It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
This is EXACTLY what you have made the thread and your argument. Which is based on the premise that declaration of guilt is held as soon as someone is charged with a crime. Since this pertains to the court of law, and not that of public opinion or even your opinion, presumption of innocence is given and there is no title of "pedophile" because the crimes associated with have not yet been found true and of merit.edit on 14-7-2011 by ownbestenemy because: Fixed morning time grammar!
Originally posted by Death_Kron
reply to post by ownbestenemy
They don't prove you have simply forgot, simply charge you for with holding the keys...
Originally posted by Death_Kron
I'm sorry, but if you take my example that someone who has committed a crime and stored information related to said offence on an encrypted hard drive then yes by law you should and are to be held accountable for not providing the keys.
So many people fail to flip this scenario around and put the shoe on the other foot. The police have captured a sex pest who has abused your son/daughter, they need the evidence to put said piece of crap away but he's encrypted his hard drive and has "forgotten" the key.
Is that his right? When it's your child?
Or are you all simply happy to bang on about rights on the assumption that your all innocent and thus find no reason why the police would need to break your encryption?
This really isn't that difficult to understand...
It is not your job to give evidence for whatever the State has decided to charge you with. What don't you understand about this? You keep trying to interject this highly emotional argument into this, but fail to realize that even in such a situation, in the eyes of the law, any person solely charged is not guilty. They are innocent. The State has the burden of providing, finding and presenting evidence to prove their case.
Even if caught in the act (in which your hypothetical would actually become moot) any such person is innocent in the eyes of the law until the State can prove you are guilty of committing a crime. Have the British still failed to recognize that a State will always abuse its powers; granted or not. Instead you are advocating grab rights first and then figure out if they are innocent.
It is his right only to the protection from the State. Caught in the act, police finding information that may lead to a pedophile, etc...does not matter. If we don't have such protections and limitations against the State, tyranny will ensue.
In your own words, "This really isn't that difficult to understand..." Yes assumption of innocence MUST be maintained until properly tried in a court of law. Among peers and being able to face your accuser. This is the best possible way to ensure injustice is not spread and that justice has a chance to prevail fairly under a system of laws, not by one man, in which you seem to have a love affair with since you declare people 100% guilty.
Are you trying to imply that no one will ever be 100% guilty?
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Okay...charge me. They still have to prove that I am willfully withholding evidence against myself.
Originally posted by Observer99
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Okay...charge me. They still have to prove that I am willfully withholding evidence against myself.
They could just look at the file access date, if it's within a reasonably short time-frame from the seizure of the computer then they can make a strong case that you DO know the password and are withholding it.
Originally posted by brokedown
Let us take a minute and view this issue from a different vantage point. Let us put the shoe on the other foot.
Would the Government allow an encrypted computer become evidence in a suit against them ?
I think we all know the answer to that question.
We must stop allowing ourselves to be SUBSERVANT to the to the Government. Just entertaining the thought that the Government has any right to view this woman’s encrypted system is in error.
We are the Master and the Government is our servant NOT the other way around.
We must ACT on this principle and refuse any request from our Government to violate our Civil Rights.
If our Government had a history of being fair and trustworthy then we could afford cooperation in areas that required assistance.
This is not the case. Our Government has proven time and again that it is NOT trustworthy presently or historically.
Remember this:
When a person ( in this case Government) shows you who they really are…Believe them…the FIRST Time !