4 ms·

But without 100% proof he can't be jailed. The prosecutors don't have enough evidence to prove it, so how can he be jailed for it already? "Innocent until prov

by iopq 10y ago

But without 100% proof he can't be jailed. The prosecutors don't have enough evidence to prove it, so how can he be jailed for it already? "Innocent until proven guilty" is the foundation of our legal system

bigiain 10y ago
There are other precedents I think. Here (Sydney Australia) the penalty for refusing a roadside alcohol test is the same as the top range blood alcohol penalty. So you can refuse a test, and they'll penalise you assuming the worst-case result you could have produced. I'm guessing this guy is in a quite perplexing quandary - he's betting on whether they'll keep him in jail for as long for refusing to decrypt the drives as they would for the crimes that decrypting the drives expose? (At least I _hope_ that's his quandary - I sincerely hope the reality isn't that he's genuinely forgotten the passwords, and when the FBI/NSA _finally_ bruteforce it, they end up with baby photos, teenaged angst poetry, and a few bittorrented Hollywood movies... That does, at least, seem quite unlikely...)
- mirimir 10y ago
  If he was using Freenet, there's no doubt that his node handled chunks of CP files, and that at least some of those chunks remain on the drive. Let's say that he never viewed any CP. Even then, can he be sure that investigators won't discover evidence that could be spun to demonstrate that he did view CP? It is quite a quandary :(
  - Natanael_L 10y ago
    If you didn't request it, your node won't hold decryption keys to the files. Might not help him if they believe that the encrypted keyless fragments is enough (which would be a horrible legal argument).
    - mirimir 10y ago
      That's true, of course. But LEA are selecting nodes based on the hashes of those fragments. Many of them won't have cached CP fragments, but merely relayed them. But if his node did, prosecutors could argue that they've identified CP on his computer based on hashes, and have experts testify about reliability, etc. How many jurors would understand Freenet design?
mirimir 10y ago
He's not jailed for having CP. He's jailed for contempt.
- iopq 10y ago
  How can they prove he is in contempt of the court? Someone who forgot the password would very well be found in contempt of the court, despite not doing anything wrong. How can you jail someone for being in contempt of the court when there is no proof that he has the password? In fact, it seems dangerous for the judge to be able to jail anyone without a jury verdict. It seems to bypass legal protections.
rodgerd 10y ago
> But without 100% proof he can't be jailed. The standard is not "100% proof". Perhaps you should learn something about the legal system.
- jdmichal 10y ago
  The standard for US criminal law is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". I think "100% proof" is a close enough summary of that phrase... If the proof doesn't 100% convince the jury, then reasonable doubt still exists and prosecution should fail.
  - rodgerd 10y ago
    > I think "100% proof" is a close enough summary of that phrase... Not even close.
    - jdmichal 10y ago
      Do you have any refutation to the logic in the rest of my post? Or is "nope neener neener" the only thing I get?
  - grzm 10y ago
    Beyond reasonable doubt can admit that doubt does exist, it's just not reasonable to entertain it. 100% proof strongly implies that there is no doubt at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt
    - jdmichal 10y ago
      I don't think there's a difference. For instance, let's say we have a video of little Timmy shoplifting a candy bar. Clear face shot, maybe the video even has sound and there's a vocal-print match. Pretty slam-dunk case, right? Not much room for reasonable doubt there. Oh, but you see, little Timmy was actually being telepathically controlled by a diabetic alien about to pass out from hypoglycemia, who had him steal the candy bar. Can you prove this was not the case? This is what reasonable doubt protects against. There will always be the ability to create a (probably fanciful) scenario in which the defendant is not guilty. An unreasonable scenario, one might even say. Being able to convince the jury beyond reasonable doubt is as close to 100% proof as you are reasonably going to ever get. > Beyond "the shadow of a doubt" is sometimes used interchangeably with beyond reasonable doubt, but this extends beyond the latter, to the extent that it may be considered an impossible standard. The term "reasonable doubt" is therefore used. [Emphasis mine]

by iopq 10y ago

bigiain 10y ago

There are other precedents I think. Here (Sydney Australia) the penalty for refusing a roadside alcohol test is the same as the top range blood alcohol penalty. So you can refuse a test, and they'll penalise you assuming the worst-case result you could have produced. I'm guessing this guy is in a quite perplexing quandary - he's betting on whether they'll keep him in jail for as long for refusing to decrypt the drives as they would for the crimes that decrypting the drives expose? (At least I _hope_ that's his quandary - I sincerely hope the reality isn't that he's genuinely forgotten the passwords, and when the FBI/NSA _finally_ bruteforce it, they end up with baby photos, teenaged angst poetry, and a few bittorrented Hollywood movies... That does, at least, seem quite unlikely...)

mirimir 10y ago
If he was using Freenet, there's no doubt that his node handled chunks of CP files, and that at least some of those chunks remain on the drive. Let's say that he never viewed any CP. Even then, can he be sure that investigators won't discover evidence that could be spun to demonstrate that he did view CP? It is quite a quandary :(
- Natanael_L 10y ago
  If you didn't request it, your node won't hold decryption keys to the files. Might not help him if they believe that the encrypted keyless fragments is enough (which would be a horrible legal argument).
  - mirimir 10y ago
    That's true, of course. But LEA are selecting nodes based on the hashes of those fragments. Many of them won't have cached CP fragments, but merely relayed them. But if his node did, prosecutors could argue that they've identified CP on his computer based on hashes, and have experts testify about reliability, etc. How many jurors would understand Freenet design?

mirimir 10y ago

He's not jailed for having CP. He's jailed for contempt.

iopq 10y ago
How can they prove he is in contempt of the court? Someone who forgot the password would very well be found in contempt of the court, despite not doing anything wrong. How can you jail someone for being in contempt of the court when there is no proof that he has the password? In fact, it seems dangerous for the judge to be able to jail anyone without a jury verdict. It seems to bypass legal protections.

rodgerd 10y ago

> But without 100% proof he can't be jailed. The standard is not "100% proof". Perhaps you should learn something about the legal system.

jdmichal 10y ago
The standard for US criminal law is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". I think "100% proof" is a close enough summary of that phrase... If the proof doesn't 100% convince the jury, then reasonable doubt still exists and prosecution should fail.
- rodgerd 10y ago
  > I think "100% proof" is a close enough summary of that phrase... Not even close.
  - jdmichal 10y ago
    Do you have any refutation to the logic in the rest of my post? Or is "nope neener neener" the only thing I get?
- grzm 10y ago
  Beyond reasonable doubt can admit that doubt does exist, it's just not reasonable to entertain it. 100% proof strongly implies that there is no doubt at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt
  - jdmichal 10y ago
    I don't think there's a difference. For instance, let's say we have a video of little Timmy shoplifting a candy bar. Clear face shot, maybe the video even has sound and there's a vocal-print match. Pretty slam-dunk case, right? Not much room for reasonable doubt there. Oh, but you see, little Timmy was actually being telepathically controlled by a diabetic alien about to pass out from hypoglycemia, who had him steal the candy bar. Can you prove this was not the case? This is what reasonable doubt protects against. There will always be the ability to create a (probably fanciful) scenario in which the defendant is not guilty. An unreasonable scenario, one might even say. Being able to convince the jury beyond reasonable doubt is as close to 100% proof as you are reasonably going to ever get. > Beyond "the shadow of a doubt" is sometimes used interchangeably with beyond reasonable doubt, but this extends beyond the latter, to the extent that it may be considered an impossible standard. The term "reasonable doubt" is therefore used. [Emphasis mine]