3 ms·

The law is not executed by computers. It is executed by people operating via tradition and common sense. These have their own problems, and sometimes the law is

The law is not executed by computers. It is executed by people operating via tradition and common sense. These have their own problems, and sometimes the law is bad, but this is a case where it works the way we’d hope given the law. Nobody is going to believe that you “forgot” the password to your phone that you use multiple times a day or at least a week. Your lawyer is not even going to mention that as an argument and he’s going to strongly advise you don’t because it sounds prima facie absurd. Now, if the case was about an encrypted hard drive you kept in your bank’s safety deposit box that you put there two years ago, it might work, because that sounds much more reasonable. Ed: and apply this to the very case you linked: the guy was held for the maximum contempt length possible because the evidence was so strong; they got his laptop, which indicated he downloaded illegal files to the external drives; they got his phone, which had illegal material; they have witnesses testifying that he showed them illegal material. If the encrypted drives had been their ONLY evidence, he almost certainly wouldn’t have been in jail for contempt.

Manuel_D 4y ago
> the guy was held for the maximum contempt length possible because the evidence was so strong He was held for nearly 3 times the maximum contempt length because prosecutors argued he was not a witness even when they were holding in contempt for his refusal to give testimony. It's also in contradiction of existing precedence [1]. If you have a safe locked with a key, the government can demand you give them the key if it's in your possession. A safe locked with a combination, the government cannot ask you to produce the code. And to be clear, there's probably enough evidence to convict even without the contents of the encrypted drives. But that makes the imprisonment on contempt even more dubious: they don't need these contents and the defendant attempted to decrypt the drives and failed (intentionally or not, we can't know without a mind-reading device). 1. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10416#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20court%2C%20while,to%20that%20safe%20would%20not https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10416#:~:....
whatwherewhy 4y ago
And yet I have multiple emailboxes and gaming accounts that I used for years - but can't login into now, because I forgot the password and sometimes even the username and registration email. Is that not normal?

Manuel_D 4y ago

> the guy was held for the maximum contempt length possible because the evidence was so strong He was held for nearly 3 times the maximum contempt length because prosecutors argued he was not a witness even when they were holding in contempt for his refusal to give testimony. It's also in contradiction of existing precedence [1]. If you have a safe locked with a key, the government can demand you give them the key if it's in your possession. A safe locked with a combination, the government cannot ask you to produce the code. And to be clear, there's probably enough evidence to convict even without the contents of the encrypted drives. But that makes the imprisonment on contempt even more dubious: they don't need these contents and the defendant attempted to decrypt the drives and failed (intentionally or not, we can't know without a mind-reading device). 1. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10416#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20court%2C%20while,to%20that%20safe%20would%20not https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10416#:~:....

whatwherewhy 4y ago

And yet I have multiple emailboxes and gaming accounts that I used for years - but can't login into now, because I forgot the password and sometimes even the username and registration email. Is that not normal?