3 ms·

His crime is disobeying a court order, which is a crime that you can go to jail for. Just like if you had the key to a safe, and the court orders you to open t

by vivekd 10y ago

His crime is disobeying a court order, which is a crime that you can go to jail for. Just like if you had the key to a safe, and the court orders you to open the safe, you would go to jail if you refuse to do so. If he forgot the keys he could have told the court that and the court would evaluate his credibility. *edited changed from key to combination because combination locks are protected by the 5th amendment and keys are not.

externalreality 10y ago
Some are arguing that the court has no right to order him to do so. 5th amendment and some case rulings are mentioned.
Programmatic 10y ago
The courts can compel you to turn over something that you have. Something that you know is protected by the fifth amendment, in particular for combination locks. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/487/201/case.html https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/487/201/case.htm... """ JUSTICE STEVENS, dissenting. A defendant can be compelled to produce material evidence that is incriminating. Fingerprints, blood samples, voice exemplars, handwriting specimens, or other items of physical evidence may be extracted from a defendant against his will. But can he be compelled to use his mind to assist the prosecution in convicting him of a crime? I think not. He may in some cases be forced to surrender a key to a strongbox containing incriminating documents, but I do not believe he can be compelled to reveal the combination to his wall safe -- by word or deed. """
- vivekd 10y ago
  great, now look up what "dissent" means. Dissent is legal mumbo jumbo for "stuff that ain't law." When you have a panel of judges, we go with the decision of the majority of judges. The decision of the minority of the judges is still published under the heading "dissent." It isn't the ruling and it doesn't affect the law, but it's published just to note that they disagreed and their reasons. There are some 5th amendment encryption cases where there is a question about whether the government has shown that there is a reasonable certainty that the files contain the evidence being sought. In those cases the 5th amendment would act to protect the info. That doesn't seem to be the case here and in that case, it seems like clear law that he would have to give up the data.
  - Programmatic 10y ago
    I am well aware of what "dissent" means. Fortunately, this is a supreme court justice talking about a case that was not about a combination lock. Unless you can show something that says that you can be compelled to open a combination lock (I couldn't), I'll take the supreme court justice's word for it.
    - vivekd 10y ago
      You're right, combination locks are protected by 5th amendment as Testimonial evidence. I was wrong in my original post, however this doesn't apply to computer encryptions which the court seems to treat more like keys to a safe which are not protected, I'll correct my post accordingly thanks.
      - MertsA 10y ago
        So if I put a dial interface on my computer I can't be compelled to give up my "combination"?
        sean2 10y ago
        You're combination is protected under the fifth, but you can be compelled to unlock your computer using that combination, which is exactly what the judge is ordering in this particular case. And don't complain too me that it's essentially the same thing; this is the judge's reasoning, not mine.
- 2bitencryption 10y ago
  ...you just pasted the text from the ONE dissenting judge; the other EIGHT disagreed and ruled in the opposite. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1987/86-1753 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1987/86-1753
  - Programmatic 10y ago
    Per my other reply, the case he was dissenting about was not about being compelled to provide the combination for a lock. The dissent simply contained a supreme court judge's opinion regarding combination locks. If you can find actual caselaw for combination locks, I'll take it. Otherwise, I'll take the supreme court justice's opinion.
  - MertsA 10y ago
    The other eight unanimously agreed with him, they disagreed that the particular case was analogous to a combination, the other justices were of the opinion that it was really a "key".
dclowd9901 10y ago
What about the 5th amendment? I think we can agree without too much of a stretch that our storage data is just an extension of our mind (verily, suppose someone had illegal data stored on their drive and an idedic memory? Destroying the data on the hard drive wouldn't destroy the data in their mind), and thus just as protected by our right not to testify against ourself?
naasking 10y ago
> His crime is disobeying a court order, which is a crime that you can go to jail for. Sure, but isn't the question whether he should go to jail indefinitely? If defying a court order is a crime, then perhaps it should have a well defined jail term.
- gydfi 10y ago
  It does, the term is "until you comply".
  - naasking 10y ago
    That's not what well-defined means. You might as well say we should jail people until their victims feel better. Furthermore, there's no evidence demonstrating he actually can comply.
jonathanstrange 10y ago
His crime is disobeying a court order, which is a crime that you can go to jail for. That's not his crime, or as the subtitle below the story's headline states: "He's not charged with a crime." He's held in custody, not serving a sentence for a crime of which he has been convicted. He has never been convicted of any crime by any jury. That's a huge difference, both legally and morally.

by vivekd 10y ago

externalreality 10y ago

Some are arguing that the court has no right to order him to do so. 5th amendment and some case rulings are mentioned.

Programmatic 10y ago

The courts can compel you to turn over something that you have. Something that you know is protected by the fifth amendment, in particular for combination locks. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/487/201/case.html https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/487/201/case.htm... """ JUSTICE STEVENS, dissenting. A defendant can be compelled to produce material evidence that is incriminating. Fingerprints, blood samples, voice exemplars, handwriting specimens, or other items of physical evidence may be extracted from a defendant against his will. But can he be compelled to use his mind to assist the prosecution in convicting him of a crime? I think not. He may in some cases be forced to surrender a key to a strongbox containing incriminating documents, but I do not believe he can be compelled to reveal the combination to his wall safe -- by word or deed. """

vivekd 10y ago
great, now look up what "dissent" means. Dissent is legal mumbo jumbo for "stuff that ain't law." When you have a panel of judges, we go with the decision of the majority of judges. The decision of the minority of the judges is still published under the heading "dissent." It isn't the ruling and it doesn't affect the law, but it's published just to note that they disagreed and their reasons. There are some 5th amendment encryption cases where there is a question about whether the government has shown that there is a reasonable certainty that the files contain the evidence being sought. In those cases the 5th amendment would act to protect the info. That doesn't seem to be the case here and in that case, it seems like clear law that he would have to give up the data.
- Programmatic 10y ago
  I am well aware of what "dissent" means. Fortunately, this is a supreme court justice talking about a case that was not about a combination lock. Unless you can show something that says that you can be compelled to open a combination lock (I couldn't), I'll take the supreme court justice's word for it.
  - vivekd 10y ago
    You're right, combination locks are protected by 5th amendment as Testimonial evidence. I was wrong in my original post, however this doesn't apply to computer encryptions which the court seems to treat more like keys to a safe which are not protected, I'll correct my post accordingly thanks.
    - MertsA 10y ago
      So if I put a dial interface on my computer I can't be compelled to give up my "combination"?
      - sean2 10y ago
        You're combination is protected under the fifth, but you can be compelled to unlock your computer using that combination, which is exactly what the judge is ordering in this particular case. And don't complain too me that it's essentially the same thing; this is the judge's reasoning, not mine.
2bitencryption 10y ago
...you just pasted the text from the ONE dissenting judge; the other EIGHT disagreed and ruled in the opposite. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1987/86-1753 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1987/86-1753
- Programmatic 10y ago
  Per my other reply, the case he was dissenting about was not about being compelled to provide the combination for a lock. The dissent simply contained a supreme court judge's opinion regarding combination locks. If you can find actual caselaw for combination locks, I'll take it. Otherwise, I'll take the supreme court justice's opinion.
- MertsA 10y ago
  The other eight unanimously agreed with him, they disagreed that the particular case was analogous to a combination, the other justices were of the opinion that it was really a "key".

dclowd9901 10y ago

What about the 5th amendment? I think we can agree without too much of a stretch that our storage data is just an extension of our mind (verily, suppose someone had illegal data stored on their drive and an idedic memory? Destroying the data on the hard drive wouldn't destroy the data in their mind), and thus just as protected by our right not to testify against ourself?

naasking 10y ago

> His crime is disobeying a court order, which is a crime that you can go to jail for. Sure, but isn't the question whether he should go to jail indefinitely? If defying a court order is a crime, then perhaps it should have a well defined jail term.

gydfi 10y ago
It does, the term is "until you comply".
- naasking 10y ago
  That's not what well-defined means. You might as well say we should jail people until their victims feel better. Furthermore, there's no evidence demonstrating he actually can comply.

jonathanstrange 10y ago

His crime is disobeying a court order, which is a crime that you can go to jail for. That's not his crime, or as the subtitle below the story's headline states: "He's not charged with a crime." He's held in custody, not serving a sentence for a crime of which he has been convicted. He has never been convicted of any crime by any jury. That's a huge difference, both legally and morally.