4 ms·

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

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.
    - roblabla 9y ago
      In addition to what kortex said, the man here could be charged for a variety of things. The police already have damning evidence of the crime, apparently, through the presence of hashes (the dubious validity of their claims notwithstanding) Refusing to comply is not a valid reason to lock someone up forever. You can charge him with contempt to court if you need to.

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.
  - roblabla 9y ago
    In addition to what kortex said, the man here could be charged for a variety of things. The police already have damning evidence of the crime, apparently, through the presence of hashes (the dubious validity of their claims notwithstanding) Refusing to comply is not a valid reason to lock someone up forever. You can charge him with contempt to court if you need to.