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.

 

Decrypt your drives or go to jail indefinitely!

page: 5
32
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 07:43 AM
link   

They already know this person has child porn so he can't plead the fifth


We only have the prosecutors word for that and he is not in court in front of a judge and can claim anything and even tell outright lies




posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


People need to understand that the law is still adapting to the electronic age, especially now.

Some states allow law enforcement to look at your cell phone and extract information without a warrant while other states prohibit it without a search warrant.

The legal question will become can a person be compelled to provide evidence against himself? (before people go down this road DWI and a breath test are completely different issue and don't compare).

In this particular case the Police had enough information to get a search warrant (Probable Cause a crime did in fact occur and the person named committed the crime). If they had enough evidence to reach probable cause then there really is no need to get into the hard drive.

Of course the reason they want to deals with counts as well as identifying these children and taking action to get them out of that sex trade.

Do I care much for kiddy didlers? Nope.

However in this case I am not willing to allow the courts to destroy his constitutional rights. He is innocent until a court of law says otherwise and no person should be compelled to provide evidence against himself. If the cops want in then they either need to find a way to bypass the security or talk to the PA and work out a deal on potential charge limits if he cooperates.

The longest a person ever was held in jail for contempt was 14 years.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 
If they have enough evidence to convict the man on child pornography charges without benefit of the encrypted files they have no need for their contents other than to make additional charges against him, thus making it self-incriminating were he to "de-crypt" them. Just because one court ruled so in another case doesn't mean it applies to all cases as rulings can be overturned. Now if they signed documents agreeing to no further charges being added because they wanted to use the files to track down "bigger fish" it might be different as it wouldn't be self- incriminating but incriminating others which is not protected under law.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



I mean, if the police have warrant, that usually means it wasn't a "one time things" or "he stumbled upon" it.. but it was probably going on or a while...and the person has been on their radar....

But.. why would they need the encrypted file, i mean, they can get the information from ISP on his accessing of certain sties... or they didn't do a proper job and relying solely on these encrypted files for his crime.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



I mean, if the police have warrant, that usually means it wasn't a "one time things" or "he stumbled upon" it.. but it was probably going on or a while...and the person has been on their radar....

But.. why would they need the encrypted file, i mean, they can get the information from ISP on his accessing of certain sties... or they didn't do a proper job and relying solely on these encrypted files for his crime.


A search warrant and an arrest warrant require probable cause.

In this case there was probable cause to issue a search warrant. When its executed officers can only search the areas that the items named in the warrant could be found - IE If the police are looking for a refrigerator they cannot look in cabinets or pantries.

In this case the warrant covered electronic media (whether its chat logs / lists of contacts / pictures / etc). The Computer was seized and the warrant allows for that seizure, as well as search. In general law enforcement uses their own labs (if they are large enough) or state crime labs to process evidence. When it comes to electronics you run the risk of damaging / destroying the very evidence needed to prosecute and convict. One of the reasons they appear to be trying every other avenue first.

In general child porn cases almost always result in the ice cracking, so to speak. There may be evidence on that computer that is unrelated to this persons charges. In any event you want to preserve that evidence so other investigations are not jeopardized, including investigations occurring in foreign countries. A lot of kid porn rings start in one country and ultimately cross national borders.

Without knowing case specifics all we can do is speculate.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 


According to the OP info, he came to their attention by downloading porn from E-Donkey. I assume thats something like Bear Share or Limewire for being a file sharing service by the description given. So they know what he got..they just can't show that he has it without the decrypted evidence.

I'm taking a wild guess..and it is nothing but a guess...but if it all came from a file sharing service, I'm wondering if they weren't the distributors themselves? The same way Music and Movies set up with stings through P2P file sharing for civil lawsuits. You find yourself downloading your favorite song right from the record company's legal department servers without ever knowing it...and they have your number. Literally. Lawsuit to follow shortly.

That would explain warrants and probable cause while still desperate to get into these files for evidence. They know what they are...but don't know. After all, court isn't about what they know, it's about what they can prove...and this seems to have them in Check at the moment.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


What got me thinking was that, the police is not going to come after you for downloading once... he must have done it many times.... i mean they need to make sure he does it on purpose and not accidental.

So if they got a warrant, then they must have been tracking him and it was not a one time thing.

Usually CP cases are not addressed unless the person is actively for a while... like 6 months to 1yr +...

If it is a common thing, then they will track his activity and get copy of his search/download etc.

Then comes the warrant and investigation.


There is no way police going to barge in with warrant for 1 download. He must have had history. If not those police are dumb fuks and will lose this case.

CP accusation is a big thing.. even if he is clean of it at the end of the day.. just having your name beside CP is enough to ruin you for life.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by smyleegrl
 



Seems to me this would fall under the same category. If the police are looking for child porn, and if this person downloaded said porn...chances are high he encrypted it. I don't think this should give him protection, nor do I think the fifth amendment should apply. I also think, if he refuses to decrypt, that the police have the right (under the search warrant) to decrypt it for him.


Forcing him to unlock a drawer or decrypt a file is, to me, a violation of the 5th Amendment. If they want the info, they need to either break into the locked drawer or decrypt the files themselves. He is under no obligation to HELP them build a case against him. The US Magistrate was right on the money.

That said, I'm glad this sicko is getting what he deserved. How many people encrypt files if they don't have something to hide? Then again, what guarantee does he have that they simply aren't putting incriminating files onto his hard drive to build their case? How difficult would that really be once in their possession? Scary stuff.....really.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 


I'd imagine you're right on the patterning required. I'll say though...for legal file sharing where I am getting things like Icons or public domain graphics from Pirate bay (Yeah..they do a whole lot more than just list T&C violations to download..lol), they come in archives of hundreds or thousands in one shot. If anything..I usually end up with SO much more than I really needed, I delete a good portion of what I get for that stuff. I'd imagine what they may have watched this guy transfer ...or more likely, helped him get by being one of the source nodes..would be the same way.

After all, the OP info says they're hunting something like 700,000 suspect images. Sounds like he's been a REAL busy beaver with downloading compilations and collections. Perhaps he HAS been a distribution point? That could also explain the zeal to get into his files by any means necessary.

It's hard to say....That whole area of the net is something slimey and dark in every way. I try not to wonder too much about how they go about finding people who live in it. I wish they'd get more of them though. Anonymous actively hunts out where law enforcement quits, anyway.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Theres an old song that says

"Buddy ya cant go to jail for what youre thinking...."
"give it a whirl give it a try"
"Standing on the corner watching all the GIRLS go by" THINK ADOUT IT>

IMHO the encryption is similar to that.....
The police are welcome to decrypt the HDDs
But the law CANNOT EVER FORCE REVELATION>
Its a straight up issue.
The police MUST prove their case WITHOUT the help of an unwilling prisoner....

INDEFINATE JAIL TIME???
ANOTHER CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION ITSELF!!!
This is a poison pill that is a set up for diminishing the constitution.

We are getting closer and closer to THOUGHT CRIME

PS Wrabbit...you have to cookie!
Why cant they go after the E-Donkey site?
Through which they would have a direct lie to every porny puke thats downloaded from the site??
They obviosly have the evidence for a bust there.....??

edit on 5-6-2013 by stirling because: (no reason given)

Is that why they want to de encrypt? to further the case to the next level maybe?
PUT the NSA to work on it
edit on 5-6-2013 by stirling because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-6-2013 by stirling because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   
What I find a bit confusing is, in the name of "the war on drugs/terror," rights are routinely tossed aside. I'd expect LE to go after pedos with the same legal disregard for rights as they do when plants/bombs are involved. I guess they haven't chosen to launch a war on child porn yet. I wonder why that is?

Not saying it's right I just find it odd how they pick/choose their battles then decide which criminals, in the name of the greater good, are prohibited from exercising their rights.

Dzhokhar was exempt from the Miranda warning until authorities were satisfied there was no imminent danger to the public.

How is withholding pics of children trapped in the sex trade not imminent danger?



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sankari
I am not a fan of people who think it's OK to bend and twist the Constitution in all directions just so criminals can stay one step ahead of the law.

If the guy is innocent he'll be happy to decrypt those files and prove it. At this point his refusal to decrypt them is an act of self-incrimination.


Not really. That's just your indoctrination into the police state talking.

It's innocent until proven guilty.
It's not his duty to prove himself innocent. It's their job to prove him guilty.
If he were to be charged and brought before a jury - then he and his attorney will need to raise doubts about his guilt...but it will still be the states burden to prove him guilty...not vice versa.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 10:50 AM
link   


But last month, prosecutors convinced Callahan to change his mind. Among other reasons, the authorities were able, on their own, to decrypt one drive from Feldman’s “storage system” and discovered more than 700,000 files, some of “which constitute child pornography,” the magistrate said.


Seems like they´ve already got a lot of evidence. Do they really need to see ALL the files?

edit on 5-6-2013 by Blastoff because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   
You people and your stupid constitution...your willing to let a child molester free because you do not agree with how the courts are handling the case.

I do not have children but have great nieces and nephews...if your child had been molested...would you still fight for this guy and his rights....?

Be honest?



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358
 


You can find volumes, but you are right. It is impossible to differentiate between standard encrypted volumes and hidden.

16s.us...



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


IMO there is no reason to even take this to court. The responsibility of using evidence against the suspect is entirely the police departments. He should not even be asked. Unless he wrote some out of this world encryption algorithms the police should ask other agencies to assist with the decryption if they lack the resources. It is embarrassing that with the money thrown at defence and law enforcement that they have to ask this shlob for help in a case against him because he spent a couple bucks on some over the counter commercial software.

If I was them I wouldn't even admit to not being able to crack it. Then again there is no valid reason why they can't get the resources needed to do so made available to them. Why the hell do we pay so many taxes and allot billions upon billions in defense and security?



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by kerazeesicko
 
Who says a child molester would go free? If he is guilty of some atrocity and goes free because it cannot be proven legally he would still have Karma to look forward to. The Constitution is in place to protect ALL American citizens, and if we start making exceptions for particular cases eventually it would lead to no protection for anyone as more and more exceptions would be made until the Constitution is eroded completely. It is better for 100 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be imprisoned.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Rather interesting case, for the Constitutional implications. After reading the court documents and a couple other sources, I wanted to add my $0.02.

1.) The biggest one: A computer from his address DID have kiddie porn on it. This machine (via the e-Donkey network) responded to requests for at least 2 known, confirmed CP videos. Whether or not they are still on this machine, they were there long enough for the client to register the hash code as part of it's own files available for sharing. The evidence is actually pretty damning, and that's what the search warrant was based off of, and presumably the reason for it being approved.

2.) Out of 16 devices seized, supposedly only 9 of them were actually encrypted. Which one did they decrypt? What was on the devices that were not encrypted? Much information is still being kept under wraps.

3.) There is a distinction between simply providing a password for a computer, and providing a key that will provide access to encrypted data. Without the key, the data on machine is a meaningless jumble of hex. By providing the key, you are actually recreating the data on the machine into viewable form. That might be enough to genuinely make this into a 5th amendment issue.

4.) Related to 1 and 3, they have some fairly solid evidence against him. I'm not too familiar with CP law, but it may be enough to get him anyway (one hopes).



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 11:54 AM
link   
I'm probably a little late to the discussion, but I'm going to side with the 5th here. Giving information that would incriminate you is exactly what the 5th is supposed to protect.

On the flip side if this guy is truly a CP tard, and the police already have a drive containing 700,000 images "containing child porn" then there is plenty of evidence to prosecute him on. Both sides win. Unless the prosecution is lying in order to strongarm the defense into giving information. Especially since it has caused a reconsideration of the first ruling.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
You people and your stupid constitution...your willing to let a child molester free because you do not agree with how the courts are handling the case.

I do not have children but have great nieces and nephews...if your child had been molested...would you still fight for this guy and his rights....?

Be honest?


a. He is charged with child pornography, not child molestation.
b. He is not likely to go free. It sounds like they have a lot of other evidence against him.
c. Yes, I would still fight for his rights. They're not just "his" rights, they are all of ours.
edit on 6/5/13 by AnonymousCitizen because: typos



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join