3 ms·

For criminal organizations, it's common to "decipher" coded language to juries. And it's really not that difficult when drug dealers are talking about "kings" i

For criminal organizations, it's common to "decipher" coded language to juries. And it's really not that difficult when drug dealers are talking about "kings" in conversations that have nothing to do with royalty or poker. (a "king" generally means a kilogram of cocaine.)

kobayashi 3y ago
OK, but I think you missed the point of the question above. The point was whether a court can compel people to explain a secret code, and whether there should be a different standard, if that code involves the computer or not
- jonstewart 3y ago
  But there is the essential difference — it is not the algorithm, whether performed manually or by machine, it is the testimony. A defendant need not testify against oneself. A computer cannot testify at all. The police can seize the computer and have a go at cracking it, it’s just a thing. This one seems pretty cut and dry, frankly, since they’ve asked him to provide the code, and he refused. It sounds like the prosecution erred significantly in making closing arguments about pleading the fifth being indicative of guilty. The more interesting question, which is not involved in this case, is whether a defendant can be compelled to provide unlocked devices to law enforcement.
dehrmann 3y ago
Assuming the right one-time pad, a prosecutor could "prove" almost anything.
crossroadsguy 3y ago
What if a coded message, or not coded at all, was interpreted as something that was not the case? Then is it the other legal team’s responsibility to point out that it’s bogus and refute the claim that it meant “I stole Jack’s peanuts”. Maybe by giving examples of other assumed ciphers that prove it actually decoded to “I can drink 5 beer cans in 2.5 minutes” or that it also means “Rabbits are actually slow” according to yet another assumed cipher? How does that work? I mean I know if it’s a jury and then it can just come down to their individual and collective whims and fancy and but how does it work in general?

kobayashi 3y ago

OK, but I think you missed the point of the question above. The point was whether a court can compel people to explain a secret code, and whether there should be a different standard, if that code involves the computer or not

jonstewart 3y ago
But there is the essential difference — it is not the algorithm, whether performed manually or by machine, it is the testimony. A defendant need not testify against oneself. A computer cannot testify at all. The police can seize the computer and have a go at cracking it, it’s just a thing. This one seems pretty cut and dry, frankly, since they’ve asked him to provide the code, and he refused. It sounds like the prosecution erred significantly in making closing arguments about pleading the fifth being indicative of guilty. The more interesting question, which is not involved in this case, is whether a defendant can be compelled to provide unlocked devices to law enforcement.

dehrmann 3y ago

Assuming the right one-time pad, a prosecutor could "prove" almost anything.

crossroadsguy 3y ago

What if a coded message, or not coded at all, was interpreted as something that was not the case? Then is it the other legal team’s responsibility to point out that it’s bogus and refute the claim that it meant “I stole Jack’s peanuts”. Maybe by giving examples of other assumed ciphers that prove it actually decoded to “I can drink 5 beer cans in 2.5 minutes” or that it also means “Rabbits are actually slow” according to yet another assumed cipher? How does that work? I mean I know if it’s a jury and then it can just come down to their individual and collective whims and fancy and but how does it work in general?