5 ms·

I can't find anything either, and the fact that he doesn't include that in the letter sort of implies that it's something that'd immediately lose him any sympat

by yllus 15y ago

I can't find anything either, and the fact that he doesn't include that in the letter sort of implies that it's something that'd immediately lose him any sympathy or backing, doesn't it?

sukuriant 15y ago
So?
- yllus 15y ago
  It's an observation. Draw your own conclusions.
  - mattdeboard 15y ago
    Your onerous observation seems to be that rights are on a sliding scale according to what your crime is, which is total horseshit.
praptak 15y ago
Sympathy for a particular individual is irrelevant here. Some rights should apply to everyone, regardless of what they are accused of. I believe that the right to encryption belongs to this domain of fundamental rights.
- yllus 15y ago
  You are correct. That does not however change the observation that an explanation of his charges is conspicuously absent.
  - jordan0day 15y ago
    So far, it's not clear at this point this guy has actually been charged with any criminal wrongdoing. From what I've seen on the forum, here, and reddit, there doesn't appear to be a criminal charge reported. It's entirely possible that he is being held in contempt due to some civil case. What you're trying to do here is obvious, and I don't like it one bit. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. You're trying to introduce bias, and shame on you for doing it.
    - yllus 15y ago
      I am doing no such thing - shame on you for making assumptions about another's intentions. The fact of the matter is that even if the first sentence of his message stated that he was being held on child pornography charges, I would still back his right to not have to reveal his key. That's ridiculously lazy policing. However, the omission of what his charges are from such a thorough message is extremely conspicuous. I could pretend to be a string parsing robot and only act on what the message itself contained... Or I could use my full brain like a human and make some reasonable assumptions. He's probably been accused of something pretty bad to leave it out like he did. It's funny that in then contest to appear dispassionate and just people, even in an intelligent community such as this, handicap themselves. We're not better for having done so.
danielsoneg 15y ago
Three things: First, the guy could be accused of choking babies to death with child porn and that wouldn't make a damn bit of difference as far as his, and the rest of our, fundamental rights are concerned. Second, accused (or even indicted) is absolutely different than convicted, which itself bears an indirect relationship to 'true'. Third, courts typically don't post private proceedings on the internet - you'd be amazed how many things you wouldn't be able to "find anything" about via a google search. If he's being held for contempt in relation to a case that he's not actually a defendant in, I imagine it'd be really bloody difficult to find a whole lot about that online, and in either case I can't imagine any sane lawyer giving him the green light to post on the internet details about a case for which he's already being held in contempt. But by all means, don't let me stop you from impugning the integrity of a man you admit to knowing nothing at all about.
- tzs 15y ago
  > I imagine it'd be really bloody difficult to find a whole lot about that online, and in either case I can't imagine any sane lawyer giving him the green light to post on the internet details about a case for which he's already being held in contempt. I can't imagine a lawyer giving him the green light to post on the internet asking people who don't know anything about the case to spam the judge and prosecutor, either. In fact, he states that he doesn't have a lawyer. If he expects people to write letters, he needs to explain WHY they need to write letters. That requires telling us what the case is actually about.
  - danielsoneg 15y ago
    That's true. I've no strong opinons on the veracity of the man's claims, but I'm certainly not intending to write any letters without extremely strong and verifiable evidence that his story is as he claims. My point was just that the nature of the charges in the case and our ability to find anything about them have next to no bearing on principles in question, nor does the moral composition of the author, and I think there's danger in the idea that they would.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

by yllus 15y ago

I can't find anything either, and the fact that he doesn't include that in the letter sort of implies that it's something that'd immediately lose him any sympathy or backing, doesn't it?

sukuriant 15y ago

So?

yllus 15y ago
It's an observation. Draw your own conclusions.
- mattdeboard 15y ago
  Your onerous observation seems to be that rights are on a sliding scale according to what your crime is, which is total horseshit.

praptak 15y ago

Sympathy for a particular individual is irrelevant here. Some rights should apply to everyone, regardless of what they are accused of. I believe that the right to encryption belongs to this domain of fundamental rights.

yllus 15y ago
You are correct. That does not however change the observation that an explanation of his charges is conspicuously absent.
- jordan0day 15y ago
  So far, it's not clear at this point this guy has actually been charged with any criminal wrongdoing. From what I've seen on the forum, here, and reddit, there doesn't appear to be a criminal charge reported. It's entirely possible that he is being held in contempt due to some civil case. What you're trying to do here is obvious, and I don't like it one bit. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. You're trying to introduce bias, and shame on you for doing it.
  - yllus 15y ago
    I am doing no such thing - shame on you for making assumptions about another's intentions. The fact of the matter is that even if the first sentence of his message stated that he was being held on child pornography charges, I would still back his right to not have to reveal his key. That's ridiculously lazy policing. However, the omission of what his charges are from such a thorough message is extremely conspicuous. I could pretend to be a string parsing robot and only act on what the message itself contained... Or I could use my full brain like a human and make some reasonable assumptions. He's probably been accused of something pretty bad to leave it out like he did. It's funny that in then contest to appear dispassionate and just people, even in an intelligent community such as this, handicap themselves. We're not better for having done so.

danielsoneg 15y ago

Three things: First, the guy could be accused of choking babies to death with child porn and that wouldn't make a damn bit of difference as far as his, and the rest of our, fundamental rights are concerned. Second, accused (or even indicted) is absolutely different than convicted, which itself bears an indirect relationship to 'true'. Third, courts typically don't post private proceedings on the internet - you'd be amazed how many things you wouldn't be able to "find anything" about via a google search. If he's being held for contempt in relation to a case that he's not actually a defendant in, I imagine it'd be really bloody difficult to find a whole lot about that online, and in either case I can't imagine any sane lawyer giving him the green light to post on the internet details about a case for which he's already being held in contempt. But by all means, don't let me stop you from impugning the integrity of a man you admit to knowing nothing at all about.

tzs 15y ago
> I imagine it'd be really bloody difficult to find a whole lot about that online, and in either case I can't imagine any sane lawyer giving him the green light to post on the internet details about a case for which he's already being held in contempt. I can't imagine a lawyer giving him the green light to post on the internet asking people who don't know anything about the case to spam the judge and prosecutor, either. In fact, he states that he doesn't have a lawyer. If he expects people to write letters, he needs to explain WHY they need to write letters. That requires telling us what the case is actually about.
- danielsoneg 15y ago
  That's true. I've no strong opinons on the veracity of the man's claims, but I'm certainly not intending to write any letters without extremely strong and verifiable evidence that his story is as he claims. My point was just that the nature of the charges in the case and our ability to find anything about them have next to no bearing on principles in question, nor does the moral composition of the author, and I think there's danger in the idea that they would.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]