5 ms·

> The court also noted that the authorities "found [on the Mac Book Pro] one image depicting a pubescent girl in a sexually suggestive position and logs that su

> The court also noted that the authorities "found [on the Mac Book Pro] one image depicting a pubescent girl in a sexually suggestive position and logs that suggested the user had visited groups with titles common in child exploitation." They also said the man's sister had "reported" that her brother showed her hundreds of pictures and videos of child pornography. The fact that hey have so much evidence and yet they still prefer to lock him up in jail until he decrypts the drive rather than convict him makes me believe this case is intended to provide jurisprudence in order to force other people to unlock encrypted devices in much more dubious cases. Not unlike the "locked iPhone" case where terrorists had destroyed all the devices that could be of interest and yet the FBI went against Apple because the case appeared very good to get support in the public eye (it's to catch terrorists!).

gtirloni 9y ago
These issues are often around catching criminals but there's always the issue that they will be abused for something else and we (the common folks) are all at risk. That's plausible. Honest question: It's hard to do risk assessment at my level of ignorance so where can I find major cases where common people have been screwed by the overarching tentacles of govt surveillance in the developed world? Any noteworthy cases I should read about to raise my level of alertness?
- jancsika 9y ago
  I'm not sure I understand the question. It's not like the NSA is going to shoot a tennis ball at your head if you fail to pay attention to wide-net surveillance. Similarly, the cases where wide-net surveillance has had a detrimental effect on people-- the case of the Stanford student who accidentally got added to the U.S.'s no-fly list comes to mind-- there was probably nothing at all the person could have done to prevent getting screwed.
- joshribakoff 9y ago
  Most "developed" governments recognize some right to privacy. Counter examples that come to mind would be censorship by governments who surveil internet traffic & lock up "rebels", or governments that go into people's houses without warrants, checking to see if you're harboring people of a "banned" sect. I worked with a developer who had just moved to the USA from Cuba, he told me stories about how they would go around in vans, if they detected illegal wifi signals they would kick in your door & put on a show. If you were sent to prison it would of course involve various forms of torture, like being forced to stand for days on end, according to him. Your question is loaded though, because of course the common person will follow the law & avoid going on the internet.
  - gtirloni 9y ago
    My question was not loaded. I'm not assuming anything (well, except that by having broad surveillance rights the govt can do harm to regular people). I'm looking for documented cases where common people have been harmed so I can feel more impacted by it (and I have better examples when talking about these subjects with friends and family). It's not fair to unload these research needs on HN so I'll do more googling to find a catalogue of cases I can refer to. Again, I'm not dismissing any issues. I'm 100% acknowledging them and hoping to increase my own level of alertness based on concrete facts that I can relate to (or are closer to my reality vs. basing my rights on the rights of pedophiles and terrorists being impacted). I hope that clarifies my perspective.
    - jancsika 9y ago
      > I'm looking for documented cases where common people have been harmed so I can feel more impacted by it (and I have better examples when talking about these subjects with friends and family). https://www.thenation.com/article/how-clerical-error-barred-stanford-student-united-states/ https://www.thenation.com/article/how-clerical-error-barred-... https://www.propublica.org/article/fbi-checked-wrong-box-rahinah-ibrahim-terrorism-watch-list https://www.propublica.org/article/fbi-checked-wrong-box-rah... Some highlights: * it was revealed in the lawsuit that she was put on the no-fly list due to a clerical error * the government used nearly every tactic available to keep the details of her lawsuit secret in the name of national security, meaning a) they were actively trying to cover up embarrassment of the clerical error, b) the DOJ actually don't have an easy way to know why someone is on the no-fly list, or c) they have a way but have little to no interest in finding out. None of those are good options for a democratic developed country. * this interrupted her Ph.D. studies at Stanford. * this interrupted her ability to appear in court for her own lawsuit (because her name remaining on the no-fly list prevented her from travelling back to the U.S.) * this cost millions of dollars in attorneys fees and what looks like years of time for her * there is no evidence that the administration of the no-fly list has improved since then, and indeed has only grown (almost certainly a link from the Intercept that backs this up, but you're not paying me to research this and I am now bored and hungry) Edit: just so it's clear-- the reason she kept reappearing in the list is because the nature of wide-net surveillance databases is that they sprawl across multiple agencies that often don't have the ability to communicate well with one another. Further, no congressperson in their right mind is going to publicly take up the cause of "cleaning up the no-fly list" because the moment there is anything resembling a terrorist attack an opponent will beat them by calling them "soft on terrorism." One final edit: Question: be honest, if she had lost this lawsuit and I had included her story as an example of common people being impacted by wide-net surveillance, would you have found it convincing?
DanBC 9y ago
One reason they want him to unlock the drive is to protect children. Each of these images is a child that has been abused. Some of these are historic cases, and the child is now safe. But some of these are new, and the child is still living with the abuser, and the abuse is continuing.
- AnthonyMouse 9y ago
  Isn't that what plea bargaining is for?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - DanBC 9y ago
    I don't think that's the point of plea bargaining, but plea bargaining is an American thing and we don't have it in England. Waiting for a case to make its way to court would take far too long. Police will search through seized evidence and immediately start trying to identify the children in the images; working out if the images are new; and working out where the images were created. They'd also want to see if there are any images of abusers in there too, and if those abusers are already known to police, and if those abusers are the same person as the alleged possessor of images of child sexual abuse currently being detained by police.
haikuginger 9y ago
> The fact that hey have so much evidence and yet they still prefer to lock him up in jail until he decrypts the drive rather than convict him makes me believe this case is intended to provide jurisprudence in order to force other people to unlock encrypted devices in much more dubious cases. Or, they prefer to have actual images to use against him in the child porn case they intend to bring, rather than being forced to explain cryptographic hash functions to a jury.

gtirloni 9y ago

These issues are often around catching criminals but there's always the issue that they will be abused for something else and we (the common folks) are all at risk. That's plausible. Honest question: It's hard to do risk assessment at my level of ignorance so where can I find major cases where common people have been screwed by the overarching tentacles of govt surveillance in the developed world? Any noteworthy cases I should read about to raise my level of alertness?

jancsika 9y ago
I'm not sure I understand the question. It's not like the NSA is going to shoot a tennis ball at your head if you fail to pay attention to wide-net surveillance. Similarly, the cases where wide-net surveillance has had a detrimental effect on people-- the case of the Stanford student who accidentally got added to the U.S.'s no-fly list comes to mind-- there was probably nothing at all the person could have done to prevent getting screwed.
joshribakoff 9y ago
Most "developed" governments recognize some right to privacy. Counter examples that come to mind would be censorship by governments who surveil internet traffic & lock up "rebels", or governments that go into people's houses without warrants, checking to see if you're harboring people of a "banned" sect. I worked with a developer who had just moved to the USA from Cuba, he told me stories about how they would go around in vans, if they detected illegal wifi signals they would kick in your door & put on a show. If you were sent to prison it would of course involve various forms of torture, like being forced to stand for days on end, according to him. Your question is loaded though, because of course the common person will follow the law & avoid going on the internet.
- gtirloni 9y ago
  My question was not loaded. I'm not assuming anything (well, except that by having broad surveillance rights the govt can do harm to regular people). I'm looking for documented cases where common people have been harmed so I can feel more impacted by it (and I have better examples when talking about these subjects with friends and family). It's not fair to unload these research needs on HN so I'll do more googling to find a catalogue of cases I can refer to. Again, I'm not dismissing any issues. I'm 100% acknowledging them and hoping to increase my own level of alertness based on concrete facts that I can relate to (or are closer to my reality vs. basing my rights on the rights of pedophiles and terrorists being impacted). I hope that clarifies my perspective.
  - jancsika 9y ago
    > I'm looking for documented cases where common people have been harmed so I can feel more impacted by it (and I have better examples when talking about these subjects with friends and family). https://www.thenation.com/article/how-clerical-error-barred-stanford-student-united-states/ https://www.thenation.com/article/how-clerical-error-barred-... https://www.propublica.org/article/fbi-checked-wrong-box-rahinah-ibrahim-terrorism-watch-list https://www.propublica.org/article/fbi-checked-wrong-box-rah... Some highlights: * it was revealed in the lawsuit that she was put on the no-fly list due to a clerical error * the government used nearly every tactic available to keep the details of her lawsuit secret in the name of national security, meaning a) they were actively trying to cover up embarrassment of the clerical error, b) the DOJ actually don't have an easy way to know why someone is on the no-fly list, or c) they have a way but have little to no interest in finding out. None of those are good options for a democratic developed country. * this interrupted her Ph.D. studies at Stanford. * this interrupted her ability to appear in court for her own lawsuit (because her name remaining on the no-fly list prevented her from travelling back to the U.S.) * this cost millions of dollars in attorneys fees and what looks like years of time for her * there is no evidence that the administration of the no-fly list has improved since then, and indeed has only grown (almost certainly a link from the Intercept that backs this up, but you're not paying me to research this and I am now bored and hungry) Edit: just so it's clear-- the reason she kept reappearing in the list is because the nature of wide-net surveillance databases is that they sprawl across multiple agencies that often don't have the ability to communicate well with one another. Further, no congressperson in their right mind is going to publicly take up the cause of "cleaning up the no-fly list" because the moment there is anything resembling a terrorist attack an opponent will beat them by calling them "soft on terrorism." One final edit: Question: be honest, if she had lost this lawsuit and I had included her story as an example of common people being impacted by wide-net surveillance, would you have found it convincing?

DanBC 9y ago

One reason they want him to unlock the drive is to protect children. Each of these images is a child that has been abused. Some of these are historic cases, and the child is now safe. But some of these are new, and the child is still living with the abuser, and the abuse is continuing.

AnthonyMouse 9y ago
Isn't that what plea bargaining is for?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- DanBC 9y ago
  I don't think that's the point of plea bargaining, but plea bargaining is an American thing and we don't have it in England. Waiting for a case to make its way to court would take far too long. Police will search through seized evidence and immediately start trying to identify the children in the images; working out if the images are new; and working out where the images were created. They'd also want to see if there are any images of abusers in there too, and if those abusers are already known to police, and if those abusers are the same person as the alleged possessor of images of child sexual abuse currently being detained by police.

haikuginger 9y ago

> The fact that hey have so much evidence and yet they still prefer to lock him up in jail until he decrypts the drive rather than convict him makes me believe this case is intended to provide jurisprudence in order to force other people to unlock encrypted devices in much more dubious cases. Or, they prefer to have actual images to use against him in the child porn case they intend to bring, rather than being forced to explain cryptographic hash functions to a jury.