-
January 16th, 2008, 01:42 PM
#1
Registered User
In Child Porn Case, a Digital Dilemma
This story in today's Washington Post revolves around whether the suspect can be forced to reveal the password to view encrypted files suspected to contain child pornography, or if it would violate his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.
-
January 16th, 2008, 03:32 PM
#2
Registered User
Originally Posted by slgrieb
This story in today's Washington Post revolves around whether the suspect can be forced to reveal the password to view encrypted files suspected to contain child pornography, or if it would violate his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.
If it will incriminate him he will suffer from memory loss.
In the UK the courts would then arrange to crack the drive unless of course he was a foreign national or immigrant in which case the case would be dismissed on the basis his Human Rights would be infringed.
Pity nobody cares about the victims.
The lunatics are running the Country
-
January 16th, 2008, 03:52 PM
#3
I find it strange that the border inspector was looking at programs/material on the guys' laptop during a search for (what?) illegal goods to enter the US.
If he had had sealed envelopes in the car, would the border patrol open them too?
The US, Canada and Britain have entered the police state envisoned in '1984' without much ado. Spot checks for paperwork (drivers licences and insurance forms) and for signs of alcohol intoxication (they don't know how to test for drugs yet).
Certainly, AFTER a suspect is charged (based on presentable and acceptable evidence) the suspect should be liable to have person and possessions checked for further evidence, but not in a case of suspicion.
-
January 16th, 2008, 04:06 PM
#4
Registered User
Originally Posted by CCT
I find it strange that the border inspector was looking at programs/material on the guys' laptop during a search for (what?) illegal goods to enter the US.
If he had had sealed envelopes in the car, would the border patrol open them too?
The US, Canada and Britain have entered the police state envisoned in '1984' without much ado. Spot checks for paperwork (drivers licences and insurance forms) and for signs of alcohol intoxication (they don't know how to test for drugs yet).
Certainly, AFTER a suspect is charged (based on presentable and acceptable evidence) the suspect should be liable to have person and possessions checked for further evidence, but not in a case of suspicion.
Ahh - no problem these days. They arrest you first then rattle up a charge
Here is a UK example hot off the press
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...5/nhate115.xml
1984 is here
The lunatics are running the Country
-
January 16th, 2008, 04:49 PM
#5
Chat Operator
Originally Posted by slgrieb
This story in today's Washington Post revolves around whether the suspect can be forced to reveal the password to view encrypted files suspected to contain child pornography, or if it would violate his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.
To me, it's catch 22, if you do have illegal materials, then your refusal is an indication of supposed guilt, they'll then crack it and go to town on you. Some would say 'If you have nothing to hide, why hold out on the encryption?'
A few people with strong ethics will refuse based on the principle and when their systems get cracked, the enforcement body will look silly, but those people are few and far between.
Personaly, i think there are easier ways to traffic in illegal content then carying it across a border on a notebook.
As for the people who exploit these children, i think that what happens to them in prison is almost, not quite, but almost as awfull as to what they did to those childern.
<Ferrit> Take 1 live chicken, cut the head off, dance around doing the hokey pokey and chanting: GO AWAY BAD VIRUS, GO AWAY BAD VIRUS
-----------------------
Windows 7 Pro x64
Asus P5QL Deluxe
Intel Q6600
nVidia 8800 GTS 320
6 gigs of Ram
2x60 gig OCZ Vertex SSD (raid 0)
WD Black 750 gig
Antec Tri power 750 Watt PSU
Lots of fans
-
January 16th, 2008, 05:26 PM
#6
Registered User
Originally Posted by Matridom
As for the people who exploit these children, i think that what happens to them in prison is almost, not quite, but almost as awfull as to what they did to those childern.
The downside is that it may be enjoyable for them as well..
Protected by Glock. Don't mess with me!
-
January 16th, 2008, 06:19 PM
#7
Registered User
Then again, there are a number of perfectly legal reasons why files may be private, and why you wouldn't want law enforcement or anyone else to have access to them without a warrant and their own forensic people (and btw, why isnt this work being done by a police forensic expert? it's fairly easy to bypass encryption in a case like this)
-
January 17th, 2008, 10:35 PM
#8
There is also the fourth ammendment: Probable Cause
Encrypted files in and of themselves, coupled with a refusal to reveal the password, probably does not meet the requirement of probable cause.
____________________________________________
It is my pure and virtuous heart that
gives me the strength of ten!
-
January 18th, 2008, 06:13 AM
#9
Intel Mod
Originally Posted by CCT
I find it strange that the border inspector was looking at programs/material on the guys' laptop during a search for (what?) illegal goods to enter the US.
Sadly it has to be done these days. A good inspector develops an instinct for something suspicious. Without being able to act on that suspicion, situations like this could well go undetected.
They can't let a situation like denying inspection slide, any more than they could just wave someone through who had a locked lead lined box with them,and refused to let it be opened. It mightn't have ampoules of neurotoxin in it, but they and everyone else is in for big trouble if it has and it's not found.
You know things can be searched at Customs. If there is a legitimate reason for material to be protected from inspection, arrange for it not to be in the position to have inspection demanded.
-
January 18th, 2008, 10:44 PM
#10
Registered User
For me at least, my biggest revelation here is that a defendant can be compelled to surrender something like a physical key to a safety deposit box, but not a combination to a safe or an encryption key. This seem to be splitting a hair just a bit too thinly.
Similar Threads
-
By MarkP8 in forum Gaming
Replies: 9
Last Post: November 14th, 2016, 06:51 AM
-
By delmer_1 in forum Case Mods & Cooling
Replies: 3
Last Post: February 19th, 2003, 11:08 PM
-
By deseqer in forum Case Mods & Cooling
Replies: 8
Last Post: December 14th, 2001, 06:25 PM
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks