4 ms·

Also, he showed his own family child porn, and they have actually found searches for child porn in a VM on the computer. >Whenever you get to an alarming concl

Also, he showed his own family child porn, and they have actually found searches for child porn in a VM on the computer. >Whenever you get to an alarming conclusion like "this means forgetting the password to your laptop means life in prison", chances are, you've missed relevant details. Unfortunately responses like the parent comment are predictable on HN. There is the constant narrative that the government is out to get us all. Yet the example given is someone who already has a lot of evidence of child porn, and a frickin police officer no less.

tremon 10y ago
Then he should be sentenced on the other evidence anyway. The failure to provide additional incriminating evidence could be used as an aggravating circumstance in the ruling, not as a separate crime with infinite detainment. (edit: replaced punishment with detainment, it's probably more neutral)
- tptacek 10y ago
  For the punishment to be infinite, wouldn't the courts at every level up to SCOTUS would have to agree to its reasonableness? (Subtextually, I'm saying: the punishment isn't infinite.)
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  It's not a punishment. It's being held in contempt of court for refusing to obey a court order. He holds the keys to his own freedom; he has to provide the password.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Detention is punishment for the offense of contempt.
- cpncrunch 10y ago
  >Then he should be sentenced on the other evidence anyway Yes, probably. I'm not really convinced that this isn't a violation of the fifth amendment, but I'm not a lawyer. I suspect a jury would find him guilty anyway, and the fact that he refuses to decrypt his hard drive will likely not help his chances of convincing a jury that he's innocent.
- april1stislame 10y ago
  To be sentenced he would have to be charged, which he still isn't after 7 months...
- Spooky23 10y ago
  Why? He's in possession of data deemed contraband, but apparently not linked to distribution. The police need to demonstrate possession and can do so when their search is complete. The police did an investigation, obtained a warrant to search for the contraband and seized the hard drive. The defendant was ordered by the judge to decrypt the drive per the warrant, and refused to follow the order. He's in contempt of court, and he can get out of jail very easily -- by complying with the order.
  - mordocai 10y ago
    Unless, of course, he actually has forgotten the password after 7 months+ of not using it.
  - curun1r 10y ago
    Because we have the 5th amendment. nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself As I understand it, Miranda established that the 5th amendment applies to all interactions with law enforcement, not just answering questions in court. So they can search the hard drive all they want, but the constitution protects us from being required to disclose what's in our heads which, in this case, should include the password.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - Mikhail_Edoshin 10y ago
      There's no criminal case right now, so the fifth amendment doesn't apply.
      - curun1r 10y ago
        Miranda vs Arizona established that 5th amendment protections apply outside of a criminal case. That's why police have to read the Miranda warning when arresting someone. He's been arrested and read his Miranda rights and is invoking them.
coldtea 10y ago
>There is the constant narrative that the government is out to get us all. And historically, from Jim Crow laws, to J.E. Hoover and McCarthy, and onwards to Snowden, this is wrong, because?
- cpncrunch 10y ago
  >And historically, from Jim Crow laws, to J.E. Hoover and McCarthy, and onwards to Snowden, this is wrong, because? Most of the examples you gave are historical. Regarding Snowden: has anything been used against anyone? I'm not condoning the snooping, BTW. I think when you compare the US government to the likes of Russia and China, you'll see that the US is really not "out to get you". Certainly in this case it's pretty obvious that the govt isn't out to get an innocent person. There is a lot of strong evidence already that he has been collecting child porn. That of course doesn't mean that illegal procedures should be used to obtain more evidence, but we shouldn't get hysterical about it and say that the govt is going to use this to frame innocent people.
  - duncan_bayne 10y ago
    > I think when you compare the US government to the likes of Russia and China, you'll see that the US is really not "out to get you". Have you any evidence that the US Government has changed their modus operandi? Programs like COINTELPRO weren't public knowledge until some time afterwards, ditto "rendition" of terrorism suspects for overseas torture. Snowden has demonstrated that your Government still engages in widespread illegal activity. I'd say the only reason such abuse seem "historical" is that we're unaware of the abuses going on right now.
    - cpncrunch 10y ago
      >I'd say the only reason such abuse seem "historical" is that we're unaware of the abuses going on right now. That's my point. The US government may or may not be mildly abusing it's citizens by spying on them illegally, it's hard to know. Compare to Russia or China where it most certainly is vehemently abusing people it disagrees with. Also, I think the rendition was only for non-citizens. The US doesn't really give much of a shit about you if you're not a US citizen.

tremon 10y ago

Then he should be sentenced on the other evidence anyway. The failure to provide additional incriminating evidence could be used as an aggravating circumstance in the ruling, not as a separate crime with infinite detainment. (edit: replaced punishment with detainment, it's probably more neutral)

tptacek 10y ago
For the punishment to be infinite, wouldn't the courts at every level up to SCOTUS would have to agree to its reasonableness? (Subtextually, I'm saying: the punishment isn't infinite.)
marcoperaza 10y ago
It's not a punishment. It's being held in contempt of court for refusing to obey a court order. He holds the keys to his own freedom; he has to provide the password.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Detention is punishment for the offense of contempt.
cpncrunch 10y ago
>Then he should be sentenced on the other evidence anyway Yes, probably. I'm not really convinced that this isn't a violation of the fifth amendment, but I'm not a lawyer. I suspect a jury would find him guilty anyway, and the fact that he refuses to decrypt his hard drive will likely not help his chances of convincing a jury that he's innocent.
april1stislame 10y ago
To be sentenced he would have to be charged, which he still isn't after 7 months...
Spooky23 10y ago
Why? He's in possession of data deemed contraband, but apparently not linked to distribution. The police need to demonstrate possession and can do so when their search is complete. The police did an investigation, obtained a warrant to search for the contraband and seized the hard drive. The defendant was ordered by the judge to decrypt the drive per the warrant, and refused to follow the order. He's in contempt of court, and he can get out of jail very easily -- by complying with the order.
- mordocai 10y ago
  Unless, of course, he actually has forgotten the password after 7 months+ of not using it.
- curun1r 10y ago
  Because we have the 5th amendment. nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself As I understand it, Miranda established that the 5th amendment applies to all interactions with law enforcement, not just answering questions in court. So they can search the hard drive all they want, but the constitution protects us from being required to disclose what's in our heads which, in this case, should include the password.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - Mikhail_Edoshin 10y ago
    There's no criminal case right now, so the fifth amendment doesn't apply.
    - curun1r 10y ago
      Miranda vs Arizona established that 5th amendment protections apply outside of a criminal case. That's why police have to read the Miranda warning when arresting someone. He's been arrested and read his Miranda rights and is invoking them.

coldtea 10y ago

>There is the constant narrative that the government is out to get us all. And historically, from Jim Crow laws, to J.E. Hoover and McCarthy, and onwards to Snowden, this is wrong, because?

cpncrunch 10y ago
>And historically, from Jim Crow laws, to J.E. Hoover and McCarthy, and onwards to Snowden, this is wrong, because? Most of the examples you gave are historical. Regarding Snowden: has anything been used against anyone? I'm not condoning the snooping, BTW. I think when you compare the US government to the likes of Russia and China, you'll see that the US is really not "out to get you". Certainly in this case it's pretty obvious that the govt isn't out to get an innocent person. There is a lot of strong evidence already that he has been collecting child porn. That of course doesn't mean that illegal procedures should be used to obtain more evidence, but we shouldn't get hysterical about it and say that the govt is going to use this to frame innocent people.
- duncan_bayne 10y ago
  > I think when you compare the US government to the likes of Russia and China, you'll see that the US is really not "out to get you". Have you any evidence that the US Government has changed their modus operandi? Programs like COINTELPRO weren't public knowledge until some time afterwards, ditto "rendition" of terrorism suspects for overseas torture. Snowden has demonstrated that your Government still engages in widespread illegal activity. I'd say the only reason such abuse seem "historical" is that we're unaware of the abuses going on right now.
  - cpncrunch 10y ago
    >I'd say the only reason such abuse seem "historical" is that we're unaware of the abuses going on right now. That's my point. The US government may or may not be mildly abusing it's citizens by spying on them illegally, it's hard to know. Compare to Russia or China where it most certainly is vehemently abusing people it disagrees with. Also, I think the rendition was only for non-citizens. The US doesn't really give much of a shit about you if you're not a US citizen.