3 ms·
A possibility is that if they prosecute based on what they have now, then he will _never_ decrypt it - they may be aiming to break up a porn-ring or the actual
by petee 10y ago
A possibility is that if they prosecute based on what they have now, then he will _never_ decrypt it - they may be aiming to break up a porn-ring or the actual producers, and he may have very valuable data on the drive, that may potentially save lives
- neltnerb 10y agoIf this were the case, they would provide him immunity in exchange for cooperation in prosecuting up the "food chain" like they do with mobsters.
- mjolk 10y agoI think this is just a thing that happens in the movies. Also, check out the source document and let me know if you think someone found guilty of the described acts deserves immunity.
- fjdlwlv 10y agoWhat? It happens all the time on regular cirminal cases. Movies didn't invent "informants". Immunity can mean being convicted for lesser offenses, or negotiating a less than maximal punishment.
- neltnerb 10y agoIt's not really a matter of my opinion on the specific case. Even with the full documents, there is no way that I'd have enough information to judge fairly, so I wouldn't try to. I'm just saying that they have a way out, and it seems that they've made the judgment that the potential of finding other criminals (if that's even a motivation) for them is not worth it. And the courts are making the downside "indefinite prison", which isn't much of a downside for the prosecutor. I think you can expect this to be used far more broadly if this is allowed. If I were a prosecutor I'd probably abuse the power too as yet another lever to use to get my way.