5 ms·

> What if he no longer possess them? He could have deleted them. If that's the case he should give the FBI the key. That way he'll prove he wasn't possessing c

> What if he no longer possess them? He could have deleted them. If that's the case he should give the FBI the key. That way he'll prove he wasn't possessing child pornography.

canttestthis 9y ago
No, he might have files on the drive which would incriminate him in some other crime. He should not be forced to incriminate himself.
- sw00pur 9y ago
  That's exactly what I believe: there are files there that will incriminate him in committing those acts himself. I find it hard to argue he should be left alone, but I suppose that's just a gut reaction?
  - Powerofmene 9y ago
    While this may be true, the government has asked the court to order him to decrypt it as they search for those images. If they are after a bigger network of people sharing these images, then they should say so and grant him immunity or work out some type of deal with him. As I said earlier I am not taking a position on whether what he did was right or wrong or on the moral aspects of the subject matter but here in the US the government must have a warrant to search electronic devices and that warrant must name the material they are seeking. If they list images related to child pornography, child molestation, etc they cannot go looking for evidence of drug dealing per se. But let's assume they find evidence of drug dealing, do you not think they will simply broaden the scope of their investigation and go looking in every corner of s life to now prove something they previously were unaware of before they hypothetically gain access to the drive.
  - cmurf 9y ago
    The logic of innocent until proven guilty philosophy, is that it's better for a guilty person to go free than for an innocent person to be jailed. Hence the burden on proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Probability isn't sufficient, in this philosophy, because it's a trap. Of course probably he has on these drives what prosecutors claim, or worse, evidence of his direct involvement. And the trap is the injection of lack of sympathy into the decision making process; of course any reasonable person will say, eww he's almost certainly a creep therefore I'm not sympathetic to his indefinite incarceration. But that's exactly what the philosophy was supposedly designed to avoid, any possibility that innocent people get jailed; not preventing guilty people going free. This is why you see a lot of effort by prosecutors defending against introduction of new evidence to prove innocence; because proving innocence well after a guilty verdict, itself shows the possibility of jailing innocents. It taints the system. And then you get these ever more perverse notions that executing those who later prove themselves innocent is not an unconstitutional execution when that person had received a free and fair trial finding them guilty of a capital crime. http://www.businessinsider.com/antonin-scalia-says-executing-the-innocent-is-constitutional-2014-9 http://www.businessinsider.com/antonin-scalia-says-executing...
Powerofmene 9y ago
Or maybe he is trying to stand his ground and preserve his right to privacy or as I said previously, maybe there is some totally unrelated crime that unlocking the external hard drive would expose.
Powerofmene 9y ago
Or maybe he is a firm believer that there is no faster way to erode our constitutional protections than to voluntarily surrender them. Or maybe he believes that damn pesky constitution (sarcasm) applies to everyone including the government when it comes to search and seizure, and to himself when it comes to right to due process of law, and the protection against self incrimination to name just a few. Or maybe there is child pornography on there and he does not want to charged and tried and vilified in the court of public opinion. Right now he can stand on "higher ground" by making a constitutional law argument than exposing a secret that he may be ashamed of (guessing here). Or maybe he truly does not know the password? Despite the governments best efforts they have not been able to crack it so it must be quite secure/complicated.
- ajross 9y ago
  Maybe. But let's be honest here: there's CP on that drive. This is a good case for spinning around on HN arguing about the extent of the bill of rights protections in the face of creative application of the All Writs Act. It's a terrible one for actually defending the perp. I mean, come on.
  - Powerofmene 9y ago
    >It's a terrible one for actually defending the perp. I mean, come on. Who is defending him? I cannot in good conscience call him a perp as he has not been charged with, let alone convicted of, a crime. I am only pointing out that there are a myriad of possibilities one of which is that there is child pornography on the drive. However, we do not know that for a fact. But just as I said, he may fear decrypting the drive because of what is on it (only he knows at this point). He may think it is better to be seen as the little guy being bullied by big brother than to be vilified by those who will presume him guilty of having "CP on that drive" and becoming "the perp" without due process. Forgive me if I am incorrect but don't our laws apply equally regardless of the crime one is suspected of commiting?
    - ajross 9y ago
      > Forgive me if I am incorrect but don't our laws apply equally regardless of the crime one is suspected of commiting? The All Writs Act is a law, and it allows exactly what is happening here. The question at hand is about whether that is in conflict with the fourth and fifth amendments. Equal protection is an entirely different thing and not at issue here.
e40 9y ago
If he deleted them, there might be remnants of the files which are recoverable. That would be the same as possessing them.
plandis 9y ago
He claims he doesn't remember his password.
- cmiles74 9y ago
  And at this point I am tempted to believe him. Apparently he's tried to enter the password for the FBI and has been unsuccessful.

> What if he no longer possess them? He could have deleted them. If that's the case he should give the FBI the key. That way he'll prove he wasn't possessing child pornography.

canttestthis 9y ago

No, he might have files on the drive which would incriminate him in some other crime. He should not be forced to incriminate himself.

sw00pur 9y ago
That's exactly what I believe: there are files there that will incriminate him in committing those acts himself. I find it hard to argue he should be left alone, but I suppose that's just a gut reaction?
- Powerofmene 9y ago
  While this may be true, the government has asked the court to order him to decrypt it as they search for those images. If they are after a bigger network of people sharing these images, then they should say so and grant him immunity or work out some type of deal with him. As I said earlier I am not taking a position on whether what he did was right or wrong or on the moral aspects of the subject matter but here in the US the government must have a warrant to search electronic devices and that warrant must name the material they are seeking. If they list images related to child pornography, child molestation, etc they cannot go looking for evidence of drug dealing per se. But let's assume they find evidence of drug dealing, do you not think they will simply broaden the scope of their investigation and go looking in every corner of s life to now prove something they previously were unaware of before they hypothetically gain access to the drive.
- cmurf 9y ago
  The logic of innocent until proven guilty philosophy, is that it's better for a guilty person to go free than for an innocent person to be jailed. Hence the burden on proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Probability isn't sufficient, in this philosophy, because it's a trap. Of course probably he has on these drives what prosecutors claim, or worse, evidence of his direct involvement. And the trap is the injection of lack of sympathy into the decision making process; of course any reasonable person will say, eww he's almost certainly a creep therefore I'm not sympathetic to his indefinite incarceration. But that's exactly what the philosophy was supposedly designed to avoid, any possibility that innocent people get jailed; not preventing guilty people going free. This is why you see a lot of effort by prosecutors defending against introduction of new evidence to prove innocence; because proving innocence well after a guilty verdict, itself shows the possibility of jailing innocents. It taints the system. And then you get these ever more perverse notions that executing those who later prove themselves innocent is not an unconstitutional execution when that person had received a free and fair trial finding them guilty of a capital crime. http://www.businessinsider.com/antonin-scalia-says-executing-the-innocent-is-constitutional-2014-9 http://www.businessinsider.com/antonin-scalia-says-executing...

Powerofmene 9y ago

Or maybe he is trying to stand his ground and preserve his right to privacy or as I said previously, maybe there is some totally unrelated crime that unlocking the external hard drive would expose.

Powerofmene 9y ago

Or maybe he is a firm believer that there is no faster way to erode our constitutional protections than to voluntarily surrender them. Or maybe he believes that damn pesky constitution (sarcasm) applies to everyone including the government when it comes to search and seizure, and to himself when it comes to right to due process of law, and the protection against self incrimination to name just a few. Or maybe there is child pornography on there and he does not want to charged and tried and vilified in the court of public opinion. Right now he can stand on "higher ground" by making a constitutional law argument than exposing a secret that he may be ashamed of (guessing here). Or maybe he truly does not know the password? Despite the governments best efforts they have not been able to crack it so it must be quite secure/complicated.

ajross 9y ago
Maybe. But let's be honest here: there's CP on that drive. This is a good case for spinning around on HN arguing about the extent of the bill of rights protections in the face of creative application of the All Writs Act. It's a terrible one for actually defending the perp. I mean, come on.
- Powerofmene 9y ago
  >It's a terrible one for actually defending the perp. I mean, come on. Who is defending him? I cannot in good conscience call him a perp as he has not been charged with, let alone convicted of, a crime. I am only pointing out that there are a myriad of possibilities one of which is that there is child pornography on the drive. However, we do not know that for a fact. But just as I said, he may fear decrypting the drive because of what is on it (only he knows at this point). He may think it is better to be seen as the little guy being bullied by big brother than to be vilified by those who will presume him guilty of having "CP on that drive" and becoming "the perp" without due process. Forgive me if I am incorrect but don't our laws apply equally regardless of the crime one is suspected of commiting?
  - ajross 9y ago
    > Forgive me if I am incorrect but don't our laws apply equally regardless of the crime one is suspected of commiting? The All Writs Act is a law, and it allows exactly what is happening here. The question at hand is about whether that is in conflict with the fourth and fifth amendments. Equal protection is an entirely different thing and not at issue here.

e40 9y ago

If he deleted them, there might be remnants of the files which are recoverable. That would be the same as possessing them.

plandis 9y ago

He claims he doesn't remember his password.

cmiles74 9y ago
And at this point I am tempted to believe him. Apparently he's tried to enter the password for the FBI and has been unsuccessful.