9 ms·

I thought this quote by the DOJ was pretty ridiculous: Public interests will be harmed absent requiring defendants to make available unencrypted contents in ci

I thought this quote by the DOJ was pretty ridiculous: Public interests will be harmed absent requiring defendants to make available unencrypted contents in circumstances like these. Failing to compel Ms. Fricosu amounts to a concession to her and potential criminals (be it in child exploitation, national security, terrorism, financial crimes or drug trafficking cases) I don't like how they bring out the bogey-men of child pornography and terrorism to justify making her decrypt the drive.

raganwald 15y ago
Laying aside the emotional rhetoric, the point being debated is whether public interests will be harmed or not. What's clear is that prosecutorial interests will be harmed, but the entire point of constitutional rights is that sometimes there is conflict between the interests of those who prosecute crimes and the public interest. For example, you could easily argue that having a lawyer present during interrogation harms public interests for exactly the same reasons: Child molesters, terrorists, and just plain naughty people will clam up and not give investigators information that could lead to a conviction. We had that discussion, and south of the border you decided that public interests were harmed by not allowing a lawyer to be present and were further harmed by not warning suspects of their rights. (Canada takes a different view with respect to the right to a lawyer for complex reasons.)
rbanffy 15y ago
I can imagine that, like child pornographers, terrorists and drug traffickers, white-collar criminals leave a lot of incriminating evidence outside their own computers. If Ms. Fricosu is so dangerous, if her crimes are so serious and widespread, sure there is evidence beyond the encrypted volumes in her computer. There is no crime without evidence. The DoJ should find the missing evidence and then, with a strong case, offer Ms. Fricosu a deal in that she gets some slack for revealing the exact extent and methods of her misdeeds.
dkokelley 15y ago
As soon as I saw "...be it in child exploitation..." I skipped the entire content in parenthesis. Whoever said that was not attempting to provide a logical argument, but to elicit an emotional response in the audience. The point would have (and should have) been made without the references to all manner of boogie-men.

raganwald 15y ago

Laying aside the emotional rhetoric, the point being debated is whether public interests will be harmed or not. What's clear is that prosecutorial interests will be harmed, but the entire point of constitutional rights is that sometimes there is conflict between the interests of those who prosecute crimes and the public interest. For example, you could easily argue that having a lawyer present during interrogation harms public interests for exactly the same reasons: Child molesters, terrorists, and just plain naughty people will clam up and not give investigators information that could lead to a conviction. We had that discussion, and south of the border you decided that public interests were harmed by not allowing a lawyer to be present and were further harmed by not warning suspects of their rights. (Canada takes a different view with respect to the right to a lawyer for complex reasons.)

rbanffy 15y ago

I can imagine that, like child pornographers, terrorists and drug traffickers, white-collar criminals leave a lot of incriminating evidence outside their own computers. If Ms. Fricosu is so dangerous, if her crimes are so serious and widespread, sure there is evidence beyond the encrypted volumes in her computer. There is no crime without evidence. The DoJ should find the missing evidence and then, with a strong case, offer Ms. Fricosu a deal in that she gets some slack for revealing the exact extent and methods of her misdeeds.

dkokelley 15y ago

As soon as I saw "...be it in child exploitation..." I skipped the entire content in parenthesis. Whoever said that was not attempting to provide a logical argument, but to elicit an emotional response in the audience. The point would have (and should have) been made without the references to all manner of boogie-men.