4 ms·

A zip drive with no fingerprints of the person it supposedly belongs to? Not very convincing. Also in this case the prosecution apparently has a bit more infor

by Kristine1975 10y ago

A zip drive with no fingerprints of the person it supposedly belongs to? Not very convincing. Also in this case the prosecution apparently has a bit more information that just "he did it": A subsequent forensic exam of his Mac Pro computer revealed that Doe had installed a virtual machine ... the examiner found one image of what appeared to be a 14-year-old child wearing a bathing suit and posed in a sexually suggestive position. There were also log files that indicated that Doe had visited groups titled: “toddler_cp,” “lolicam,” “hussy,” “child models – girls,” “pedomom,” “tor- childporn,” and “pthc,” terms that are commonly used in child exploitation. ... The exam showed that Doe accessed or attempted to access more than 20,000 files with file names consistent with obvious child pornography... and that he used the external hard drives seized by Delaware County detectives to access and store the images.

sspiff 10y ago
Wouldn't stop the police from keeping him behind bars. "He went through the trouble of encrypting the drive and keeping it clean from prints, but we found it in his car. He's clearly a well organized, determined child porn consumer." Perhaps you have too much faith in law enforcement, or I have grown too cynical by what I perceive as the dawn of a new era of police states.
- Programmatic 10y ago
  I am no fan of compelled decryption, and believe it is a violation of 5th amendment rights. That being said, I think the government's argument is stronger than usual having proven that he has accessed files regularly in the encrypted drive by showing logs of regular access to content with suspicious filenames. The police have a fundamentally different argument here than "it happened to be in his possession".
  - sspiff 10y ago
    I agree, and looking at the story that is available to us here, the guy in question is very suspect. However, that does not mean we can or should change the rules (or define new rules) to put him in jail. I'd prefer they use another way to convict this guy. I'm also careful not to condemn a suspect based on what the media reports about him and his case (the court of public opinion is a dangerous thing). The fifth amendment is one of the few defenses you can call on when facing the incredibly skewed US legal system, and should not be chipped away at, even in a case like this.
  - FLUX-YOU 10y ago
    >That being said, I think the government's argument is stronger than usual having proven that he has accessed files regularly in the encrypted drive by showing logs of regular access to content with suspicious filenames. I'm not sure why the case has to stop while the drive remains encrypted then. If they do get the drive decrypted and find nothing (perhaps he held no files and is protesting against forced decryption or they simply have the wrong drive) that will hurt the prosecution. To me, the judge has basically said you can be locked up indefinitely for accessing suspicious file names. I'm not going to lie though, 20,000 entries would make me pretty fucking suspicious. I think almost all of us would immediately report that to the cops if we saw that in our networks without verifying what's inside.
virmundi 10y ago
I agree that the case here is a bit more compelling. You're also correct in the lack of some evidence in the attach scheme. You can overcome the fingerprints by handing things out for free. Here's a jump drive from some corp. You can also it in a cup holder. The person would touch the jump drive while being a bit perplexed. If you know the person, you can probably get them to hold it for you by simply handing it to them. Yes, you have to be more involved, but at the same time it's doable.

sspiff 10y ago

Wouldn't stop the police from keeping him behind bars. "He went through the trouble of encrypting the drive and keeping it clean from prints, but we found it in his car. He's clearly a well organized, determined child porn consumer." Perhaps you have too much faith in law enforcement, or I have grown too cynical by what I perceive as the dawn of a new era of police states.

Programmatic 10y ago
I am no fan of compelled decryption, and believe it is a violation of 5th amendment rights. That being said, I think the government's argument is stronger than usual having proven that he has accessed files regularly in the encrypted drive by showing logs of regular access to content with suspicious filenames. The police have a fundamentally different argument here than "it happened to be in his possession".
- sspiff 10y ago
  I agree, and looking at the story that is available to us here, the guy in question is very suspect. However, that does not mean we can or should change the rules (or define new rules) to put him in jail. I'd prefer they use another way to convict this guy. I'm also careful not to condemn a suspect based on what the media reports about him and his case (the court of public opinion is a dangerous thing). The fifth amendment is one of the few defenses you can call on when facing the incredibly skewed US legal system, and should not be chipped away at, even in a case like this.
- FLUX-YOU 10y ago
  >That being said, I think the government's argument is stronger than usual having proven that he has accessed files regularly in the encrypted drive by showing logs of regular access to content with suspicious filenames. I'm not sure why the case has to stop while the drive remains encrypted then. If they do get the drive decrypted and find nothing (perhaps he held no files and is protesting against forced decryption or they simply have the wrong drive) that will hurt the prosecution. To me, the judge has basically said you can be locked up indefinitely for accessing suspicious file names. I'm not going to lie though, 20,000 entries would make me pretty fucking suspicious. I think almost all of us would immediately report that to the cops if we saw that in our networks without verifying what's inside.

virmundi 10y ago

I agree that the case here is a bit more compelling. You're also correct in the lack of some evidence in the attach scheme. You can overcome the fingerprints by handing things out for free. Here's a jump drive from some corp. You can also it in a cup holder. The person would touch the jump drive while being a bit perplexed. If you know the person, you can probably get them to hold it for you by simply handing it to them. Yes, you have to be more involved, but at the same time it's doable.