DOJ: We can force you to decrypt that laptop

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!

And what if being found "true and merit" relies on information stored on an encrypted hard drive on which the suspect refuses to hand over the key?

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
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

They don't prove you have simply forgot, simply charge you for with holding the keys...

Okay...charge me. They still have to prove that I am willfully withholding evidence against myself. Oops, that is contrary to the 5th Amendment. They can berate me all day long at the police station in getting me to give up evidence against myself and my competent self or lawyer will tell them to go suck an egg through a garden hose because it will be far easier than for me to give up incriminating evidence against myself.

I guarantee that either myself or again, a competent lawyer would eviscerate the prosecutions charges on withholding evidence against myself as being a crime. If they didn't, I would appeal and run that straight to the Supreme Court.

This is similar to the idiots that answer a police officer's question when they get pulled over. "Do you know how fast you were going?" You never answer that question. Otherwise you waived your 5th Amendment right and you have either perjured yourself or have admitted guilt.

reply to post by Death_Kron


Either you are masterfully playing Devil's Advocate here or you truly believe that the State should hold such powers. One of the very powers we shunned within our Declaration of Independence. It seems, that the tyrant king lives on in England.

reply to post by Death_Kron


You have already "derailed' it.
kinda late, bud.

now off to hug a tree with my "rights hugging" ass.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Is that his right? When it's your child?

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.

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...

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.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Smart arse ey?, fine I'll play your tune:

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.

But it is illegal if you fail to provide the evidence which supports that your not guilty... Lack of evidence supporting your claim is seen as guilt from a legal perspective (or more so if they have a really good prosecution)

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.

That is not how it works in practice and I can quite happily assume you have never been arrested for a serious crime?

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.

Which benefits those doing wrong, no?

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.

I haven't once declard 100% people guilty, please re-read what I have posted. I've only mentioned in my "hypothetical scenario" that said suspect is 100% guilty, why can't you simply look as this being the case in the context I'm presenting?

Are you trying to imply that no one will ever be 100% guilty?

reply to post by Death_Kron

Are you trying to imply that no one will ever be 100% guilty?

OBE has not been implying anything. He has expressly made the factual, and lawful point that all people are presumed innocence until proven guilty, when charged with a crime by the state.

He has not minced his words, nor has he engaged in colored mud, (phrases of art), in order to express these points. If the state takes the same obtuse attitude you are taking their prosecution will fail when faced with someone that knows the law.

It is the responsibility of the state to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. The person charged with a crime has no lawful responsibility to incriminate himself, or herself.

This point of law is not some invention put in place to protect the guilty, it is a natural phenomenon that exists and is correctly recognized by just governments, and its principle is protection of the innocent.

If the state cannot, through careful investigation and police work, muster the necessary evidence to convict a person, they really have no business charging the accused to begin with. If the state has failed to do the job they have been mandated to do, it is not a reasonable argument to insist that the state cannot do this job because the natural and unalienable rights of people are preventing them from doing their job.

This is a defense of incompetence, and among the sane and rational, such a defense has no validity.

Under the establishment of a just government, the foundation of the presumption of innocence lies in the fact that the government is an artifice created by the people. The power the government has obtained has been granted to them by the people. This power granted to government shall not be construed to mean that the people surrendered their inherent political power in order to have a government. The protection of presumption of innocence is a prohibition placed upon the artificial entity of government. What is being prohibited is the capricious and arbitrary abuse of power.

The same abuse of power that can lead to the conviction of the guilty can also, and does when allowed, lead to the conviction of the innocence.

That several innocent people should go to jail so that one guilty person can be convicted is not in any way reasonable. Thus, the people, in order to maintain the protection of their rights, (which is the only rational reason to establish government), have taken the opposite view, which is it is better than one guilty man go free in order to protect the innocent from unlawful convictions and imprisonment.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Death Knoll is the funniest troll I've seen in a long long time.

,
Reaaly believes that someone who is facing extremely long, if not life, in prison is going to give the cops all the evidence they want and need .
Death knoll just incase you haven't noticed
You can pass a law that someone is not allowed to shot someone else. They still do.
You pass a law telling someone to show you were a mass murderer buried all their bodies . But they don't.

I expect he walks into the local police station and tells them everytime he Jay walks or rolls through a stop sign.

Tells the police everytime he sees a law being broken.. littering and spitting and line cutting lol

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 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.

And my defense would be that I just recently changed my password to a stronger encryption and I can't seem to find the paper in which I wrote it down on. The main point being, it would be self-incriminating and that runs directly contrary to the 5th Amendment.

As I have stated, I would love to argue this case, even though I am no lawyer. I would take this to appeals before the clerk even ushered me out of the courtroom.

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 !

A goverment is not a person. It is an entitiy comprised by people and it changes for the better or worse, with the people.

HOWEVER if that is not the case and it matters little who the puppets are, then it is likely that a hidden cabal is in control, which passes down power to the next generation, along with instructions on how to use it and thats why little changed over the course of the age of capitalism, which dawned about with the rothshilds, when money started to control political and military power, rather than military power taking control of money and power in reach.