User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 12:10:23 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Okay. Anyway, they can legally compel you to decrypt. That's where this started, and I bet Lavabit would agree with me. That's unclear and fact-specific. The 11th Circuit says no. Some lower trial courts and state appellate courts say yes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 12:11:33 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yup. There's a reason I still use a Blackberry ... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Blackberry has had full hardware encryption for YEARS now... But like always, when Apple finally does it, it's new, innovative, and different! Yup. There's a reason I still use a Blackberry ... I thought Blackberry shut that down so they could sell in the UAE. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 12:13:55 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought Blackberry shut that down so they could sell in the UAE.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Blackberry has had full hardware encryption for YEARS now... But like always, when Apple finally does it, it's new, innovative, and different! Yup. There's a reason I still use a Blackberry ... I thought Blackberry shut that down so they could sell in the UAE.
RIM supposedly cut a deal with India regarding the encryption keys for Blackberry Messenger. I'm not aware of any "sell out" on device encryption. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 12:23:42 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It actually matters when Apple does it because they have around 40% of the US market share. Blackberry has what? A percent? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Blackberry has had full hardware encryption for YEARS now... But like always, when Apple finally does it, it's new, innovative, and different! It actually matters when Apple does it because they have around 40% of the US market share. Blackberry has what? A percent? ErmahGerd! Thats the same percentage of criminal kidnappers! So what you are saying is all Blackberry owners are kidnappers thwarting investigaters with thier fancy encryption??? Ban Blackberry for the chirren! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 12:25:24 PM EDT
[#5]
did I make it in before......... "don't do anything wrong and you have nothing to worry about"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 12:27:56 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: From what I've read, even a warrant won't matter. They would have to have the person's password to get passed the encryption. Even Google and Apple supposedly can't do anything without the password, warrant or not. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: They can get a warrant. F 'em. From what I've read, even a warrant won't matter. They would have to have the person's password to get passed the encryption. Even Google and Apple supposedly can't do anything without the password, warrant or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 12:29:24 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
At this point on the tyranny curve, I am of the opinion if it makes the FBI unhappy, I am good with that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 12:32:08 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
According to Comey, the Silicon Valley tech giants are "marketing something expressly to allow people to place themselves above the law." We are fucked beyond belief. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 12:33:46 PM EDT
[#9]
According to Comey, the Silicon Valley tech giants are "marketing something expressly to allow people to place themselves above the law." "How DARE those damnable serfs think about having any privacy! Next thing you know, they'll be wanting curtains for their windows!" |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 12:34:09 PM EDT
[#10]
Comey can get fucked.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 12:39:59 PM EDT
[#11]
Did the iPhone 6 encryption prevent anyone from stopping the guy in Oklahoma from cutting off a woman's head?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 12:40:56 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Any .gov entity. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: At this point on the tyranny curve, I am of the opinion if it makes the FBI unhappy, I am good with that. Any .gov entity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 12:52:33 PM EDT
[#13]
I like how they add one word, and everyone should toss their rights in the garbage. Children If children mean so much, why does this country continually murder them in the womb? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 12:58:34 PM EDT
[#14]
Do your fucking job.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 1:16:45 PM EDT
[#15]
suck my Fucking Balls, Investigator
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 1:19:13 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The NSA can do that anyway, assuming that they're all intercepted in transit and stored away in some massive data farm. Which is probably the case in one form or another. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Oh, so because I don't want the NSA reading my texts, I am operating above the law? Go fuck yourself agent man! The NSA can do that anyway, assuming that they're all intercepted in transit and stored away in some massive data farm. Which is probably the case in one form or another. I'd be concerned if the NSA had built some massive data farm out in a desert somewhere. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 1:24:09 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wonder if there's an app out there (would probably require rooting) to shut down my phone via voice commands. *JBT grabs unlocked phone* Me: "OK Google, shut down my phone!" Phone goes black JBT: 
This can easily be done on android. Not sure about iphones. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 1:30:16 PM EDT
[#18]
founding fathers would be clanking beers
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 1:49:27 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Okay. Anyway, they can legally compel you to decrypt. That's where this started, and I bet Lavabit would agree with me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not sure what your point is - a NSL has the same inherent problem as a subpoena. It basically is a subpoena, just a secret one. The FBI issued one to Lavabit, to force them to disclose encryption keys. Which is exactly what Apple is now "fixing" - Apple will no longer have them and, thus, their full and truthful response to such a subpoena or NSL will be "we have nothing responsive to your request." Okay. Anyway, they can legally compel you to decrypt. That's where this started, and I bet Lavabit would agree with me. No they can't. Something about self-incrimination... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 1:56:01 PM EDT
[#20]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 1:59:36 PM EDT
[#21]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 2:00:05 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No they can't. Something about self-incrimination... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not sure what your point is - a NSL has the same inherent problem as a subpoena. It basically is a subpoena, just a secret one. The FBI issued one to Lavabit, to force them to disclose encryption keys. Which is exactly what Apple is now "fixing" - Apple will no longer have them and, thus, their full and truthful response to such a subpoena or NSL will be "we have nothing responsive to your request." Okay. Anyway, they can legally compel you to decrypt. That's where this started, and I bet Lavabit would agree with me. No they can't. Something about self-incrimination... What, the constitution? That apparently doesn't apply anymore if you say the words "national security," remember? Remember that Snowden guy, right? All that crap with Lavabit wasn't made up by Jon Stewart, I believe it actually happened. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 2:00:41 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No they can't. Something about self-incrimination... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not sure what your point is - a NSL has the same inherent problem as a subpoena. It basically is a subpoena, just a secret one. The FBI issued one to Lavabit, to force them to disclose encryption keys. Which is exactly what Apple is now "fixing" - Apple will no longer have them and, thus, their full and truthful response to such a subpoena or NSL will be "we have nothing responsive to your request." Okay. Anyway, they can legally compel you to decrypt. That's where this started, and I bet Lavabit would agree with me. No they can't. Something about self-incrimination... There are people sitting in jail right now for doing exactly that, refusing to provide passwords or decryption info. Being held in contempt of court apparently can bypass the 4th and 5th amendment. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 2:01:53 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does anyone really give a fuck what the FBI is happy about? Quite a few members here will be very upset. They like their chains and want heavier ones. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 2:03:25 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They can get a warrant. F 'em. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 2:04:57 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
At this point on the tyranny curve, I am of the opinion if it makes the FBI unhappy, I am good with that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 2:05:00 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh, so because I don't want the NSA reading my texts, I am operating above the law? Go fuck yourself agent man! Agreed. If LEOs want to be upset about this hurting their ability to prosecute, then they need to direct their complaints towards the Feds, who have abused their power and caused this to be an issue. There were planty of reports of NSA info going to Fed LEO groups, too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 2:27:02 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Okay. Anyway, they can legally compel you to decrypt. That's where this started, and I bet Lavabit would agree with me. No they can't. Something about self-incrimination... There are people sitting in jail right now for doing exactly that, refusing to provide passwords or decryption info. Being held in contempt of court apparently can bypass the 4th and 5th amendment. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I have heard about this happening in the UK, but not in the US. Show me a case where this happened. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 3:18:30 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Comey can get fucked.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 3:31:53 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Users might have praised the technology companies for efforts to encrypt their latest devices that would prevent law enforcement agencies’ hands on users’ private data, but the FBI is not at all happy with Apple and Google right now. The Federal Bureau of Investigation director, James Comey, said Thursday he was "very concerned" over Apple and Google using stronger or full encryption in their Smartphones and Tablets that makes it impossible for law enforcement to collar criminals. According to Comey, the Silicon Valley tech giants are "marketing something expressly to allow people to place themselves above the law." "There will come a day – well it comes every day in this business – when it will matter a great, great deal to the lives of people of all kinds that we be able to with judicial authorization gain access to a kidnapper's or a terrorist or a criminal's device," Comey told reporters.
"I just want to make sure we have a good conversation in this country before that day comes. I'd hate to have people look at me and say, 'Well how come you can't save this kid,' 'How come you can't do this thing.'" "I am a huge believer in the rule of law, but I am also a believer that no one in this country is above the law," Comey moaned. "What concerns me about this is companies marketing something expressly to allow people to place themselves above the law." LINK That reasoning is one of the lamest, puke-provoking bit of diatribe regarding the wanton desire to trample a collective's rightful desire for privacy and anonimity that I've had the misfortune to read in quite a while. More fear driven over-regulation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 3:42:59 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There are people sitting in jail right now for doing exactly that, refusing to provide passwords or decryption info. Being held in contempt of court apparently can bypass the 4th and 5th amendment. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals frowns on such shenanigans Although not everyone lives in the 11th Circuit, of course. But I think that court got it right, at least on those facts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 3:48:42 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not sure what your point is - a NSL has the same inherent problem as a subpoena. It basically is a subpoena, just a secret one. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Bullshit. A court order can compel decryption, so that doesn't put people above the law. Not really. If there isn't a backdoor, and the owner of the encrypted data is the only person with access and is also the target of the investigation, there is at least one federal circuit court decision that says such a person cannot be compelled to produce the password. So although a warrant would give the government the "right" to access the data, it doesn't necessarily give them the "ability" to do so. Sort of like having a judgment against someone who dumped all their assets in a secret Swiss account. You have a piece of paper that says you have a legal right to something, but that doesn't matter much if there's no practical way to collect on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter Not sure what your point is - a NSL has the same inherent problem as a subpoena. It basically is a subpoena, just a secret one. Yeah... one issued by the Feds without those pesky judge guys. Only a slight problem with that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 3:49:25 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Boo fucking hoo. Now, let's see if this is just a joint ploy to make us all "believe" their really "encrypted" FPNI. If you really think they can't catch you with gay pr0n on your phone well you're.... Gay. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 3:49:47 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals frowns on such shenanigans Although not everyone lives in the 11th Circuit, of course. But I think that court got it right, at least on those facts. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
There are people sitting in jail right now for doing exactly that, refusing to provide passwords or decryption info. Being held in contempt of court apparently can bypass the 4th and 5th amendment. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals frowns on such shenanigans Although not everyone lives in the 11th Circuit, of course. But I think that court got it right, at least on those facts. Yep. If they have an encrypted drive, they have all the data they need. It's not my problem they can't make sense out of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 3:51:47 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah... one issued by the Feds without those pesky judge guys. Only a slight problem with that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not sure what your point is - a NSL has the same inherent problem as a subpoena. It basically is a subpoena, just a secret one. Yeah... one issued by the Feds without those pesky judge guys. Only a slight problem with that. It still just a piece of paper that doesn't magically decrypt anything. The target of the NSL still has to a) have the ability to decrypt the data and b) be willing to comply with the NSL, which one might not be if one is the target of the underlying investigation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 3:58:04 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What, the constitution? That apparently doesn't apply anymore if you say the words "national security," remember? Remember that Snowden guy, right? All that crap with Lavabit wasn't made up by Jon Stewart, I believe it actually happened. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Okay. Anyway, they can legally compel you to decrypt. That's where this started, and I bet Lavabit would agree with me. No they can't. Something about self-incrimination... What, the constitution? That apparently doesn't apply anymore if you say the words "national security," remember? Remember that Snowden guy, right? All that crap with Lavabit wasn't made up by Jon Stewart, I believe it actually happened. Lavabit has nothing to do with self-incrimination. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 4:02:58 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You and me both. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
At this point on the tyranny curve, I am of the opinion if it makes the FBI unhappy, I am good with that. You and me both. Ditto. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 4:04:44 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Being secure in your papers and effects is being above the law? Really? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile It is when they demand to see your papers and can't, comrade. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 4:08:26 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They know every bit of data that is transmitted or received by your phone... They don't need actual access to it. Needing to bypass end-point security is for little people. The big boys already know everything. In the 1 in 100,000,000 chance they actually need to access the device, it's nothing an abduction team, a flight to Poland, and a steel pipe won't solve. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Well there must be some sort of backdoor, otherwise NSA would never allow it. They know every bit of data that is transmitted or received by your phone... They don't need actual access to it. Needing to bypass end-point security is for little people. The big boys already know everything. In the 1 in 100,000,000 chance they actually need to access the device, it's nothing an abduction team, a flight to Poland, and a steel pipe won't solve. Fuck does that mean they've seen pics of my dick that I've sent? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 4:09:11 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It still just a piece of paper that doesn't magically decrypt anything. The target of the NSL still has to a) have the ability to decrypt the data and b) be willing to comply with the NSL, which one might not be if one is the target of the underlying investigation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not sure what your point is - a NSL has the same inherent problem as a subpoena. It basically is a subpoena, just a secret one. Yeah... one issued by the Feds without those pesky judge guys. Only a slight problem with that. It still just a piece of paper that doesn't magically decrypt anything. The target of the NSL still has to a) have the ability to decrypt the data and b) be willing to comply with the NSL, which one might not be if one is the target of the underlying investigation. Yep, but the government putting you in jail and saying "decrypt it or sit in jail" is exactly what compelling someone is. That's why I didn't claim that courts, letters, or back issues of Hustler magazine could magically decrypt anything. But yes, there is no piece of paper with ink on it, issued by any government body, that magically defeats decryption. Again, that's why I didn't say that, because I don't believe that either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 4:20:56 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
JBTs sure are whiney cunts. So is JBT what we are referring to these suit-types as? The ones who've never driven a patrol car or worn a duty belt and work for some "agency" that's more like a corporation and has little to no contact with citizens? Or is it referring to patrol officers/deputies? I think we should figure this out and nail down which one you're going with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 4:27:22 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep, but the government putting you in jail and saying "decrypt it or sit in jail" is exactly what compelling someone is. Except it isn't clear that they can do that, as evidenced by the 11th Circuit case I posted which says "the government can't do that." I say "isn't clear" because some other, lower courts have said (in other cases with potentially differing facts) that the government can do that. But as a general proposition, the law is unsettled, and the idea that you'll be held (literally) in contempt until you fork over the key is not a foregone conclusion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 4:38:25 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Except it isn't clear that they can do that, as evidenced by the 11th Circuit case I posted which says "the government can't do that." I say "isn't clear" because some other, lower courts have said (in other cases with potentially differing facts) that the government can do that. But as a general proposition, the law is unsettled, and the idea that you'll be held (literally) in contempt until you fork over the key is not a foregone conclusion. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yep, but the government putting you in jail and saying "decrypt it or sit in jail" is exactly what compelling someone is. Except it isn't clear that they can do that, as evidenced by the 11th Circuit case I posted which says "the government can't do that." I say "isn't clear" because some other, lower courts have said (in other cases with potentially differing facts) that the government can do that. But as a general proposition, the law is unsettled, and the idea that you'll be held (literally) in contempt until you fork over the key is not a foregone conclusion. It's clear that they've done it before. I agree that the future is an unknown. So yes, except for the facts, you're correct. What more do you want? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 4:40:16 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Except it isn't clear that they can do that, as evidenced by the 11th Circuit case I posted which says "the government can't do that." I say "isn't clear" because some other, lower courts have said (in other cases with potentially differing facts) that the government can do that. But as a general proposition, the law is unsettled, and the idea that you'll be held (literally) in contempt until you fork over the key is not a foregone conclusion. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yep, but the government putting you in jail and saying "decrypt it or sit in jail" is exactly what compelling someone is. Except it isn't clear that they can do that, as evidenced by the 11th Circuit case I posted which says "the government can't do that." I say "isn't clear" because some other, lower courts have said (in other cases with potentially differing facts) that the government can do that. But as a general proposition, the law is unsettled, and the idea that you'll be held (literally) in contempt until you fork over the key is not a foregone conclusion. "Your Honor, my client can regretfully not recall the password to his smartphone" What happens after that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 4:40:45 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's clear that they've done it before. I agree that the future is an unknown. So yes, except for the facts, you're correct. What more do you want? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yep, but the government putting you in jail and saying "decrypt it or sit in jail" is exactly what compelling someone is. Except it isn't clear that they can do that, as evidenced by the 11th Circuit case I posted which says "the government can't do that." I say "isn't clear" because some other, lower courts have said (in other cases with potentially differing facts) that the government can do that. But as a general proposition, the law is unsettled, and the idea that you'll be held (literally) in contempt until you fork over the key is not a foregone conclusion. It's clear that they've done it before. I agree that the future is an unknown. So yes, except for the facts, you're correct. What more do you want? "They". Government is not a monolithic block. It's made up of lots of smaller entities. So no, "they" haven't done it before. Some courts have. There's a difference. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 4:42:12 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"They". Government is not a monolithic block. It's made up of lots of smaller entities. So no, "they" haven't done it before. Some courts have. There's a difference. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yep, but the government putting you in jail and saying "decrypt it or sit in jail" is exactly what compelling someone is. Except it isn't clear that they can do that, as evidenced by the 11th Circuit case I posted which says "the government can't do that." I say "isn't clear" because some other, lower courts have said (in other cases with potentially differing facts) that the government can do that. But as a general proposition, the law is unsettled, and the idea that you'll be held (literally) in contempt until you fork over the key is not a foregone conclusion. It's clear that they've done it before. I agree that the future is an unknown. So yes, except for the facts, you're correct. What more do you want? "They". Government is not a monolithic block. It's made up of lots of smaller entities. So no, "they" haven't done it before. Some courts have. There's a difference. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 4:42:59 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Your Honor, my client can regretfully not recall the password to his smartphone" What happens after that? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yep, but the government putting you in jail and saying "decrypt it or sit in jail" is exactly what compelling someone is. Except it isn't clear that they can do that, as evidenced by the 11th Circuit case I posted which says "the government can't do that." I say "isn't clear" because some other, lower courts have said (in other cases with potentially differing facts) that the government can do that. But as a general proposition, the law is unsettled, and the idea that you'll be held (literally) in contempt until you fork over the key is not a foregone conclusion. "Your Honor, my client can regretfully not recall the password to his smartphone" What happens after that? Or use a password such as "Ican'tRecall" or "GoFuckYourself". FBI: What's the password? Phone Owner: Go fuck yourself 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 4:43:42 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: At this point on the tyranny curve, I am of the opinion if it makes the FBI unhappy, I am good with that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 4:55:11 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's clear that they've done it before. I agree that the future is an unknown. So yes, except for the facts, you're correct. What more do you want? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yep, but the government putting you in jail and saying "decrypt it or sit in jail" is exactly what compelling someone is. Except it isn't clear that they can do that, as evidenced by the 11th Circuit case I posted which says "the government can't do that." I say "isn't clear" because some other, lower courts have said (in other cases with potentially differing facts) that the government can do that. But as a general proposition, the law is unsettled, and the idea that you'll be held (literally) in contempt until you fork over the key is not a foregone conclusion. It's clear that they've done it before. I agree that the future is an unknown. So yes, except for the facts, you're correct. What more do you want? Right. Kind of like you're totally right that they'll lock you up, except for the decision from the highest court to rule on this issue thus far, which says they can't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 5:01:30 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Right. Kind of like you're totally right that they'll lock you up, except for the decision from the highest court to rule on this issue thus far, which says they can't. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yep, but the government putting you in jail and saying "decrypt it or sit in jail" is exactly what compelling someone is. Except it isn't clear that they can do that, as evidenced by the 11th Circuit case I posted which says "the government can't do that." I say "isn't clear" because some other, lower courts have said (in other cases with potentially differing facts) that the government can do that. But as a general proposition, the law is unsettled, and the idea that you'll be held (literally) in contempt until you fork over the key is not a foregone conclusion. It's clear that they've done it before. I agree that the future is an unknown. So yes, except for the facts, you're correct. What more do you want? Right. Kind of like you're totally right that they'll lock you up, except for the decision from the highest court to rule on this issue thus far, which says they can't. I thought this was unsettled. Now it is? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
