3 ms·

One potential option: 1. Install a hardware keylogger (software keylogger wouldn't work) in the laptop. 2. Release the defendant. 3. Get a warrant for the ar

One potential option: 1. Install a hardware keylogger (software keylogger wouldn't work) in the laptop. 2. Release the defendant. 3. Get a warrant for the arrest of the defendant for CP-related crime. 4. Decrypt the laptop with the password recovered from the keylogger. All of this depends on the suspect using the laptop again, but I'm guessing they'd want to recover the contents on the laptop.

libeclipse 9y ago
Anyone with half a brain wouldn't trust anything they get back from a third party.
- ZenoArrow 9y ago
  We're talking about someone who openly shared his illegal porn habits with a family member. I don't think we're looking at a Mensa champion.
  - heartbreak 9y ago
    We're talking about someone who allegedly shared his illegal porn habits. Hasn't been convicted yet.
ship_it 9y ago
> Install a keylogger: Ok, check. Keylogger installed. > Release the defendant: If this is judges decision, he can't be in court again for the same crime. > Get a warrant for the arrest: Again? Isn't he released? As such, gov must not return laptop with backdoor either in hardware or software mode. > Decrypt the laptop: Even if all above matched, you think he'd use the same laptop again? If he has a bit of brain, I think he wouldn't.
- ZenoArrow 9y ago
  > "If this is judges decision, he can't be in court again for the same crime." He hasn't been charged with a crime yet. > "Again? Isn't he released? As such, gov must not return laptop with backdoor either in hardware or software mode." Don't release him fully then. Release him on bail or some other form of conditional release. > "Even if all above matched, you think he'd use the same laptop again? If he has a bit of brain, I think he wouldn't." Admittedly this is the weakest part of the suggestion. It'd rely on the person being addicted to CP to impair his judgement.
supergirl 9y ago
lol why not just call him and say "hello, this is Steve Jobs from Apple, you have won $100M for being a loyal Apple user. All you need to do to get the prize is unlock your Mac to prove it is yours"
- ZenoArrow 9y ago
  I'm not claiming it's a perfect solution, but what other options are there? Here's the only other options I see: * Detaining this individual indefinitely without charge. * Charge based on limited anecdotal evidence. * Release without charge. Can you think of other suggestions? Which of the available options do you think is best? Best being a balance between the rights of the individual and the laws of the state.
  - roblabla 9y ago
    Sometimes, justice doesn't carry out fully. Cases fail for a variety of reasons. We sometimes fail to charge the guilty. The reason why it works this way is simple : it's better than charging the innocent. What should happen in this case IMO is that they should charge him with whatever they have right this moment, and if it fails, release him. Infinite detaining of individuals should be impossible, no matter what. This is dangerous.
    - ZenoArrow 9y ago
      I agree that indefinite detention of individuals without charge is dangerous, and I would not advocate for that. However, it's important to understand the precendence that would be set by the case you describe. Assuming that the evidence outside of what's stored on the encrypted hard drive is flimsy, and the charges are dropped, are we then open to the idea of untouchable criminals? If all it takes to be a criminal that can't be charged for their online behaviour is to encrypt a hard drive, what ramifications does that have for our legal system?
      - kortex 9y ago
        What ramifications does it have for our legal system if you can be convicted without solid evidence, only circumstantial online activity? Encryption, once you lose the key, effectively destroys data. If you wanna charge someone with destruction of evidence, then charge that.

libeclipse 9y ago

Anyone with half a brain wouldn't trust anything they get back from a third party.

ZenoArrow 9y ago
We're talking about someone who openly shared his illegal porn habits with a family member. I don't think we're looking at a Mensa champion.
- heartbreak 9y ago
  We're talking about someone who allegedly shared his illegal porn habits. Hasn't been convicted yet.

ship_it 9y ago

> Install a keylogger: Ok, check. Keylogger installed. > Release the defendant: If this is judges decision, he can't be in court again for the same crime. > Get a warrant for the arrest: Again? Isn't he released? As such, gov must not return laptop with backdoor either in hardware or software mode. > Decrypt the laptop: Even if all above matched, you think he'd use the same laptop again? If he has a bit of brain, I think he wouldn't.

ZenoArrow 9y ago
> "If this is judges decision, he can't be in court again for the same crime." He hasn't been charged with a crime yet. > "Again? Isn't he released? As such, gov must not return laptop with backdoor either in hardware or software mode." Don't release him fully then. Release him on bail or some other form of conditional release. > "Even if all above matched, you think he'd use the same laptop again? If he has a bit of brain, I think he wouldn't." Admittedly this is the weakest part of the suggestion. It'd rely on the person being addicted to CP to impair his judgement.

supergirl 9y ago

lol why not just call him and say "hello, this is Steve Jobs from Apple, you have won $100M for being a loyal Apple user. All you need to do to get the prize is unlock your Mac to prove it is yours"

ZenoArrow 9y ago
I'm not claiming it's a perfect solution, but what other options are there? Here's the only other options I see: * Detaining this individual indefinitely without charge. * Charge based on limited anecdotal evidence. * Release without charge. Can you think of other suggestions? Which of the available options do you think is best? Best being a balance between the rights of the individual and the laws of the state.
- roblabla 9y ago
  Sometimes, justice doesn't carry out fully. Cases fail for a variety of reasons. We sometimes fail to charge the guilty. The reason why it works this way is simple : it's better than charging the innocent. What should happen in this case IMO is that they should charge him with whatever they have right this moment, and if it fails, release him. Infinite detaining of individuals should be impossible, no matter what. This is dangerous.
  - ZenoArrow 9y ago
    I agree that indefinite detention of individuals without charge is dangerous, and I would not advocate for that. However, it's important to understand the precendence that would be set by the case you describe. Assuming that the evidence outside of what's stored on the encrypted hard drive is flimsy, and the charges are dropped, are we then open to the idea of untouchable criminals? If all it takes to be a criminal that can't be charged for their online behaviour is to encrypt a hard drive, what ramifications does that have for our legal system?
    - kortex 9y ago
      What ramifications does it have for our legal system if you can be convicted without solid evidence, only circumstantial online activity? Encryption, once you lose the key, effectively destroys data. If you wanna charge someone with destruction of evidence, then charge that.