9 ms·

> The argument made in the article is that it's a "foregone conclusion" that there's child porn on the drives, so decrypting them isn't self-incriminating becau

> The argument made in the article is that it's a "foregone conclusion" that there's child porn on the drives, so decrypting them isn't self-incriminating because they already know what's on the drive. The immediate thought that comes to my head when they say this is: Then whats the problem? You can prove it, so why do you need more proof? Unless your possibly maybe your case isn't rock solid or you want to find more crimes.

a3n 10y ago
yeah, if it's a foregone conclusion, then why isn't the trial over and time being served?
- oxide 10y ago
  Where's the mandatory minimums for possession of child porngraphy? The zero tolerance? Our prisons fill with drug offenders, yet we give sex offenders a scarlet letter + probation?
  - Buge 10y ago
    Keep in mind that a 17 year old taking a nude picture of themself is in possession of child pornography. Do you want a harsh minimum sentence for that?
    - mrmstr 10y ago
      You gotta cut the government some slack here, they have contracts with private prison providers and quotas to fulfill. Can't have compassion and reason get in the way of that. Also think of the children.
      - madez 10y ago
        Times are moving faster, you have to adapt. Efficiency is trump. Children are no exception here. You gotta see that there is just no time for things like 'being a child'.
      - thinkmilitant 10y ago
        With private prisons only holding about 8.4%[1] the total state/federal inmates, do you perhaps mean prison guard unions? [1]http://www.salon.com/2016/08/24/private-prisons-are-not-the-problem-why-mass-incarceration-is-the-real-issue/ http://www.salon.com/2016/08/24/private-prisons-are-not-the-...
    - sitkack 10y ago
      Try them as an adult?
      - Buge 10y ago
        I don't understand.
        sitkack 10y ago
        A minor possessing selfies of a nude love relation should clearly be tried as an adult. For maximum ironic force.
  - shard972 10y ago
    I don't think drug offenders should be put in prison since it's a victimless crime. I think child porno while much more serious does invoke some of that chain of reasoning. To me there is a big difference between a guy who found some on the internet and someone who produces or pays for it. I would be wary of putting in minimum sentencing for such crimes unless it was only targeted towards those producing/paying as you can reach murky area's. Two i can think of off the top of my head would be finding images inside someone's browser cache who browses a site like 4chan where people will post it randomly. That and art, if someone draws child pornography is that a crime? If blizzard says one of their overwatch characters is 17, are the people who make those animated porno videos making child porn? And are the people watching it consuming child porn?
    - gscott 10y ago
      There was a sex offender who wrote on paper fictional stories of child sex and he was put back into jail for a violation of his parole (for writing it, never shared it). If you have child pornography the law considers it the same as taking the photo and you can be sued civilly by the victims. People love it when lawmakers make more laws.
      - caf 10y ago
        Remember that parolees are still under sentence. There are almost always restrictions on parolees that go beyond those on the general population - that is the whole point of the parole system, you agree to live under sometimes onerous restrictions in return for being allowed out before your sentence is up.
    - jMyles 10y ago
      > That and art, if someone draws child pornography is that a crime? If blizzard says one of their overwatch characters is 17, are the people who make those animated porno videos making child porn? And are the people watching it consuming child porn? The answers to these questions are obvious: no and no. If the answers are any different or short of being absolute, then that's a clear hole in the first amendment.
  - bsder 10y ago
    Also keep in mind that urinating on a wall in front of a police officer can get you "sex offender" status.
ManlyBread 10y ago
I would suspect that the footage itself can be very valuable in terms of further investigations, so they're pushing for it because it will benefit them in future. The man will end up in prison anyway, so it's not like the law enforcement has something to lose.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  No, that means that he's jailed indefinitely for possibly imaginary reasons that have nothing to do with the case at hand. > The man will end up in prison anyway But may actually end up longer in prison for contempt of court.
Fjolsvith 10y ago
The problem has to do with precedent. If the prosecutors give up on this issue, then future defendants can cite this case in their defense.
wfo 10y ago
Similarly, if the police have a reasonable suspicion that there are illegal materials in your home, they should never be allowed to enter and search it against your will. Either they have enough evidence to charge you or they don't, right? So why bother searching? It doesn't matter if you have a nuclear weapon in your basement, if you say no they aren't allowed to come in and check/collect evidence that makes them certain no matter what the Geiger counter outside says. Your reasoning invalidates all searches, all warrants, and it's everywhere in this thread, it's insane. I'm all for security, privacy, encryption, Tor, but if the police have a strong enough reason to think I'm committing a horrible crime, and have convinced a judge to sign off on it, then yeah absolutely they should be allowed to search my computer. I don't get to say "Joke's on you g-man, we both know I'm a criminal and the evidence is right here and I can get into it, but I won't let you in until you've cracked my secret code!" The alternative is for them to just always assume encryption/Tor == criminal. The point is they can search /when they have a very good, explicit reason given to a judge/, not go on fishing expeditions or passively collect everything. You probably will lose your privacy for a little while if you're a reasonable target in a serious police investigation, that's always been the case, and it always will be.
- braveo 10y ago
  It's a bad analogy, the police don't need your permission to gain access to your home. It'd be akin to the police coming across a written document in rot13 and jailing you indefinitely until you show them how to decrypt it. What if it turns out to be a grocery list and you used rot13 just as a matter of course? You went to jail over a grocery list? I don't think you can compare searching a house to forcing the decrypting of the hard drive. I run my own XMPP server to keep in contact with a few people (1 friend in china, and my gf during the day). I absolutely encrypt all of it, you're telling me it's ok for them to jail me indefinitely because they believe I've said something in the logs that I shouldn't have. And that's bullshit, there are legitimate reasons why people encrypt things.
  - wfo 10y ago
    The fact that police can't access your data without your permission is a technical reason, not a legal reason. Warrants say the police can search your home. Everything in your home. The data on the machines in your home. If a police officer knocks on your door and presents a valid warrant and you say "good luck, I've booby trapped my home as a fortress with shotguns and explosives and I refuse to disable them" you will be locked in jail until you do. Police don't have to deal with your bullshit when a judge orders you to do something and you refuse to comply. They just lock you in jail until you do what they say. And no, none of your examples are appropriate. If the police could prove you had a grocery list had all of the items used in a crime and could tie you to it, went to a judge, got a warrant, and ordered you to turn over that list, you'd have to do it. If it's encrypted in some scheme you have to show them the real data. It's not the cops' job to work their way around every weird little obstacle you put in their way when they have a lawful order requiring you to hand over information. In your scenario, if they had a warrant for your grocery list or XMPP server data, you wouldn't be "jailed indefinitely", you'd be jailed until you complied with a lawful order to turn over the data you possess. I don't know where you got the idea you'd be jailed indefinitely because of the content of the chats, that one came out of nowhere. If they discuss crimes you've committed you'd be jailed for those crimes, not indefinitely. After you turn over the logs. If you refuse you're breaking the law. If you don't have access, you can go ahead and try to prove that to the judge, or convince the judge you forgot your password. But the police can provide evidence to suggest you DO have access, you are just willfully refusing to give it up. Like, e.g. logs of you accessing it successfully, recently. Yes there are legitimate reasons people encrypt things. I encrypt everything, all the time, just for the sake of doing it. I use Tor for my fairly mundane browsing all the time because I value my privacy. But encryption does not mean "I never have to give anything to the authorities, under any circumstances, no matter what, and there can't ever be any consequences for me if I refuse when they go through proper channels and ask". Encryption does not mean you don't have to comply with the law.

a3n 10y ago

yeah, if it's a foregone conclusion, then why isn't the trial over and time being served?

oxide 10y ago
Where's the mandatory minimums for possession of child porngraphy? The zero tolerance? Our prisons fill with drug offenders, yet we give sex offenders a scarlet letter + probation?
- Buge 10y ago
  Keep in mind that a 17 year old taking a nude picture of themself is in possession of child pornography. Do you want a harsh minimum sentence for that?
  - mrmstr 10y ago
    You gotta cut the government some slack here, they have contracts with private prison providers and quotas to fulfill. Can't have compassion and reason get in the way of that. Also think of the children.
    - madez 10y ago
      Times are moving faster, you have to adapt. Efficiency is trump. Children are no exception here. You gotta see that there is just no time for things like 'being a child'.
    - thinkmilitant 10y ago
      With private prisons only holding about 8.4%[1] the total state/federal inmates, do you perhaps mean prison guard unions? [1]http://www.salon.com/2016/08/24/private-prisons-are-not-the-problem-why-mass-incarceration-is-the-real-issue/ http://www.salon.com/2016/08/24/private-prisons-are-not-the-...
  - sitkack 10y ago
    Try them as an adult?
    - Buge 10y ago
      I don't understand.
      - sitkack 10y ago
        A minor possessing selfies of a nude love relation should clearly be tried as an adult. For maximum ironic force.
- shard972 10y ago
  I don't think drug offenders should be put in prison since it's a victimless crime. I think child porno while much more serious does invoke some of that chain of reasoning. To me there is a big difference between a guy who found some on the internet and someone who produces or pays for it. I would be wary of putting in minimum sentencing for such crimes unless it was only targeted towards those producing/paying as you can reach murky area's. Two i can think of off the top of my head would be finding images inside someone's browser cache who browses a site like 4chan where people will post it randomly. That and art, if someone draws child pornography is that a crime? If blizzard says one of their overwatch characters is 17, are the people who make those animated porno videos making child porn? And are the people watching it consuming child porn?
  - gscott 10y ago
    There was a sex offender who wrote on paper fictional stories of child sex and he was put back into jail for a violation of his parole (for writing it, never shared it). If you have child pornography the law considers it the same as taking the photo and you can be sued civilly by the victims. People love it when lawmakers make more laws.
    - caf 10y ago
      Remember that parolees are still under sentence. There are almost always restrictions on parolees that go beyond those on the general population - that is the whole point of the parole system, you agree to live under sometimes onerous restrictions in return for being allowed out before your sentence is up.
  - jMyles 10y ago
    > That and art, if someone draws child pornography is that a crime? If blizzard says one of their overwatch characters is 17, are the people who make those animated porno videos making child porn? And are the people watching it consuming child porn? The answers to these questions are obvious: no and no. If the answers are any different or short of being absolute, then that's a clear hole in the first amendment.
- bsder 10y ago
  Also keep in mind that urinating on a wall in front of a police officer can get you "sex offender" status.

ManlyBread 10y ago

I would suspect that the footage itself can be very valuable in terms of further investigations, so they're pushing for it because it will benefit them in future. The man will end up in prison anyway, so it's not like the law enforcement has something to lose.

jacquesm 10y ago
No, that means that he's jailed indefinitely for possibly imaginary reasons that have nothing to do with the case at hand. > The man will end up in prison anyway But may actually end up longer in prison for contempt of court.

Fjolsvith 10y ago

The problem has to do with precedent. If the prosecutors give up on this issue, then future defendants can cite this case in their defense.

wfo 10y ago

Similarly, if the police have a reasonable suspicion that there are illegal materials in your home, they should never be allowed to enter and search it against your will. Either they have enough evidence to charge you or they don't, right? So why bother searching? It doesn't matter if you have a nuclear weapon in your basement, if you say no they aren't allowed to come in and check/collect evidence that makes them certain no matter what the Geiger counter outside says. Your reasoning invalidates all searches, all warrants, and it's everywhere in this thread, it's insane. I'm all for security, privacy, encryption, Tor, but if the police have a strong enough reason to think I'm committing a horrible crime, and have convinced a judge to sign off on it, then yeah absolutely they should be allowed to search my computer. I don't get to say "Joke's on you g-man, we both know I'm a criminal and the evidence is right here and I can get into it, but I won't let you in until you've cracked my secret code!" The alternative is for them to just always assume encryption/Tor == criminal. The point is they can search /when they have a very good, explicit reason given to a judge/, not go on fishing expeditions or passively collect everything. You probably will lose your privacy for a little while if you're a reasonable target in a serious police investigation, that's always been the case, and it always will be.

braveo 10y ago
It's a bad analogy, the police don't need your permission to gain access to your home. It'd be akin to the police coming across a written document in rot13 and jailing you indefinitely until you show them how to decrypt it. What if it turns out to be a grocery list and you used rot13 just as a matter of course? You went to jail over a grocery list? I don't think you can compare searching a house to forcing the decrypting of the hard drive. I run my own XMPP server to keep in contact with a few people (1 friend in china, and my gf during the day). I absolutely encrypt all of it, you're telling me it's ok for them to jail me indefinitely because they believe I've said something in the logs that I shouldn't have. And that's bullshit, there are legitimate reasons why people encrypt things.
- wfo 10y ago
  The fact that police can't access your data without your permission is a technical reason, not a legal reason. Warrants say the police can search your home. Everything in your home. The data on the machines in your home. If a police officer knocks on your door and presents a valid warrant and you say "good luck, I've booby trapped my home as a fortress with shotguns and explosives and I refuse to disable them" you will be locked in jail until you do. Police don't have to deal with your bullshit when a judge orders you to do something and you refuse to comply. They just lock you in jail until you do what they say. And no, none of your examples are appropriate. If the police could prove you had a grocery list had all of the items used in a crime and could tie you to it, went to a judge, got a warrant, and ordered you to turn over that list, you'd have to do it. If it's encrypted in some scheme you have to show them the real data. It's not the cops' job to work their way around every weird little obstacle you put in their way when they have a lawful order requiring you to hand over information. In your scenario, if they had a warrant for your grocery list or XMPP server data, you wouldn't be "jailed indefinitely", you'd be jailed until you complied with a lawful order to turn over the data you possess. I don't know where you got the idea you'd be jailed indefinitely because of the content of the chats, that one came out of nowhere. If they discuss crimes you've committed you'd be jailed for those crimes, not indefinitely. After you turn over the logs. If you refuse you're breaking the law. If you don't have access, you can go ahead and try to prove that to the judge, or convince the judge you forgot your password. But the police can provide evidence to suggest you DO have access, you are just willfully refusing to give it up. Like, e.g. logs of you accessing it successfully, recently. Yes there are legitimate reasons people encrypt things. I encrypt everything, all the time, just for the sake of doing it. I use Tor for my fairly mundane browsing all the time because I value my privacy. But encryption does not mean "I never have to give anything to the authorities, under any circumstances, no matter what, and there can't ever be any consequences for me if I refuse when they go through proper channels and ask". Encryption does not mean you don't have to comply with the law.