5 ms·
I would probably agree with the verdict if the defendant wasn't in a child pornography case and hadn't stated (FTA) "we both know what's on it, why would I [rev
by fao_ 7y ago
I would probably agree with the verdict if the defendant wasn't in a child pornography case and hadn't stated (FTA) "we both know what's on it, why would I [reveal my password]".
- JustSomeNobody 7y ago> Nevertheless, this constitutional right is firmly grounded in the “realization that the privilege, while sometimes ‘a shelter to the guilty,’ is often ‘a protection to the innocent.’” Moreover, there are serious questions about applying the foregone conclusion exception to information that manifests through the usage of one’s mind. I think they got it right. And as long a prosecution didn’t base their whole case on getting the password, they probably will still prevail.
- jonstewart 7y agoI’ve worked in the digital forensics space for many years and am not so confident. How do you prove possession of child pornography when there’s no evidence of possession?
- JustSomeNobody 7y agoThe defendant made the remark “we both know what’s on there”. I assume the prosecution has evidence.
- jonstewart 7y agoThey likely have probable cause that they used for a search warrant. I doubt there's much evidence for possession.
- UncleEntity 7y ago> I would probably agree with the verdict if the defendant wasn't in a child pornography case and hadn't stated (FTA) "we both know what's on it, why would I [reveal my password]". Which is the problem, they only try to push the boundaries on "indefensible" cases (because nobody cares about a pedophile) but then use their newly minted powers on everyone else.
- brokenmachine 7y agoSo what is the reason they are not accepting that preexisting confession?