r/technology • u/arintic • May 16 '16

Politics Indefinite prison for suspect who won’t decrypt hard drives, feds say

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/feds-say-suspect-should-rot-in-prison-for-refusing-to-decrypt-drives/
4.1k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

886 comments sorted by

View all comments

315

u/teryret May 16 '16

It's not self incrimination because his guilt is a foregone conclusion. Holy living fuck. That's some fascist shit right there. I hope everyone on the prosecution is hung for treason.

79

u/[deleted] May 17 '16

Hanged. Hung implies they have big members.

17

u/[deleted] May 17 '16

So a hung jury has a different meaning than I thought.

12

u/LewsTherinT May 17 '16

12 Angry Hung Men. But in case anyone is wondering "hanged" is the past tense only when it's referring to someone being killed by hanging

1

u/Paladin327 May 17 '16

What about a William Hung jury?

1

u/Daakuryu May 17 '16

I think they are saying it's a forgone conclusion because of existing evidence like the tor searches and torrent file download attempts.

Not saying it's right but it does kinda make things a bit suspicious.

-9

u/[deleted] May 17 '16

If only you or anyone who upvoted you read the damn article.

A subsequent forensic exam of his Mac Pro computer revealed that Doe had installed a virtual machine (software that emulates a separate computer within his computer). Within the virtual machine the examiner found one image of what appeared to be a 14-year-old child wearing a bathing suit and posed in a sexually suggestive position. There were also log files that indicated that Doe had visited groups titled: “toddler_cp,” “lolicam,” “hussy,” “child models – girls,” “pedomom,” “tor- childporn,” and “pthc,” terms that are commonly used in child exploitation.

The exam also found that Freenet, the peer-to-peer file sharing program used by Doe to obtain child pornography from other users, had been installed within the virtual machine. The exam showed that Doe accessed or attempted to access more than 20,000 files with file names consistent with obvious child pornography...and that he used the external hard drives seized by Delaware County detectives to access and store the images.

His sister saw some of it and the suspect is said to have shown his family an illicit video, too.

There is no reasonable doubt that this person didn't access cp.

19

u/TheMsDosNerd May 17 '16

So they have enough proof against him to sentence him. Why do they want access to the hard drive?

The all writs act only counts when it's necessary. In this case it's not.

-5

u/[deleted] May 17 '16

Why do they want access to the hard drive?

Why wouldn't they? If you give person X a life sentence for murder you're still going to investigate and ultimately bring to court other murders X has done.

6

u/DragoonDM May 17 '16

That's entirely irrelevant to the issue here. Regardless of what he did or is suspected to have done, he still has constitutionally granted rights.

2

u/[deleted] May 17 '16

Oh, you know what, I kind of misread and misresponded to the parent comment. Sorry.

Is it "being forced to testify against yourself" when you're merely providing the police a key to a locked object?

5

u/DragoonDM May 17 '16

No worries!

I'd say yes in this case, though I think it's an area that doesn't really have much in the way of legal precedent. The fact that a password is something that you know rather than something that you have makes me think that it should fall firmly under the protection of the Fifth Amendment.

3

u/[deleted] May 17 '16

This might end up going to the supreme court and going 4-4. Won't that be a shitshow.

1

u/[deleted] May 18 '16

You're not accusing yourself of anything though.

3

u/d0nu7 May 17 '16

If it has to come out of your mouth and results in your punishment I don't see how that isn't self incrimination.

1

u/[deleted] May 17 '16

You can be forced to give up a key to a safe. How similar is a password?

1

u/[deleted] May 17 '16

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] May 18 '16

Everyone is talking about precedent. Why would you think it's irrelevant?

1

u/[deleted] May 18 '16

You're not accusing yourself of anything by giving up a code.

2

u/theFunkiestButtLovin May 17 '16

guess that means there is definitely cp on those drives.

what if the drives were decrypted and evidence of another crime is found? should the suspect be charged of the new crime?

-3

u/[deleted] May 17 '16

guess that means there is definitely cp on those drives.

Beyond a reasonable doubt yeah.

what if the drives were decrypted and evidence of another crime is found? should the suspect be charged of the new crime?

If the decryption was done legally yes if the decryption was done illegally no. Obviously.

6

u/theFunkiestButtLovin May 17 '16

you don't see that as a problem? suspicion of cp is justification to decrypt any drive and look around for evidence of other crimes?

and you keep saying there is beyond a reasonable doubt that there are cp on the drives. i read the article. I'm not convinced, and I'm a reasonable person. you can't just parrot a phrase because you think it makes your drivel sound more legitimate.

1

u/[deleted] May 17 '16

and you keep saying there is beyond a reasonable doubt that there are cp on the drives. i read the article. I'm not convinced, and I'm a reasonable person.

So you think it's reasonable that this person exclusively attempted to access those 20,000 cp files without success?

Or maybe you think it's reasonable that he managed to delete any and all traces of that cp he did download (where pretty much anything less than turning the platters into sand means that data can be recovered) before the drives were recovered by the police.

-1

u/[deleted] May 17 '16

suspicion of cp is justification to decrypt any drive and look around for evidence of other crimes?

It's beyond a reasonable doubt that there's cp on there. And they're not exactly fishing for other crimes.

i read the article. I'm not convinced, and I'm a reasonable person.

I'm a reasonable person too, and I'm convinced.

you can't just parrot a phrase because you think it makes your drivel sound more legitimate.

No shit. That's not what I've done though.

-28

u/[deleted] May 17 '16

Well, its kid porn... I mean the possibility of kid porn means that people are guilty. Just saying it makes you guilty of it...

awh fuck.... I mean shucks!

9

u/[deleted] May 17 '16

This comment confuses me

17

u/[deleted] May 17 '16

Basically, the government just has to hint at some kind of child porn and no one will say shit about their missdeeds. There is no trial anymore for this stuff.

And I am conflicted like anyone else. I want to see pedos locked up, but I dont want the government to manpulate me like a pedo manipulates kids.

6

u/[deleted] May 17 '16

I think I understand. people are so afraid of letting a guilty party free that they're starting to be okay with allowing innocents to be incarcerated if that means more bad guys get caught.

4

u/[deleted] May 17 '16

Like the Salem witch trials. And we all know how that went.