5 ms·

A surprising but welcome ruling. This case is yet another example of the government using the repugnancy of a crime to attack fundamental rights. It's happened

A surprising but welcome ruling. This case is yet another example of the government using the repugnancy of a crime to attack fundamental rights. It's happened before, it's happening now, and it will happen again.

1000units 7y ago
Alleged crime. And this is braindead simple application of the Fifth Amendment. The courts are a joke.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  This is not braindead simple 5th amendment stuff. Among the unsettled the questions in this case: (1) is providing a decryption key a testimonial act? (2) are the contents of the drives would constitute testimony protected by the 5th Amendment? Courts have come to different conclusions on both questions. Experts disagree on both questions. Even the precursor question (is requiring a defendant to provide the combination for a safe subject to the 5th Amendment?) is unsettled. The court in this case came down on the side of treating the decryption key as a testimonial act, but avoided dealing with the 5th Amendment issues.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - 1000units 7y ago
    (1) is obviously true. Nobody can dispute this in good faith, even if the jurisprudence is hard to settle among bad actors. Prosecutors are simply upset technology makes the 5th powerful. (2) is obviously false. You can't get to it without testimony, though, so too bad. This is the intention of the 5th. The court avoided the 5th Amendment issues because, again, the courts are a joke.
    - gamblor956 7y ago
      (1) is not obviously true. Even judges known to favor defendant's rights can't agree whether this would constitute a testimonial act. Claiming otherwise suggests that you don't understand how the law works, how the technology works, or both. (2) is not obviously false, because you're conflating two separate things: the encryption key and the contents of the encrypted device. Using the analogy of a locked safe: a picture taken by the defendant, for example, would be testimonial, but a picture taken by a third party would not. There's no way to know without actually reviewing the contents. If you have a simplistic understanding of the law, it's easy to make black and white statements. But the law is not deterministic code, and has never worked that way.
      - pbecotte 7y ago
        I dunno what the law says. However, it is very easy to imagine a situation where someone LEGITIMATELY cannot decrypt the device. Is indefinite detention without even a criminal charge a valid punishment for that? We can make analogies all day "is it testimony? Is it like the code to a safe?"... But there is a real concrete fact that the government wants to be able to imprison someone indefinitely, without a jury trial, for claiming not to know something when there is certainly a reasonable doubt about them knowing it. So, whatever they have to do with the analogies, this decision cannot go the way the prosecutor wants it to.
        sjy 7y ago
        > the government wants to be able to imprison someone indefinitely, without a jury trial, for claiming not to know something when there is certainly a reasonable doubt about them knowing it. This is incorrect. The judge could not have found Rawls in contempt if the judge was not satisfied that he intentionally failed to comply with the password disclosure order.
        openasocket 7y ago
        The person isn't claiming they don't know the password though. The person is claiming they don't have to provide the password. If they claimed they don't remember the password the prosecutor would have to convince the judge he is lying about that.

1000units 7y ago

Alleged crime. And this is braindead simple application of the Fifth Amendment. The courts are a joke.

gamblor956 7y ago
This is not braindead simple 5th amendment stuff. Among the unsettled the questions in this case: (1) is providing a decryption key a testimonial act? (2) are the contents of the drives would constitute testimony protected by the 5th Amendment? Courts have come to different conclusions on both questions. Experts disagree on both questions. Even the precursor question (is requiring a defendant to provide the combination for a safe subject to the 5th Amendment?) is unsettled. The court in this case came down on the side of treating the decryption key as a testimonial act, but avoided dealing with the 5th Amendment issues.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- 1000units 7y ago
  (1) is obviously true. Nobody can dispute this in good faith, even if the jurisprudence is hard to settle among bad actors. Prosecutors are simply upset technology makes the 5th powerful. (2) is obviously false. You can't get to it without testimony, though, so too bad. This is the intention of the 5th. The court avoided the 5th Amendment issues because, again, the courts are a joke.
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    (1) is not obviously true. Even judges known to favor defendant's rights can't agree whether this would constitute a testimonial act. Claiming otherwise suggests that you don't understand how the law works, how the technology works, or both. (2) is not obviously false, because you're conflating two separate things: the encryption key and the contents of the encrypted device. Using the analogy of a locked safe: a picture taken by the defendant, for example, would be testimonial, but a picture taken by a third party would not. There's no way to know without actually reviewing the contents. If you have a simplistic understanding of the law, it's easy to make black and white statements. But the law is not deterministic code, and has never worked that way.
    - pbecotte 7y ago
      I dunno what the law says. However, it is very easy to imagine a situation where someone LEGITIMATELY cannot decrypt the device. Is indefinite detention without even a criminal charge a valid punishment for that? We can make analogies all day "is it testimony? Is it like the code to a safe?"... But there is a real concrete fact that the government wants to be able to imprison someone indefinitely, without a jury trial, for claiming not to know something when there is certainly a reasonable doubt about them knowing it. So, whatever they have to do with the analogies, this decision cannot go the way the prosecutor wants it to.
      - sjy 7y ago
        > the government wants to be able to imprison someone indefinitely, without a jury trial, for claiming not to know something when there is certainly a reasonable doubt about them knowing it. This is incorrect. The judge could not have found Rawls in contempt if the judge was not satisfied that he intentionally failed to comply with the password disclosure order.
      - openasocket 7y ago
        The person isn't claiming they don't know the password though. The person is claiming they don't have to provide the password. If they claimed they don't remember the password the prosecutor would have to convince the judge he is lying about that.