User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 1:51:16 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All of it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not allowing police to search based on a search warrant is a crime. As far as showing them where the body is would depend on the circumstances. Best thing to do is prosecute for obstruction of justice and and child porn on the existing evidence. He might be a shitbag pedo, but he's not gonna further incriminate himself, regardless of what we think the shitbag has rights. He needs to be brought to trial just like every American. Next thing you know you will want to waterboard him to get the password. Since it seems in this case the justice system is no longer about justice its about ignoring everything we stand for. The ends justify the means right? take him out and beat him with a pipe while he is being waterboarded, fuck him he is a pedophile. Rights shouldn't apply to him just shoot him and get it over with, screw laws and what is right since he is a pedophile. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 2:05:06 AM EDT
[#2]
More of the electronic pathway to tyranny
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 2:11:19 AM EDT
[#3]
So if you were suing someone and during discovery they gave you all the files encrypted would that pass as turning over the documents?
Doubt it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 2:24:22 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So if you were suing someone and during discovery they gave you all the files encrypted would that pass as turning over the documents? Doubt it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 2:44:46 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ARFCOM LEOs on threads like this have done more to undermine my faith in our legal system than every in-person experience that I've had in 46 years......... You wanna know who will kick in your door for that "illegal" gun or a parking ticket or not mowing the grass or some other such crap? Read no further than these pages. Be damned the US Constitution, a judge said it was ok. It is scary folks...... . |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 6:32:13 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Closest analogy - They have possession of a letter obtained via a lawful search warrant, written in a language they claim cannot be deciphered or translated without his help. They insist that if it was decoded, it would absolutely incriminate him. He is in no way refusing a search warrant. They have possession of his hard drive, his PC, his iPhone, etc and every solitary bit of data stored on them. They just don't understand how to make sense of the method in which some of that data is stored. Honestly, with a cursory reading of the appeal's court decision (and I fully admit - it's only a cursory reading by a layman), they have enough already to successfully prosecute him for child pornography. And if that's all they really cared about (they don't), I have to believe they'd move forward with it. They've already found enough nasty shit (either unencrypted or successfully decrypted) to lock his ass up for a looooong time, just based on lewd pics of his niece alone. He's a chomo. We all know it. And there's enough evidence already there to successfully prosecute him. Instead, they're holding him in contempt indefinitely, because they insist that the really salacious stuff (that they refuse to charge him with) is totally there, but unreadable. They don't give a shit about justice, they just want to make effective encryption meaningless, as a practical matter. This has nothing to do with child porn - it's just a convenient vehicle and legal tactic to advance a larger agenda. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"With appeals ruling, the United States has effectively outlawed file encryption " - lol, no it didn't. They basically said you can't use it to hide evidence of a crime. Just like you can't refuse cops from coming into your house to search for evidence if they have a search warrant.he is correct. you can't refuse a search warrant. it's more of that, with warrant it's a search based on pc. refuse=contempt He is in no way refusing a search warrant. They have possession of his hard drive, his PC, his iPhone, etc and every solitary bit of data stored on them. They just don't understand how to make sense of the method in which some of that data is stored. Honestly, with a cursory reading of the appeal's court decision (and I fully admit - it's only a cursory reading by a layman), they have enough already to successfully prosecute him for child pornography. And if that's all they really cared about (they don't), I have to believe they'd move forward with it. They've already found enough nasty shit (either unencrypted or successfully decrypted) to lock his ass up for a looooong time, just based on lewd pics of his niece alone. He's a chomo. We all know it. And there's enough evidence already there to successfully prosecute him. Instead, they're holding him in contempt indefinitely, because they insist that the really salacious stuff (that they refuse to charge him with) is totally there, but unreadable. They don't give a shit about justice, they just want to make effective encryption meaningless, as a practical matter. This has nothing to do with child porn - it's just a convenient vehicle and legal tactic to advance a larger agenda. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 8:00:16 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is also why I want Apple et al to incorporate a fingerprint destruct scan. If you can set a device up to destroy the keys in the Secure Enclave you can effectively destroy all the data. Of course you also have to make the SE resistant to duplication. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 8:19:20 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They can just argue that said now-random/scrambled data is proof that the person was hiding evidence, or intentionally misled LE into destroying it. This is the government, even if you're right, you're wrong. Because they have more guns than you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
<strong>Quoted:</strong>
Need two passwords for your encryption software. One decrypts the data... The other scrambles and wipes all data. "Sure, here's my password, officers" Hard to keep you in jail when the evidence is gone. Worst case they get you for destruction of evidence. You can't keep someone in jail to compel them to provide you with evidence that doesn't exist anymore. This is the government, even if you're right, you're wrong. Because they have more guns than you. So set up software with two passwords, where one gives access to data you really want to keep private, and the other decrypts data typically kept secure, like tax or financial data. Nothing gets destroyed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 8:23:53 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He gave them the drives they can search them all they want, its not his fault they can't break the encryption. Best thing to do is prosecute for obstruction of justice and and child porn on the existing evidence. He might be a shitbag pedo, but he's not gonna further incriminate himself, regardless of what we think the shitbag has rights. He needs to be brought to trial just like every American. Next thing you know you will want to waterboard him to get the password. Since it seems in this case the justice system is no longer about justice its about ignoring everything we stand for. The ends justify the means right? take him out and beat him with a pipe while he is being waterboarded, fuck him he is a pedophile. Rights shouldn't apply to him just shoot him and get it over with, screw laws and what is right since he is a pedophile. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 8:30:28 AM EDT
[#10]
Yes, Mister Popo you can decrypt my files. Just type in format C: /p:10
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 8:36:52 AM EDT
[#11]
Sadly, I can't say I'm surprised by the decision. The courts have been at the forefront of the efforts to strip American citizens of their rights for nearly a century.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 8:37:48 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Right, cause impeding an investigation and hiding evidence is no longer a crime. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 8:42:08 AM EDT
[#13]
Charge him or release him.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 8:54:33 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I disagree, if you have a safe in your house and it's part of a search warrant you are required to open it, not just give police access to the closed safe. If you refuse to open the safe, police can force it open and you can be charged with contempt and put in jail. This is basically the same thing however apparently the cops don't have the tools to get past the security measures on the suspect's hard drive and he refuses to cooperate with the search warrant and therefore he's in jail for contempt. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not allowing police to search based on a search warrant is a crime. As far as showing them where the body is would depend on the circumstances. Best thing to do is prosecute for obstruction of justice and and child porn on the existing evidence. He might be a shitbag pedo, but he's not gonna further incriminate himself, regardless of what we think the shitbag has rights. He needs to be brought to trial just like every American. Next thing you know you will want to waterboard him to get the password. Since it seems in this case the justice system is no longer about justice its about ignoring everything we stand for. The ends justify the means right? take him out and beat him with a pipe while he is being waterboarded, fuck him he is a pedophile. Rights shouldn't apply to him just shoot him and get it over with, screw laws and what is right since he is a pedophile. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 8:54:51 AM EDT
[#15]
Well, time to go home and encrypt a lot of files that don't need it, just cause.
Quoted:
Ok...I'm not reading the case, but did the guy bring up the 5th amendment? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 9:14:38 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He gave them the drives they can search them all they want, its not his fault they can't break the encryption. Best thing to do is prosecute for obstruction of justice and and child porn on the existing evidence. He might be a shitbag pedo, but he's not gonna further incriminate himself, regardless of what we think the shitbag has rights. He needs to be brought to trial just like every American. Next thing you know you will want to waterboard him to get the password. Since it seems in this case the justice system is no longer about justice its about ignoring everything we stand for. The ends justify the means right? take him out and beat him with a pipe while he is being waterboarded, fuck him he is a pedophile. Rights shouldn't apply to him just shoot him and get it over with, screw laws and what is right since he is a pedophile. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not allowing police to search based on a search warrant is a crime. As far as showing them where the body is would depend on the circumstances. Best thing to do is prosecute for obstruction of justice and and child porn on the existing evidence. He might be a shitbag pedo, but he's not gonna further incriminate himself, regardless of what we think the shitbag has rights. He needs to be brought to trial just like every American. Next thing you know you will want to waterboard him to get the password. Since it seems in this case the justice system is no longer about justice its about ignoring everything we stand for. The ends justify the means right? take him out and beat him with a pipe while he is being waterboarded, fuck him he is a pedophile. Rights shouldn't apply to him just shoot him and get it over with, screw laws and what is right since he is a pedophile. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 9:21:53 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Interesting case. If the forensics shows known CAM images/videos (based on hash values) going to to an external (encrypted) device then it really would be a "foregone conclusion" that the CAM resides there. The big hurdle would be "proving" the suspect knew the password...I guess you could overcome that based on user activity during the times the images/videos were downloaded / accessed... One of those unique cases based on unusual, rare circumstances - and certainly not supporting the "OMG file system encryption is illegal now!" headline...   Yawn.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 10:18:28 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, time to go home and encrypt a lot of files that don't need it, just cause. That was my first thought as well. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 11:17:54 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes. Find a good program, but I have a dull life and nothing worth encrypting.<img src="http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/icon_smile_dissapprove.gif" /> Quote HistoryQuoted:
<strong>Quoted:</strong>
<font color="#ff0000">Well, time to go home and encrypt a lot of files that don't need it, <strong>just cause</strong>. </font> That was my first thought as well. No tax returns, statements from your bank or investment accounts, spreadsheet detailing the firearms you own, Forms 1 or 4, etc.??? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 11:23:54 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Legislating from the bench. Fulkerson should be hung. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 11:25:27 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ah, right you are. Just read up on the case under discussion. Seems they have proof of him downloading specific known kiddie files. Sounds like he left enough breadcrumbs on his Mac to eliminate doubt. He was likely caught in one of those FBI stings. Either FileVault is very secure (they can't break it) or they can break it but need to keep that capability in the dark by forcing him to provide the unnecessary keys. So many questions and I am morally torn because, while he no doubt faps to kiddie porn, he also has the same rights anyone accused of a crime should have. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah, it's bullshit. I've been following this case since the beginning and while I have no love for pedos, I do respect their rights as a US citizen and that includes illegal search and seizure and detention. The case hinges around a border agent catching a glimpse of what the THOUGHT was kiddie porn on the screen. The laptop then shutdown and now requires the PGP Whole Disk Encryption password to boot / decrypt the rest of the hard drive. So this guy is in prison because some border agent SAYS he saw what LOOKED LIKE kiddie porn. May have been some of that loli hentai stuff, may have been the real deal, whatever. The guy still has rights. This is also why it is important to NOT use the fingerprint recognition features of your devices. The DOJ can compel you to swipe a finger but cannot compel you to reveal the combination to your safe or the password to your device. I suppose they can lock you up forever without charges now instead. This is also why I want Apple et al to incorporate a fingerprint destruct scan. If you can set a device up to destroy the keys in the Secure Enclave you can effectively destroy all the data. Of course you also have to make the SE resistant to duplication. Gov't: Here, press your registered finger here. You: OK! {press} Phone: "Not recognized, try again" while destroying the SE in the background. Seems they have proof of him downloading specific known kiddie files. Sounds like he left enough breadcrumbs on his Mac to eliminate doubt. He was likely caught in one of those FBI stings. Either FileVault is very secure (they can't break it) or they can break it but need to keep that capability in the dark by forcing him to provide the unnecessary keys. So many questions and I am morally torn because, while he no doubt faps to kiddie porn, he also has the same rights anyone accused of a crime should have. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 11:32:17 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No tax returns, statements from your bank or investment accounts, spreadsheet detailing the firearms you own, Forms 1 or 4, etc.??? It's encrypted |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 11:38:28 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you read the ruling, it seems the State doesn't have a strong case against him without access to the hard drives. They know that somebody downloaded cp on his computer; however, they don't have "real" proof that he downloaded it. They got suggestive/inappropriate photos of minors and testimony from a relative to use against him. The State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to get a guilty verdict against him. If they went to trial with the current evidence, it is a possibility that he can walk. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It is quite interesting: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/fedsrawls.pdf It means that everyone starts on the same level playing field. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 11:45:25 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What part, please elaborate. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I disagree, if you have a safe in your house and it's part of a search warrant you are required to open it, not just give police access to the closed safe. If you refuse to open the safe, police can force it open and you can be charged with contempt and put in jail. This is basically the same thing however apparently the cops don't have the tools to get past the security measures on the suspect's hard drive and he refuses to cooperate with the search warrant and therefore he's in jail for contempt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 11:47:02 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He gave them the drives they can search them all they want, its not his fault they can't break the encryption. Best thing to do is prosecute for obstruction of justice and and child porn on the existing evidence. He might be a shitbag pedo, but he's not gonna further incriminate himself, regardless of what we think the shitbag has rights. He needs to be brought to trial just like every American. Next thing you know you will want to waterboard him to get the password. Since it seems in this case the justice system is no longer about justice its about ignoring everything we stand for. The ends justify the means right? take him out and beat him with a pipe while he is being waterboarded, fuck him he is a pedophile. Rights shouldn't apply to him just shoot him and get it over with, screw laws and what is right since he is a pedophile. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 11:47:49 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Need two passwords for your encryption software. One decrypts the data... The other scrambles and wipes all data. "Sure, here's my password, officers" Hard to keep you in jail when the evidence is gone. Worst case they get you for destruction of evidence. You can't keep someone in jail to compel them to provide you with evidence that doesn't exist anymore. A True Image of the entire system, including its powered on state if possible, is captured. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 11:49:19 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you think I shot a man and hid the gun. Now you think it is OK to lock me with no charges up until I take you to the gun. WTF. You think I did it, you find he gun and arrest me then. I get it, some of you think kiddy porn watchers and other criminals should be able to hide their crimes via technology without government interference/intervention however I disagree. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 11:51:59 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What does that have to do with a criminal case? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 11:55:57 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So set up software with two passwords, where one gives access to data you really want to keep private, and the other decrypts data typically kept secure, like tax or financial data. Nothing gets destroyed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
<strong>Quoted:</strong>
Need two passwords for your encryption software. One decrypts the data... The other scrambles and wipes all data. "Sure, here's my password, officers" Hard to keep you in jail when the evidence is gone. Worst case they get you for destruction of evidence. You can't keep someone in jail to compel them to provide you with evidence that doesn't exist anymore. This is the government, even if you're right, you're wrong. Because they have more guns than you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 11:58:41 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If turning over encrypted files doesn't count in a civil case, why would it count in a criminal case? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What does that have to do with a criminal case? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 12:05:05 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If turning over encrypted files doesn't count in a civil case, why would it count in a criminal case? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What does that have to do with a criminal case? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 12:22:35 PM EDT
[#32]
OP is correct in the appeals court ruling effectively outlaws file encryption, and also privacy as well.
However, the munitia in this case is about hashing (no, not about making hash from pot you dope heads in Rio Linda) and the prosecution, both state and federal, wish to avoid to put hash signatures on trial. This would happen if the prosecution files pornography charges while the defendent continues to exercise 5th amendment rights. Instead, they have delayed filing charges and hope that jailing him for exercising his rights will get him to incriminate himself. This hoping strategy does not belong in a courtroom. Any prosection and judge (it takes both) can win against any defendent, right or wrong, simply by jailing that person indefinitely. Convicting on hash signatures is like convicting someone because they may have bought the same knife as what was used by a murder. Hash signatures don't specify whether it was the same knife, but looks like it in a blurry picture. There is no guarantee that a hash signature is unique in the world for a specific document. Hash signatures have another problem much like case-head signatures or CA's microstamping signatures. It's too easy to change. Hence, the federal govenment wants to keep their hash signature database a secret. Thus, out of defense lawyer's reach. But then, it's not subjected to critical evaulating by any defense. We don't know how well it works which is key to making sure we prosecute the guilty, and not the innocent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 12:38:04 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Let me simplify this for you, contempt of court could mean jail time; don't believe me look it up. A judge made the decision to lock up the kiddy porn guy for contempt and the appeals court agreed the judge could do it. Contrary to GD's great legal minds' overly dramatic objections, I agree with both the judge and the appeals court's position that not complying with a search warrant is a contemptible offense which could result in jail time. I get it, some of you think kiddy porn watchers and other criminals should be able to hide their crimes via technology without government interference/intervention however I disagree. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So you think I shot a man and hid the gun. Now you think it is OK to lock me with no charges up until I take you to the gun. WTF. You think I did it, you find he gun and arrest me then. I get it, some of you think kiddy porn watchers and other criminals should be able to hide their crimes via technology without government interference/intervention however I disagree. Please provide case law that a criminal search warrant requires the subject to be an active participant and not just allow them to seize what they are allowed to seize. Bottom line: In this thread we find out who are only fair weather fans of the Constitution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 12:39:23 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If turning over encrypted files doesn't count in a civil case, why would it count in a criminal case? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What does that have to do with a criminal case? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 12:39:32 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
California is perfect for you and your terrible straw man arguments. Please provide case law that a criminal search warrant requires the subject to be an active participant and not just allow them to seize what they are allowed to seize. Bottom line: In this thread we find out who are only fair weather fans of the Constitution. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So you think I shot a man and hid the gun. Now you think it is OK to lock me with no charges up until I take you to the gun. WTF. You think I did it, you find he gun and arrest me then. I get it, some of you think kiddy porn watchers and other criminals should be able to hide their crimes via technology without government interference/intervention however I disagree. Please provide case law that a criminal search warrant requires the subject to be an active participant and not just allow them to seize what they are allowed to seize. Bottom line: In this thread we find out who are only fair weather fans of the Constitution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 12:48:25 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OP is correct in the appeals court ruling effectively outlaws file encryption, and also privacy as well. However, the munitia in this case is about hashing (no, not about making hash from pot you dope heads in Rio Linda) and the prosecution, both state and federal, wish to avoid to put hash signatures on trial. This would happen if the prosecution files pornography charges while the defendent continues to exercise 5th amendment rights. Instead, they have delayed filing charges and hope that jailing him for exercising his rights will get him to incriminate himself. This hoping strategy does not belong in a courtroom. Any prosection and judge (it takes both) can win against any defendent, right or wrong, simply by jailing that person indefinitely. Convicting on hash signatures is like convicting someone because they may have bought the same knife as what was used by a murder. Hash signatures don't specify whether it was the same knife, but looks like it in a blurry picture. There is no guarantee that a hash signature is unique in the world for a specific document. Hash signatures have another problem much like case-head signatures or CA's microstamping signatures. It's too easy to change. Hence, the federal govenment wants to keep their hash signature database a secret. Thus, out of defense lawyer's reach. But then, it's not subjected to critical evaulating by any defense. We don't know how well it works which is key to making sure we prosecute the guilty, and not the innocent. However you do have a point with their secrecy. Since the hashes can't be reversed they aren't possible to turn back into child porn. As such I would think that if the government was really interested in ending child porn sharing they would welcome sharing the database so that users and administrators can remove accidentally downloaded (or uploaded in a server's case) child porn. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 12:55:09 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
California is perfect for you and your terrible straw man arguments. Please provide case law that a criminal search warrant requires the subject to be an active participant and not just allow them to seize what they are allowed to seize. Bottom line: In this thread we find out who are only fair weather fans of the Constitution. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So you think I shot a man and hid the gun. Now you think it is OK to lock me with no charges up until I take you to the gun. WTF. You think I did it, you find he gun and arrest me then. I get it, some of you think kiddy porn watchers and other criminals should be able to hide their crimes via technology without government interference/intervention however I disagree. Please provide case law that a criminal search warrant requires the subject to be an active participant and not just allow them to seize what they are allowed to seize. Bottom line: In this thread we find out who are only fair weather fans of the Constitution. I know you're a constitutional scholar and all so please point out in the Constitution where it says you have a right to super-safe unsearchable places to hide evidence of a crime. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 12:56:38 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol, great job in twisting the facts. Please show me where I said he has to be an active participant in a search? Like I said, you can't BLOCK the execution of a search warrant. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So you think I shot a man and hid the gun. Now you think it is OK to lock me with no charges up until I take you to the gun. WTF. You think I did it, you find he gun and arrest me then. I get it, some of you think kiddy porn watchers and other criminals should be able to hide their crimes via technology without government interference/intervention however I disagree. Please provide case law that a criminal search warrant requires the subject to be an active participant and not just allow them to seize what they are allowed to seize. Bottom line: In this thread we find out who are only fair weather fans of the Constitution. Now I'm pretty sure you're trolling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 1:02:25 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol, great job in twisting the facts. Please show me where I said he has to be an active participant in a search? Like I said, you can't BLOCK the execution of a search warrant. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So you think I shot a man and hid the gun. Now you think it is OK to lock me with no charges up until I take you to the gun. WTF. You think I did it, you find he gun and arrest me then. I get it, some of you think kiddy porn watchers and other criminals should be able to hide their crimes via technology without government interference/intervention however I disagree. Please provide case law that a criminal search warrant requires the subject to be an active participant and not just allow them to seize what they are allowed to seize. Bottom line: In this thread we find out who are only fair weather fans of the Constitution. I know you're a constitutional scholar and all so please point out in the Constitution where it says you have a right to super-safe unsearchable places to hide evidence of a crime. It looks pretty clear keeping evidence stored in your brain was protected. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 1:14:37 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think you forgot which side you're arguing. ...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself... It looks pretty clear keeping evidence stored in your brain was protected. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 2:05:08 PM EDT
[#41]
The feds attitude is summed up in this one statement from the article:
The authorities, however, said no testimony was needed from Rawls. Rather, they said, (PDF) "he can keep his passwords to himself" and "produce his computer and hard drives in an unencrypted state." In other words don't tell us where the body but start walking and stop when you're standing next to it. If it's a foregone conclusion there is kiddy porn on the drive then they should charge him and bring their case. They are using this as a wedge to get a ruling they want and were successful. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 2:11:01 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol, great job in twisting the facts. Please show me where I said he has to be an active participant in a search? Like I said, you can't BLOCK the execution of a search warrant. I know you're a constitutional scholar and all so please point out in the Constitution where it says you have a right to super-safe unsearchable places to hide evidence of a crime. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So you think I shot a man and hid the gun. Now you think it is OK to lock me with no charges up until I take you to the gun. WTF. You think I did it, you find he gun and arrest me then. I get it, some of you think kiddy porn watchers and other criminals should be able to hide their crimes via technology without government interference/intervention however I disagree. Please provide case law that a criminal search warrant requires the subject to be an active participant and not just allow them to seize what they are allowed to seize. Bottom line: In this thread we find out who are only fair weather fans of the Constitution. I know you're a constitutional scholar and all so please point out in the Constitution where it says you have a right to super-safe unsearchable places to hide evidence of a crime. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 2:11:38 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The feds attitude is summed up in this one statement from the article: The authorities, however, said no testimony was needed from Rawls. Rather, they said, (PDF) "he can keep his passwords to himself" and "produce his computer and hard drives in an unencrypted state." In other words don't tell us where the body but start walking and stop when you're standing next to it. If it's a foregone conclusion there is kiddy porn on the drive then they should charge him and bring their case. They are using this as a wedge to get a ruling they want and were successful. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 2:14:21 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He's not blocking it. They have the evidence in hand. They need his active participation to be able to decipher the evidence they have. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 2:15:07 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
isn't this a "i plead the 5th" deal? and for fuck sake... your telling me there isn't a computer nerd on the payroll that can't bust open that HD in 12 seconds?? c'mon ... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 2:16:13 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol, It's not a crime to have a hard drive. The hard drive isn't the evidence, what's on it is. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
He's not blocking it. They have the evidence in hand. They need his active participation to be able to decipher the evidence they have. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 2:18:10 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Clearly you don't understand what a witness is. But that's not the argument with respect to the contempt charge. It's my understanding that he's not being held in jail for not telling what's on his hard drive, he's in jail for blocking the search of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 2:20:39 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And they are welcome to analyze it to their heart's content. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 2:22:49 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How is he blocking the search of the hard drive? The police have it, along with a warrant, they're free to search all they want. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2017 2:27:21 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Umm, he encrypted it and only he can access it thereby preventing anyone from searching it's contents. |
|
|
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.
