6 ms·
Wow, that's a lot against this guy, but hypothetically couldn't compelling him to decrypt his drives based on a file hash set a dangerous precedent where police
by craftkiller 10y ago
Wow, that's a lot against this guy, but hypothetically couldn't compelling him to decrypt his drives based on a file hash set a dangerous precedent where police can just plant file hashes somewhere to get access to anyone's drives? Sort of the high tech version of the drug dogs that would signal on cue.
- tedunangst 10y agoThey could also plant an unencrypted drive and skip the whole getting the password step.
- blusterXY 10y agoThen they would need access to the images and not just knowledge of the hashes.
- taneq 10y agoIf they're going to ignore that pesky 'staying within the law' step they might as well just lock him up indefinitely right now.
- TheRealDunkirk 10y agoEighteen months without a charge. I think they're way ahead of you. IMO, they've already abrogated his 6th-Amendment right to a speedy trial as well.
- Fjolsvith 10y agoThere are a lot of things that waive the speedy trial right. If a defendant files pretty much any kind of motion, the speedy trial timeframe goes out the window.
- taneq 10y agoThat's actually where I was going with that - maybe I should have put that /s or ;) at the end of the post after all. :)
- mjolk 10y agoThey're staying within the law -- the defendant being in violation of the law is why an order to comply was filed and why we have access to the court of appeals document. If you don't like the process, that's a different conversation.