5 ms·
Head's up that the source goes into some detail and is a miserable, sickening read. Per the source (https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/feds
by mjolk 10y ago
Head's up that the source goes into some detail and is a miserable, sickening read.
Per the source (https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/fedsrawls.pdf https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/fedsr...), the prosecutors already have a case based on checksums of the media that the defendant had downloaded, and per the logs, stored on his external hard drive. I imagine that the prosecution wants the media so they can perform harm reduction services for the identified, affected children and/or improve their data for going after other/future child abusers.
- mickronome 10y agoBut harm reduction and improving data for other cases is not the intended use of warrants and contempt of court, or is it?
- mjolk 10y agoNo, and thanks for catching that. My understanding is that the prosecution doesn't need the decrypted data to secure a guilty verdict, but as they're entitled to it, they likely want it for secondary benefit.