4 ms·

Exactly - reminds me of the person who is being held indefinitely due to not giving up the encrypted hard drive password. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2

• gruez 9y ago
  it should be noted that other jurisdictions have ruled that forcing someone to give their decryption password violates the fifth amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_Stat...
• carlisle_ 9y ago
  There is an important difference in this case from other cases like this. The police argue that they already know what's on the hard drive: >Forensic examination also disclosed that Doe [Rawls] had downloaded thousands of files known by their "hash" values to be child pornography. The files, however, were not on the Mac Pro, but instead had been stored on the encrypted external hard drives. Combine this with the witness statement (defendant's sister said he showed her CP) and this becomes a little bit more unique than just not procuring a password.
  • kogepathic 9y ago
    > The police argue that they already know what's on the hard drive Then send it to trial and let a jury decide if the evidence is compelling enough to convict. What they're doing now is just indefinite detention.
    • carlisle_ 9y ago
      I'm not a lawyer and I don't know much about contempt works. Indefinite detention sounds bad but I don't know how else it would be handled or if this is actually that unusual of a case besides the cryptographic aspect. I am all for due process and fair treatment but this is also a bit of a tangent from the original topic.