10 ms·

Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal (2011)

23 points by Bluestein 2y ago

intern4tional 2y ago
He was freed in 2020: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/man-who-refused-to-decrypt-hard-drives-is-free-after-four-years-in-jail/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/man-who-refused-...
- fl0id 2y ago
  There’s a comment on that later article that surely he would be charged for real on the existing evidence. But at least google turned up nothing.
- xtiansimon 2y ago
  “Of course, the contents of the hard drive might incriminate Rawls, but the contents of the hard drive are not considered testimony for Fifth Amendment purposes.” Huh
hayd 2y ago
If no testimony/unencrypted evidence was needed why not just proceed to trail? Why contempt of court? This is clearly a 5th amendment violation. Kinda interesting how such an important bit of case law centers around such a vile crime. Nevertheless.
- nroets 2y ago
  Maybe it's cheaper just to keep him in jail on contempt of court than actually proceed to trail.
  - Andrex 2y ago
    The trail to trials is paved with good intentions. (I'm sorry, but both of you using "trail" instead of "trial" made my eye twitch.)
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
hcfman 2y ago
Does anyone remember the first person in the UK to be jailed for not releasing his decryption key ? He was a schizophrenic person had was randomly stopped coming back from France. He was jailed for a year. There was no hint of any crime. He was sticking up for his principles and highly obsessive. The dangers to these laws are great, someone may have genuinely forgotten the password. It’s not considered an offence. Or worse yet. Authorities could claim random bytes are encrypted. In reality. With sort of arrest there’s no way to tell that the authorities didn’t plant evidence or even no evidence even exists. Welcome to the 21st century. Where even the Netherlands fabricates evidence and gets away with it. https://npo.nl/start/serie/de-villamoord/seizoen-2/de-leeuw-en-de-hyena https://npo.nl/start/serie/de-villamoord/seizoen-2/de-leeuw-...
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
  The defense of people involved in the iran-contra scandal was entirely based around the phrase "I have no clear recollection of those events". Funny how they didn't have to spend years in jail until they remembered.
perilunar 2y ago
Article is dated 2017, not 2011. (Also he was arrested in 2015, so 2011 is clearly wrong.)

23 points by Bluestein 2y ago

He was freed in 2020: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/man-who-refused-to-decrypt-hard-drives-is-free-after-four-years-in-jail/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/man-who-refused-...

fl0id 2y ago
There’s a comment on that later article that surely he would be charged for real on the existing evidence. But at least google turned up nothing.
xtiansimon 2y ago
“Of course, the contents of the hard drive might incriminate Rawls, but the contents of the hard drive are not considered testimony for Fifth Amendment purposes.” Huh

hayd 2y ago

If no testimony/unencrypted evidence was needed why not just proceed to trail? Why contempt of court? This is clearly a 5th amendment violation. Kinda interesting how such an important bit of case law centers around such a vile crime. Nevertheless.

nroets 2y ago
Maybe it's cheaper just to keep him in jail on contempt of court than actually proceed to trail.
- Andrex 2y ago
  The trail to trials is paved with good intentions. (I'm sorry, but both of you using "trail" instead of "trial" made my eye twitch.)

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

hcfman 2y ago

Does anyone remember the first person in the UK to be jailed for not releasing his decryption key ? He was a schizophrenic person had was randomly stopped coming back from France. He was jailed for a year. There was no hint of any crime. He was sticking up for his principles and highly obsessive. The dangers to these laws are great, someone may have genuinely forgotten the password. It’s not considered an offence. Or worse yet. Authorities could claim random bytes are encrypted. In reality. With sort of arrest there’s no way to tell that the authorities didn’t plant evidence or even no evidence even exists. Welcome to the 21st century. Where even the Netherlands fabricates evidence and gets away with it. https://npo.nl/start/serie/de-villamoord/seizoen-2/de-leeuw-en-de-hyena https://npo.nl/start/serie/de-villamoord/seizoen-2/de-leeuw-...

Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
The defense of people involved in the iran-contra scandal was entirely based around the phrase "I have no clear recollection of those events". Funny how they didn't have to spend years in jail until they remembered.

perilunar 2y ago

Article is dated 2017, not 2011. (Also he was arrested in 2015, so 2011 is clearly wrong.)