2 ms·

> should they just let him go because he said "Shoot, turns out I don't remember!" No, I don't think any private individual should be jailed for failing to dec

by baddox 10y ago

> should they just let him go because he said "Shoot, turns out I don't remember!" No, I don't think any private individual should be jailed for failing to decrypt data, regardless of whether they are able to, as part of a case wherein they are the accused. This should be a basic fundamental right of the accused, and I think the current working interpretations of the fifth amendment are unjust. > How would any criminal justice occur if we let people off with flimsy excuses like that? Justice in my view is the presumption of innocence, with the duty to demonstrate guilt beyond reasonable doubt placed on the prosecution. Forcing accused to decrypt data obviously helps the prosecution, but so would warrantless searches, and I oppose both for precisely the same reason.

cookiecaper 10y ago
>Justice in my view is the presumption of innocence, with the duty to demonstrate guilt beyond reasonable doubt placed on the prosecution. Forcing accused to decrypt data obviously helps the prosecution, but so would warrantless searches, and I oppose both for precisely the same reason. Warrantless searches are unjust because the police can come in and execute them without oversight. In this case, the neutral overseer (the court) has directed the accused to comply with a request from the investigators. Warrants are a check against rampant tyranny. They are issued or declined by an independent judicial officer whose incentives are, at least theoretically, not aligned to favor either party. Warrants don't exist because we think it's unfair to comply with reasonable requests from the organs of the state in the their pursuit of justice, even when you're among the accused. Rather, they exist to make sure that the requests remain reasonable and fair and serve the interests of justice. Like many things in our government, these are checks to limit and constrain the power of distinct government bodies and ensure that they do not get out of control. It is incorrect to assume that these restrictions exist for the convenience of criminal suspects, because they don't.
- baddox 10y ago
  Just because one branch of government performs an action rather than another does not change my views of the action. A court cannot compel someone to testify against themselves just because they're the court, right?
- dingoegret 10y ago
  No entity exists neutrally; that is fucking niave. Courts can favor accused police and political officials. The laws must then be designed not to act to grant power to an assumed neural party, but set the stage where all parties have equal power within the confines of the legal process. A fair race.
EpicEng 10y ago
>This should be a basic fundamental right of the accused Well, it's not, and that's a terribly naive viewpoint. This is akin to a legal search. Are you also against those? How is this any different than compelling a suspect to e.g. open a safe in their home?
- baddox 10y ago
  It's very much unlike a legal search. Legal searches require no participation on the part of the accused. I do also oppose compelling an accused person to open a safe, but I have no problem with the authorities breaking into a safe with a warrant. Likewise I have no problem with the authorities confiscating a hard drive and performing any transformations to the data they please

by baddox 10y ago

cookiecaper 10y ago

>Justice in my view is the presumption of innocence, with the duty to demonstrate guilt beyond reasonable doubt placed on the prosecution. Forcing accused to decrypt data obviously helps the prosecution, but so would warrantless searches, and I oppose both for precisely the same reason. Warrantless searches are unjust because the police can come in and execute them without oversight. In this case, the neutral overseer (the court) has directed the accused to comply with a request from the investigators. Warrants are a check against rampant tyranny. They are issued or declined by an independent judicial officer whose incentives are, at least theoretically, not aligned to favor either party. Warrants don't exist because we think it's unfair to comply with reasonable requests from the organs of the state in the their pursuit of justice, even when you're among the accused. Rather, they exist to make sure that the requests remain reasonable and fair and serve the interests of justice. Like many things in our government, these are checks to limit and constrain the power of distinct government bodies and ensure that they do not get out of control. It is incorrect to assume that these restrictions exist for the convenience of criminal suspects, because they don't.

baddox 10y ago
Just because one branch of government performs an action rather than another does not change my views of the action. A court cannot compel someone to testify against themselves just because they're the court, right?
dingoegret 10y ago
No entity exists neutrally; that is fucking niave. Courts can favor accused police and political officials. The laws must then be designed not to act to grant power to an assumed neural party, but set the stage where all parties have equal power within the confines of the legal process. A fair race.

EpicEng 10y ago

>This should be a basic fundamental right of the accused Well, it's not, and that's a terribly naive viewpoint. This is akin to a legal search. Are you also against those? How is this any different than compelling a suspect to e.g. open a safe in their home?

baddox 10y ago
It's very much unlike a legal search. Legal searches require no participation on the part of the accused. I do also oppose compelling an accused person to open a safe, but I have no problem with the authorities breaking into a safe with a warrant. Likewise I have no problem with the authorities confiscating a hard drive and performing any transformations to the data they please