is that it took child pornography to make the headlines, not political activism or journalism but the most despicable crime in our modern society.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • the-dude 10y ago
    Pedophilia is the new red scare
    • unlinker 10y ago
      Pedophilia is, sadly, far from being just a scare.
      • Hondor 10y ago
        Pedophilia is a sexuality. Some people are just that way inclined. Don't confuse child abuse with sexuality the way people used to do about gays. That's extremely harmful to actual pedophiles who may have done nothing wrong. It's not even classified as a disease unless it causes problems for the person afflicted with it.
        • vinceguidry 10y ago
          I wouldn't be so quick to claim they're doing nothing wrong. Every year, rhinos in Africa are threatened by poachers in Africa who want their horns for the black market in China. Every person who buys rhino horn in Africa, every person who is in a position to fight the unnecessary consumption of endangered animals and doesn't, is complicit in the destruction of their species. You don't get a pass because you aren't the one who actually killed the rhinos, or abused the children. Those rhinos wouldn't have gotten killed, those children wouldn't have gotten abused, if the demand weren't there. You don't get a pass because you "needed" rhino horn, or because you have a non-standard sexuality. The only socially-acceptable response to your needs is to not contribute to the exploitation of others.
          • corin_ 10y ago
            The person you are replying to wasn't saying that paedophiles who look at child porn aren't doing anything wrong. If he was, your rhino analogy would be a good one, and is the reason nearly everyone agrees that child porn should be illegal even if you are only viewing it. But he was saying that a being attracted to children is in itself not doing anything wrong. Plenty of paedophiles don't look at child porn, do anything to children, or negatively affect children in any way. The rhino equivilent would be if you wanted to use rhino horn but because you know it would be wrong to, you never do use it. Not only are you not the one shooting the rhino, you're not creating demand for shooting rhinos either.
            • vinceguidry 10y ago
              > But he was saying that a being attracted to children is in itself not doing anything wrong. > The rhino equivilent would be if you wanted to use rhino horn but because you know it would be wrong to, you never do use it. I would argue that both of these things are wrong, though not as wrong as actually acting on the desires. I don't think there should be any legal consequences for the thoughts in your head, but the social stigma and pressure to change those thoughts is very much needed and is a useful social tool for protecting vulnerable classes. Let's introduce another analogy. Racism is wrong, if you think racist thoughts, even if you never act on them, then you are contributing to the denigration and subjugation of people of color. The only socially-acceptable response to having racist thoughts is to work to change those thoughts. Paedophilia may be sexuality, and yes, it was wrong to demonize homosexuality, but unless you're arguing that one day we'll look at paedophilia the same way, then you can't put them in the same boat morally. Celibacy is an acceptable response to paedophilic sexuality, but a better one is to stop being a paedophile. Sex therapists exist, it is something you can work on. It's worth it to at least try.
    • ctack 10y ago
      Don't forget terrorism.
  • Kristine1975 10y ago
    I wouldn't call looking at pictures (even of victims of child sexual abuse) "the most despicable crime in our modern society". The child sexual abuse itself is worse. Also torture, wars of aggression, mass poisoning...
    • INTPenis 10y ago
      I was thinking of a modern twist of pedophilia where digital media has become a way to spread the product of child abuse. But maybe also that it's more relevant today due to the people being more informed and connected. So I was actually separating it in its modern form from much older issues like war, torture and poisoning for example. But that's a non issue really, sorry for unclear phrasing.
  • belorn 10y ago
    A witness and some traces of keywords used on the suspect computer. I would not be too surprised if that was enough for a conviction, but the question remains on why the decryption should be necessary if the judge is already convinced beyond doubt that the accused is guilty. Its not like the courts put convicted murderers under contempt orders for failing to say where the body is buried.
    • userulluipeste 10y ago
      "Its not like the courts put convicted murderers under contempt orders for failing to say where the body is buried." I (can only) presume that this is not something easily comparable to a murder. This is more like catching someone with illicit drugs, where the possessed quantity can be essential to establishing the due penalty.
  • s_q_b 10y ago
    It's also totally insignificant. He could have broadcast it all over Times Square. That in no way waives his right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. Also, every prosecutor in history has thought their entire case in chief was a "foregone conclusion." That's totally irrelevant.
    • Bartweiss 10y ago
      It's baffling to me that people are treating "he will be found guilty" as evidence that he's already guilty and can be punished freely. We've got a code of laws specifically designed to avoid Inquisition-style "accusation of guilt is presumption of guilt" thinking.
      • Kristine1975 10y ago
        In the past in Europe, there existed the concept of "partially guilty." Someone got shot and you were seen in the vicinity of the crime scene with a gun? You're 25% guilty. Then you're tortured (since you're 25% guilty, it's not torture of an innocent, but punishment), and under torture you "confess", making you fully guilty. Source: Foucault's Discipline and Punish
        • Bartweiss 10y ago
          That's absolutely fascinating, thank you. I need to finally suck it up and go read Discipline and Punish. As much as I'm not on board with "confession through torture", I wonder if non-boolean guilt could help sort out some of the dumber quirks of our legal system. As is we just have "innocent" and "guilty" (which is either 51% chance of guilt in civil cases, or 'beyond reasonable doubt' in criminal ones). But we're clearly fumbling around for new values. The Supreme Court decision about retrials (that "probably would have been found innocent at original trial" is not enough to justify a retrial) clearly makes more sense in terms of real-valued guilt - we can then set some actual standard for retrial, which is different from the standard for conviction. Perhaps you get convicted at 90% guilty in criminal cases, but don't get to open a retrial unless your estimate drops to 70% guilty. Now I'm fascinated. What would real-valued guilt look like in a modern system?
• officemonkey 10y ago
  Even if they have enough testimony to convict him, they may be more interested in forensic clues about where he obtained his files. Decrypting his hard drive may lead to other charges against other people. If he knows that he can incriminate others, he may be waiting for a deal. They're playing hardball with him right now. After six months in jail, watch them offer him a deal if he unlocks the hard drive. He gets a firm but reduced sentence (including time served) and they get more bad guys. (Why yes, I have watched too many episodes of Law & Order, why do you ask?)
  • mabbo 10y ago
    First sentence of the article says he's already been there 7 months. They won't get 'more bad guys', they just want to prove that they can do this to anyone who doesn't obey.
    • DanBC 10y ago
      Or they want to identify the child victims of sexual abuse, and want to make sure those children are safe, and that the people abusing them and taking photos of that abuse are prosecuted.
      • toolz 10y ago
        Somehow unethical law precedent always seems to come at the aid of women and children. I have a very hard time buying into that overused excuse. How likely do you think it is that the children fall into their jurisdiction? Much less even, do you think they'll be able to identify young undocumented children?
        • Kristine1975 10y ago
          >How likely do you think it is that the children fall into their jurisdiction? Since child porn is illegal just about everywhere (although the definition of "child" may vary), it should pose no problem to notify the authorities in the country of origin.
• rubyfan 10y ago
  I kind of agree that if the government had evidence to convict or even charge him of a crime the burden is on the government. Though we all hate the underlying accusation and no one wants to protect this kind of activity, it is important that the government play by the rules. To do otherwise sets the precedent for future abuse on less heinous cases.
• tptacek 10y ago
  It is not in fact settled law that unlocking an encrypted drive is testimonial. It's also worth remembering that the primary motivation for 5A is to prevent false, coerced testimony and torture; when SCOTUS eventually deals with this, they could find that no protected substantive rights are threatened by demands to unlock encrypted media. We're unlikely to get it both ways: both a right to strong encryption without government interference and a right to defy court demands to decrypt specific files. But we'll see.
  • throwaway7767 10y ago
    Realistically, how can we differentiate between a suspect who's refusing to unlock something, and a suspect who has genuinely forgotten his password? I know for myself, even with passwords I use multiple times a day from memory, it only takes a couple of months of not using them before I cannot recall them again. This guy has been locked up for 7 months. See also the numerous people who stored bitcoin in brain wallets (bad idea), who now cannot reclaim their money despite considerable financial incentive to do so.
    • tptacek 10y ago
      There is no foolproof way, but uncertainty is something the law has dealt with for centuries, and isn't unique to this situation. The short answer is: it gets argued in court like everything else. If cryptography introduces too many new cases of contempt, we'll need to rework the contempt system, and, in particular, introduce juries to the process (perhaps for contempt sentences exceeding a certain number of weeks).
      • CPLX 10y ago
        > uncertainty is something the law has dealt with for centuries, and isn't unique to this situation. The short answer is: it gets argued in court like everything else. Yes, precisely. This is a specific point I have seen programmer types uniquely vulnerable to tripping over. Courts, generally, aren't like computers, where a little technicality will override common sense completely in a literalistic following of instructions. Sure there are exceptions to this rule, but for the most part a court proceeding has humans running it that live in the actual society and have some ability to factor in not just the rules but also the consequences, including unintended ones, of their actions.
• Bartweiss 10y ago
  I think people are undervaluing this point. Sure, you can say he's probably guilty, but the entire point of a jury trial is to determine that! "That guy's totally guilty" isn't a basis for any kind of prejudicial action - either you have enough info to try him, or you don't have enough info to hold him on suspicion.
• e40 10y ago
  It is because the subject is deplorable that this is an issue. It is literally the only issue that would allow this trojan into the legal system.
• akerro 10y ago
  > This is an important constitutional issue! The subject may be deplorable, but the root issue is not. Guilty unless proven otherwise. That's what constitution says.