Judge Rules Man Cannot Be Forced To Decrypt HD 775
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "In Vermont, US Magistrate Judge Jerome Niedermeier has ruled that forcing someone to divulge the password to decrypt their hard drive violates the 5th Amendment. Border guards testify that they saw child pornography on the defendant's laptop when the PC was on, but they made the mistake of turning it off and were unable to access it again because the drive was protected by PGP. Although prosecutors offered many ways to get around the 5th Amendment protections, the Judge would have none of that and quashed the grand jury subpoena requesting the defendant's PGP passphrase. A conviction is still likely because prosecutors have the testimony of the two border guards who saw the drive while it was open." The article stresses the potential importance of this ruling (which was issued last November but went unnoticed until now): "Especially if this ruling is appealed, US v. Boucher could become a landmark case. The question of whether a criminal defendant can be legally compelled to cough up his encryption passphrase remains an unsettled one, with law review articles for the last decade arguing the merits of either approach."
Update: 08/19 23:49 GMT by KD : Several readers have pointed out that this story in fact did not go unnoticed.
Update: 08/19 23:49 GMT by KD : Several readers have pointed out that this story in fact did not go unnoticed.
The devil is in the details (Score:5, Insightful)
"thousands of images of adult pornography and animation depicting adult and child pornography."
I know that TFA is about encryption and the rights to passwords but I think the phrase above is far more interesting. That quote could be misleading, but what if the Border Enforcers didn't find any photographs or videos(hell, any evidence at all)of real human child exploitation?
:)
If they are able to legally get the key and crack the drive, and all they found was animation, then maybe they should just give him a warning and and call him a "perv"...especially if he has "thousands" of files and not a single one is "real".
By the way, those of you who fantasize about your wife or girlfriend in a schoolgirl outfit are also pervs
Re:The devil is in the details (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The devil is in the details (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The devil is in the details (Score:5, Funny)
What does that make us who may have a girlfriend who dress in school girl outfits for us?
lucky bastards?
Re:The devil is in the details (Score:5, Funny)
Total nerds? Freaks? Transvestites? Gender benders? Have to say it's fun, though.
Re:The devil is in the details (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, child pornography is such a witchhunt that even animated child pornography is illegal. That's right, child porn which never involved a child can still get you sent to Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison for a long time.
There are convoluted rationalizations for why this is so, but they are so insane that I will not bother to reproduce them here. Suffice it to say that society has collectively lost its mind when it comes to the idea of child pornography.
Re:The devil is in the details (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition [wikipedia.org]
Re:The devil is in the details (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the law is that the image must of of a 'real' child for it to be child-porn. But last year I was reading an article where prosecutors were switching from having experts go on the stand to 'prove' that the images are real, to just saying that the jury is competent to decide if the image is real or not [even though everyone knows that CG images can be so realistic that it can be difficult/impossible for an expert in digital imagery to determine if it's 'real' or not]. So, basically prosecutors are going for jury-sympathy, that the guy is a perv and should be locked away, whether or not the image is CG. Not that I have a problem with this, as this is the kind of distinction that makes the problem worse, but it can also wind up dragging in 'artistic' images as well.
Re:The devil is in the details (Score:5, Funny)
-So your honor, this proves aliens do exist and the government is covering it up!
Re:The devil is in the details (Score:4, Informative)
Before the detective can answer, the defense has objected because the detective is not an expert and thus not permitted to express an opinion on the stand. The judge then sustains the objection and the question is withdrawn.
What most people don't understand is that in court, an expert witness is somebody who knows enough about that subject to be allowed to express an opinion and only an expert witness can do so. As an example, a nurse can testify as to what happened in the OR but can't express an opinion as to whether or not what happened constituted malpractice. In this case, a regular detective can tell the court what he saw, but not express an opinion as to whether or not the images are real or CGI, because he doesn't have the training and experience to be qualified as an expert witness on the subject.
Re:The devil is in the details (Score:4, Informative)
In a decision announced in May of this year, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man who offered to trade obscene pictures of his toddler for similar pictures with a federal agent posing as a pedophile. United States v. Williams, S.Ct. case #06-694, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=06-694 [findlaw.com].
*IMHO, our legislators seem to be more concerned with making up a memborable title (USA PATRIOT ACT, PROTECT, etc.) than dealing with the actual content of the laws.
Re:The devil is in the details (Score:5, Insightful)
Naah. Society has lost it's mind when it comes to children, period. There's some sort of popular myth that started with the Baby Boomer generation that children need to be protected from everything. I'm not saying that sexual abuse of a child is ever right, but I'm saying that we have come to hold this purported "innocence" as sacrosanct, much to the detriment of society in general, as we have raised a generation of kids unable to deal with even getting a job on their own [msn.com]. The sooner we realize that kids don't need coddled, and need to be educated, this shit will go away by itself for a large part.
I'd love to post this signed in, but I'm afraid that in the current climate, people will start hunting me down as some kind of pedophile (which is the new version of the word "witch", "commie", or "fag", depending on what era you're from). An unassailable accusation that you have no hope in hell of defending yourself against, even if there is no truth to it.
Re:The devil is in the details (Score:5, Insightful)
You're a true anonymous coward. I'm perfectly happy saying that the entire system is completely screwed, and I'll be damned if I'm going to become anonymous.
An example of the absolutely screwed up laws in the UK : It is perfectly legal for anyone to screw a 16 year old girl, any way they want. However, if after they banged her every which way, they drew a picture of her naked and gave it to her, they can be done for distributing child pornography and put away for god knows how many years. I'm perfectly happy to say that this is fucked up legislation, and if you're not happy to come out and say that publically, then you're part of the problem.
Before you say this could never happen, something like this did happen somewhere in the US (I don't remember any exact details). It was a state where the age of consent was 16, and two 17 year old partners got busted for sending naked images of _themselves_ to each other. They got community service and put on the sexual offenders register for life. This is a farce, and the more people who say it is a farce, the quicker it will get fixed.
Re:The devil is in the details (Score:5, Insightful)
Please don't be so quick to judge someone simply because you are comfortable revealing your identity (Mr. Smauler? S. Mauler?) while they are not.
Re:The devil is in the details (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The devil is in the details (Score:4, Insightful)
A system remains free as long as anonymity and privacy are considered sacrosanct. Anonymity itself is quite useful in a society. Voting, juries, and whistleblowing are examples of legitimate uses of anonymity in a society. Privacy, although you did not bring it up, is also quite important.
There is a difference between free expression of ideas and the legitimate fear of reprisal by those more powerful. You are conflating the legal protections governing free expression with the liabilities of expressing some truth or opinion that have nothing to do with any legal systems. A system can have strong legal guarantees of free expression. Such a system could be considered to have more freedoms than others. However, in such a "free" system that also has no provisions for anonymity (or specifically against anonymity), there could be serious risks depending on just what you are expressing. These risks are demonstrably detrimental to a society when they suppress the dissemination of information that may be conflict with the interests of those in positions of power.
Re:Man, this is _so_ wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason to want to be anonymous is not cowardice. The reason is that the repercussions are not acceptable.
This myth was dispelled long ago, one example is gorilla warfare. Europeans thought it cowardly to hide from your opponents instead of facing them openly on a field of battle. It wasn't cowardly, it was tactically sound.
The same is true of avoiding prosecution by unjust government and preventing those whom you are criticizing from discovering your loved ones.
The difference between the AC and the non-AC? The AC legitimately believes there are people out there fear. The non-AC just likes to talk conspiracies.
Personally, I just think our government lacks the resources to track individual slashdot posters on a routine basis... so far.
Re:Man, this is _so_ wrong. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm going to kill the president.
Re:Man, this is _so_ wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)
The president of what?
Re:Man, this is _so_ wrong. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Man, this is _so_ wrong. (Score:4, Informative)
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2004/10/29/livejournal-blo.php
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
These kids are Fail. how well will someone preform at their job if every time they have a problem they call mommy? they don't. I know so many of these manchilds. Th
Re:The devil is in the details (Score:5, Insightful)
And this, in a nutshell, is why it is judges who set the punishment for offenders and not victims or relatives of victims.
Re:The devil is in the details (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, child pornography is such a witchhunt that even animated child pornography is illegal.
Actually, It's not. Here's a quote from Wikipedia's listing under Child pornography [wikipedia.org].
Child pornography may be simulated by the use of computers[13] or adults made to look like children.[14] For simulated child pornography that is produced without the involvement of children, there is some controversy regarding whether or not such simulated child pornography is abusive to children. The legal status of simulated or "virtual" child pornography varies around the world; for example, it is legal in the United States, it is illegal in the European Union, and in Australia its legal status is unclear and so far untested in the courts.
Re:The devil is in the details (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well the question brings up what is the age of the cartoon character. It could be stated it is an adult representation of a child character or what is the represented age of the character. Really are lawyers going to go into fiction cannon to prove the age of a character. As well can you prove the viewer knows enough about cannon to realize it.
Re:The devil is in the details (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, It's not. Here's a quote from Wikipedia's listing under Child pornography.
Well thank heavens you quoted from such a reputable source. Here's another quote from Wikipedia about the PROTECT Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_Act [wikipedia.org]), which was passed by Congress in 2003 and is still in effect:
"Prohibits drawings, sculptures, and pictures of such drawings and sculptures depicting minors in actions or situations that meet the Miller test of being obscene, OR are engaged in sex acts that are deemed to meet the same obscene condition....
The prohibitions against illustrations
Mod parent up! (Score:3, Insightful)
No, not because he agrees with me. Because he knows something all these other people apparently don't; that the laws in the US have changed, and while it was true that it was not previously illegal, it has been since 2003.
I'll be man enough to admit that I thought it had been illegal for much longer, and so the various "you're wrong" responses to my post were also quite enlightening, but they seem to have missed this crucial change in American law.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's also realize that there is indeed a (quite significant) distinction between "pedophiles" and "child molesters". By definition, only one of those groups has actually acted on their generally-regarded-as-perverse desires; I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine which one of the above labels is for that group. I'm not saying that there aren't there aren't people who fall into both groups (and I suppose if you're really screwed up in the head, you could end up as a child molester who isn
Re:The devil is in the details (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe you should look at the Protect Act? (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003 [wikipedia.org]
I knew that I read this somewhere... Prohibits computer-generated child pornography when "(B) such visual depiction is a computer image or computer-generated image that is, or appears virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (as amended by 1466A for Section 2256(8)(B) of title 18, United States Code).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe you should read the case finding that provision unconstitutional?
How about you find it for us. I bet you can't.
You're mixing up your "think of the children" laws. You're thinking of COPA.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe you should read the case finding that provision unconstitutional?
How about you find it for us. I bet you can't.
It's already referenced a bit farther back in this slashdot article. By now it's modded up so it should be visible in your browser unless you've hacked your settings. So use your browser's find function to look for "Ashcroft".
Re:Maybe you should look at the Protect Act? (Score:4, Informative)
It's already referenced a bit farther back in this slashdot article. By now it's modded up so it should be visible in your browser unless you've hacked your settings. So use your browser's find function to look for "Ashcroft".
Did you even read my post? Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition invalidated portions of the COPA Act in 2002. The PROTECT Act was passed in 2003 and again made certain drawings or computer-generated images of minors illegal in the United States.
Re:The devil is in the details (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The devil is in the details (Score:5, Funny)
What I wear while fantasizing about my wife is none of your concern.
Re:The devil is in the details (Score:4, Funny)
I guess grandpappa was a perv (Score:3, Interesting)
In parts of eastern Europe at the turn of the 20th century it was common for >14 year old girls to be married off to any financially stable (read older) man. The rationale behind it was simple, women just didn't live very long and to keep families from dying out the female reproductive cycle had to start ASAP (as soon a biologically possible). Clearly sociological/cultural norms mean more than some Bible-toting tub-thumper's, TV evangelist pseudo-moralizing looking for some free press.
My grandmother
of course (Score:5, Funny)
Border guards testify that they saw child pornography on the defendant's laptop when the PC was on
wow, so cops testify that it's true? that's good enough for me!
Re:of course (Score:5, Interesting)
I also doubt that a "conviction is still likely", unless they have some other material to show. Convictions in these cases are almost always due to the shock value created by showing the dirty films and pictures to the jury. If they cannot recover the images and movies, they will actually have to cover their burden of proof a lot more than prosecutors are used to in this case, and the defense might actually have a shot.
If the jury actually thinks about the fact that the only evidence is what some cops say they saw, but can't prove. If the prosecution somehow gets to show "similar images" or some such nonsense, the defense is hosed.
Re:of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds good, but I think the estimate was that there's at least 10,000 federal laws -- and so no single person could possibly know them all.
So while the police are combing through your hard drive, and while they don't find any child pornography, they DO find a picture of you holding a baby bird -- and it turns out that some 1856 law made illegal to handle this type of bird without a permit. And here's evidence of you violating the law.
Or, perhaps they don't find any child pornography ... until they scan every sector on the disk and find some thumbnail of some picture of a naked 8 year old girl that was deleted 18 months ago. If they'd dug deeper, they might have learned that that was from getting redirected to a child pornography site in Romania by some typo-squatter, which you immediately closed and never visited again -- but the DA is up for re-election, and he doesn't want to give up this new feather in his cap, the child pornographer he just took off the street. He doesn't care that you're innocent, only that you're helping prove that he's tough on child pornography.
No, cops and vampires are best not invited into your home, or your hard drives. Even if proving perjury is `priceless'. (And really, it wouldn't prove perjury. The cop would just say `I guess I was mistaken. My bad.' Though he probably wouldn't even say that.)
People really are stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Turn *off* your laptop before going through customs.
Turn off the GRUB menu and change the default key combination to have it come up.
Have a WinXP install to boot up into and set it as the default boot option.
Strong cryptography is lovely but it is not for idiots.
Re:People really are stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
think about the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
In any case, it is good to see judges in the US (or anywhere else) making into the news for taking the right stand regarding governmental search limits.
Wow...anyone know what happened to him? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Here, we have a story which is not only over 8 months old, but is also a dupe [slashdot.org]. That has to be some kind of a record.
You must be new here...
Uh-Oh (Score:5, Insightful)
The phrase "given the specific facts of this case" gives me chills in this context. As we all know, kiddie porn is, along with terrorism and drugs, one of the three Prime Evils of American jurisprudence and public opinion, the unholy trinity that justify any and all measures in their eradication.
In short: Why, why does our potential landmark 5th amendment case have to be a kiddie porn case? I'm no fan of child pornography; but it would be an absolute disaster if, thanks to the vociferous moral condemnation that such a case always involved, we end up setting a dangerous precedent concerning the 5th amendment and crypto keys/passwords.
I think it involves no hyperbole to say that the crypto key issue is probably the most important 5th amendment related question that technology has yet raised(mindreading tech will probably top it, when it becomes available). I'd hate to see this be yet another decision chiseling away at our constitution, just because some punk likes kiddie porn.
Re:Uh-Oh (Score:5, Insightful)
Because if your rights and freedoms do not stand up when applied to the worst of the worst then they most likely won't stand up when applied to you.
Re:Uh-Oh (Score:4, Funny)
Don't you remember 9/11, when terrorists flew child porn into the WTC?
For shame, fuzzyfuzzyfungus. For shame.
Re:Uh-Oh (Score:4, Informative)
This is exactly why the ACLU gets so much hate: they have to go to bat for civil liberties to try to prevent bad precedent, even though public opinion on the case is more like "Due process? Just lynch them!"
That this happens so often leads me to believe that a number of prosecutors pick these opportunities specifically to force judges to choose between civil liberties and looking like they support the Prime Evils.
Anti-free-speech cases are ALWAYS against scumbags (Score:5, Insightful)
In short: Why, why does our potential landmark 5th amendment case have to be a kiddie porn case?
Because the prosecutors ALWAYS go after the least-sympathetic scumbag they can find (or create the appearance of) when trying to establish a break-the-bill-of-rights precedent.
In the case of trying to clamp down on new forms of speech, press, or association this is USUALLY a child pornography or child molestation case.
Once they've got the precedent in place they can go after the real target: Anybody they don't like.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Reasonable question, I'll let people more eloquent than I answer:
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsky
"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." - Abbie Hoffman
"First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I was not a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Cat
Re:Uh-Oh (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you really think it would be about anything else? The "justice" machine has been looking for decades for precedent setting cases to overturn or sidestep the constitutional protections we have. One at a time, they fall like dominoes.
Our nation's preoccupation with child pornography is greater, perhaps, then even our irrational fear of terrorists. Of course it's going to be child pornography. If not this guy, then someone else, truth of the matter not withstanding.
Those of us who can think, who read, understand that most child sexual abuse comes from the people they know and trust (family, family friends, etc.), not kiddy porn rings or myspace predators. This is about power, pure unadulterated power, and nothing else.
It's getting to the point, at least for me, where I automatically disbelieve and distrust every law enforcement official on every single statement they make. I view them all as worthless scum first, and leave it up to them to prove otherwise. Some of them even have.
If any of you out there are or have been police officers, and feel insulted, let me ask you: How many people have you pulled over and issued tickets (sometimes in the hundreds of dollars)? And how many times have you let another police cruiser get away with speeding, reckless driving, rolling stops, failure to signal, etc.? I'm not talking about when they are going lights-and-sirens, I mean when they're out 'cruising'. Yeah, thought so. Until the legal system actually starts policing itself (hah!) we're just going to see them continue hand in hand, doing the government's dirty work and getting away with whatever the fuck they want to.
Re:Uh-Oh (Score:5, Informative)
A late uncle of mine who served as a U.S. Marshal for many, many years once told me basically the same thing.
Strange (Score:5, Interesting)
IANAL, but if my memory serves me correctly, Customs and "border guards"aren't constrained by the same laws that other law enforcement is. That's why they can search your vehicle, personal effects, body cavities, etc. when you enter the country without a warrant.
I have a constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures once inside the United States, but not while entering it. The judges decision sounds nice, but I don't think it will stand.
Re:Strange (Score:5, Interesting)
That's why they could look at it in the first place.
But they failed to gather evidence when they had the chance. And now he's back in the country, subject to all the regular protections. If they had copied the unencrypted contents of his hard drive previously they would be able to use that evidence in court, but they can't force him to decrypt its contents now just because they happened to have access to it when he crossed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're thinking of the fourth amendment. This is the fifth amendment, under which you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Strange (Score:4, Funny)
Okay, I don't want my nether hole searched next time I enter the US. Where do I apply for the warrant???
(Some 12 years ago, I crossed into the US through a very remote border post in Maine, and I was wearing a fanny pack that one customs agent wanted to search. So I handed it to him, and he ran his finger through the small change with exactly the same look of a pervert who sifts through a pile of women underwear. Really creepy).
Slashdot crazies who know nothing about the law (Score:3, Insightful)
> I have a constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures once inside the United
> States, but not while entering it. The judges decision sounds nice, but I don't think it will stand.
It's worse. I fail to understand how a court can't order the asshole to produce the data. We have protection against unreasonable search. We have a right against self incrimination. But neither apply here. Nobody is going to argue that a judge can't issue an order for you to cough up documents wh
Re:Slashdot crazies who know nothing about the law (Score:5, Insightful)
I fail to understand how a court can't order the asshole to produce the data.
Because the data is in his head, not on a physical document. If he had written it down the court could order him to hand over the hardcopy. But if they could order him to divulge the contents of his memory to be used as evidence against him they could do it, not just for passwords, but for anything else. (Like: "Did you kill Jane Doe?") The famous part of the 5th Amendment expressly prohibits that.
What would "enforcing" such an order consist of? Torture. That's WHY it's prohibited.
This case is going to come down to two sworn officers asserting they saw kiddie porn on exhibit A, the laptop. Almost any jury is going to be willing to accept that as proof beyond a reasonable doubt considering the defense could rebutt by simply unlocking the laptop and proving their innocence.
It's not up to the defendant in a criminal case to prove his innocence. It's up to the prosecution to prove his guilt. Are the officers such experts in video synthesis and manipulation that they can determine, at a glance, that the images were of actual children? No? Tough luck. If that's all they have I'd expect the judge to direct the verdict or throw it out for lack of evidence.
Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
"Don't be an idiot. Enforcing would be done exactly as it is done in any other case of someone refusing to comply with an order issued by a court. You hold them in contempt of court and lock em up until they obey or they can get a higher court to reverse. No rubber hoses required."
Not so. Physical compliance is one thing. Compelling someone to speak is something entirely different. They are different areas of the law, and covered by different parts of the Constitution. Further, once again: this has to do with the 5th, which prevents compelling someone to testify against himself. AND, as I mentioned elsewhere, there are MANY perfectly legitimate reasons why someone would not want -- very much not want -- the "authorities" to access their files, even if there is nothing illegal in them!
("Gee, let's see... I am a border guard, and I have this bogus "do not fly" list, consisting largely of people who are political activists... let's accuse him of child pornography and see what's in his secret files!")
If you think that scenario is unrealistic, then you have not studied your history.
"But since the testimony of two sworn peace officers will almost certainly convict beyond a reasonable doubt in the absence of any defense, going that route is a sure fire path to a "pound me in the ass" federal prison."
Bullshit. In order to convict on "say-so" only, the two witnesses would have to be VERY credible. If I were a juror, it is unlikely I would vote to convict without physical evidence. And as for being credible witnesses, especially when it comes to identifying children on grainy video... heck, it's a stretch even calling most border guards "law enforcement"!
By the way, I should mention that a couple of years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that in order for something to be judged "child pornography", it must be proven that (1) it is actual pornography, and (2) that the subjects are actual children. Good luck proving those with no videos. Do you think the guards recognized those particular children? Do you think that they names and addresses were flashed on the screen? I doubt it.
"Basically this guy is saying "That laptop over there doesn't have anything illegal on it. Those pigs are just lying ignorant bastards who wouldn't know a playboy bunny shot from japanese tentacle porn. But you guys on the jury are just going to have to trust me on that..."
Yep. And that is enough, legally and Constitutionally. As it should be. You don't seem to appreciate how horrifically "the system" could be abused, if we did not have such safeguards. History is full of such stories... are you going to be one of those people doomed to repeat history because you did not bother to learn it? I hope not.
-- "That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." - Benjamin Franklin
Re:Slashdot crazies who know nothing about the law (Score:5, Insightful)
They can and they did. They have physical custody of the hard disk on the laptop, and it's been examined with a fine-toothed comb. They've had the data to do whatever they want with it. The fact that the data is not in a form useful to the government's case is not the defendant's problem. Compelling the defendant to provide testimony to *make* it useful to the government is a breach of his Fifth Amendment rights.
Dupe, noted in firehose, with link (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, are the editors asleep?
This story [slashdot.org] from last December had the exact same article. This was noted in the firehose entry [slashdot.org], and somehow this still got posted. I thought that kind of thing was a major purpose of the firehose?
WTF
Re:Dupe, noted in firehose, with link (Score:4, Informative)
kdawson seems to be an "editor" in only the absolute vaguest sense of the word.
TrueCrypt Hidden OS (Score:3, Interesting)
Plug for TrueCrypt 6.0's Hidden OS feature. This allow one to give a password (not the "real" password) and have the system boot to a hidden OS which is not your real installation. Moreover, there is no way to prove the "real" OS exists. http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=hidden-operating-system
Backdoors? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Backdoors? (Score:5, Insightful)
or that they aren't open to people at that level
If someone like the NSA knew how, I doubt they would let that information leak without a really, really good reason. And "think of the children" doesn't count in that arena.
which is nice.
At least, it's good to know. :)
You have the right to remain silent. (Score:5, Informative)
Period. End of discussion. They cannot compel your testimony. Not one word can they force you to utter. It is your choice to stand mute and that cannot be used against you.
Anything more than this, compelling you to utter even a single syllable in order to prove your own innocence or guilt, and we don't live in the land of the free anymore.
Best news out of USA for a long time (Score:3, Interesting)
I know a lot of people who were getting very nervous about even *visiting* the USA. Think they're overreacting and melodramatic? Think again - all we hear are stories of how foreigners, with no rights, detained by customs, forced to incriminate themselves, forced to give up encryption keys on threat of indefinite detention in stateless legal no-mans-land .. how reasonable it is to worry about it all *that* much is questionable but it's undeniably been a bad trend for a long time.
This, though - an unequivocal restoration of the right to silence, at a border no less - is a *very* welcome development. Let's hope it's the first in a long run of "restoration" decisions as the pendulum swings back from the terrorism bubble.
Really happy to see this. I'm not American, but I was taking no joy whatsoever in watching the previous slide. I'm feeling pretty joyful to see this kind of thing, though - separation of powers worked in the end!
Here's to a few more key decisions like this. Go USA.
Pass-Phrase Confession (Score:5, Interesting)
So what if I made my pass phrase the confession to some minor crime and then confessed the fact? Wouldn't that make it a more clear-cut fifth amendment issue as revealing my pass-phrase would be directly incriminating?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Sweet! (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well option 'c' is always open, even if it's illegal it's like you said "After all, waterboarding leaves no marks so it would just be his word against theirs". I guess you just have to learn how to not give up your rights under moderate torture. (or quit being a pedophile)
Re:Sweet! (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, let's stop pretending that this has anything at all to do with "child pornography".
The justice department was just trying to get some case law saying an individual could be forced to relinquish his password, and by using "child pornography" they thought they could bully some judge into betraying the Constitution. It's a good sign that those sons of bitches lost, too.
And ultimately, torture doesn't work. Eventually, a society that violates basic human rights so blatantly will fall, and often (but not always) the perpetrators end up on the other end of the see-saw. Then, it becomes harder to find people who will obey orders to torture. We in America will eventually learn that it was a huge mistake to forsake our principles and become a torture regime. But, I can only hope that Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez and others will face the music. There's no guarantee that justice moves quickly enough to give that kind of satisfaction. But move it does - and inexorably.
Re:Sweet! (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, let's stop pretending that this has anything at all to do with "child pornography".
Thank you Pope Ratzo!
Any time the government wants to remove one more right from you, the test case will always be a charge of child pornography or terrorism. But it's not like the precdent will be "only for accused terrorists" - it will be used for anyone. Even if it were, accusing your political opponents of being pedophiles or terrorists in order to use the "special case" laws against them has been done throughout recorded history. It's not exactly hard to put encrypted child porn on a seized laptop after the fact, if you're willing to break a law to get a conviction!
Re:Sweet! (Score:5, Interesting)
I disagree, Mr. President.
Re:Sweet! (Score:4, Insightful)
"Eventually, a society that violates basic human rights so blatantly will fall..."
Historically speaking, the societies that have violated basic human rights lasted far longer than those that did not.
A state run society may be bad for an individual, but it's often pretty good for the stability of the society as a whole.
Re:Sweet! (Score:4, Informative)
Here in the U.S., we don't have to prove our innocence, the cops have to prove that we are guilty.
Re:Sweet! (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh wait, you were talking about the US, not the UK. I'm sure that your law enforcement agencies are far more responsible and less petty than ours. I mean we can't both be ruled by security services that act like playground bullies can we?
Re:Conspiracy? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the prosecutors who are trying to force a legal precedent to require citizens to relinquish their password are the conspiratorial sacks of shit.
The child porn case was just a convenient tool for them to attack the Constitution.
Re:Sweet! (Score:5, Informative)
The US "doesn't torture" only because it asserts that it doesn't. It also asserts that inflicting pain would not be considered torture unless it caused "death, organ failure or permanent damage." [nytimes.com]
Even the current Republican presidential candidate, John McCain, considers waterboarding to be torture [nytimes.com], saying, "it was used in the Spanish Inquisition, it was used in Pol Potâ(TM)s genocide in Cambodia, and there are reports that it is being used against Buddhist monks today."
Besides, many consider any form of pain compliance, for forced information extraction, to be torture. Waterboarding is essentially forced drowning with a medic in attendance, to revive the "patient" in case his/her vitals falter.
Re:Sweet! (Score:4, Informative)
Waterboarding is essentially forced drowning with a medic in attendance, to revive the "patient" in case his/her vitals falter.
Actually, it's not drowning at all. If they wanted to force drowning all it would take would be a kitchen sink. For waterboarding, the subject is placed at a slight head-down angle and the cloth over the face prevents aspiration of any meaningful quantity of water, so drowning is actually mechanically impossible. It just gives a thoroughly convincing sensation of drowning. al Zarqawi lasted almost 2 1/2 minutes (a superhuman feat) before he gave in and agreed to talk--- which means he wasn't drowning. This is the reason the technique is used. Asphyxiation due to drowning limits one to as long as it takes for the subject to pass out, then requires medical attention. Waterboarding, it can go on and on....
Re:Sweet! (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, it *is* pretty much drowning. The main advantage of it is that you can handwave and pretend that you aren't slowly drowning someone.
Have you seen
Christopher Hitchen's experience of waterboarding [vanityfair.com]?
Re:Sweet! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sweet! (Score:5, Insightful)
Waterboarding's not so fucking bad, eh? Then why is the US even using it? And if amateur/non-hardened terrorist types like you and your buddies are able to easily withstand it, then what good is it as a form of torture? (Note that John McCain flip-flopped and voted *for* waterboarding [aol.com] even after he denounced it.)
Regardless, torture is considered a lossy means of extracting information from interrogation subjects. Because with the threat of imminent death (e.g. repeated waterboardings, with the drowning response telling your body that you're about to die), you'll do anything to save your life, won't you? Like making shit up. (Of course, making shit up is just what the US did to get us into the Iraq war [ronsuskind.com] in the first place.)
I'd be unsurprised to learn that waterboarding is a kind of red herring - there are many far more simple, painful and damaging techniques that our rendition and torture outsource partners (and let us not forget contractors) are all too willing to employ. That's what you can do when you partner with dictatorships in a war on terror.
Re:Sweet! (Score:4, Interesting)
and it's not bad at fucking all if you have it done by friends who you know will stop
Fixed. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Or
d) Under the pressure to solve a single case, the US Government could collapse in on itself, causing a new despotic regime to overtake what was a storied and noble system of checks and balances. The defendant's entire extended family would be flayed alive in front of him out of sheer spite since he already gave up the information the government wanted under mere threat of what was to come. And then the nukes.
Wait, what were we talking about?
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
No kidding. Any decent defense attorney should be able to nullify these guards' testimony.
"So Officer Smith, you testified that the images you saw depicted children. Exactly how old were they? Oh you're not sure. (Display a picture of a model who's 18 and is made up to look 12.) How old is this model? Take a guess. Sorry, no, she's 18, and here's her birth certificate to prove it. Since you can't accurately identify the age of this model, why should the jury assume you could identify the age(s) of other models?"
Re:good thing, bad thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Relinquish or Destroy? (Score:5, Informative)
You'd probably get thrown in jail for that, and it'll probably stick. Refusing to divulge your passphrase is protected by the Fifth Amendment, but if you give them a self-destruct phrase and tell them it's the passphrase, you have just destroyed potential evidence that is in their possession, and I'd be surprised indeed if that is not against one or more laws.
Re:Hooray for the judge, for seeing through this. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:so how did they see it the first time? (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it sad that most everyone discussing this topic feels compelled to add in a condemnation the pornographers as if otherwise people would suspect them of being one. We can discuss murder and other heinous crimes without needing a disclaimer.
Not that I'm defending child pornographers in any way.
I am responding to your post. Not the article. (Score:4, Insightful)
Security is irrelevant. Citizenship is irrelevant. The only thing relevant here is "shall not", and for the Government those words drown out every other concern under the sun until they are rubbed out.
You say the border should be under the sole jurisdiction of Congress. That's all well and good. But Congress is under the jurisdiction of the people of the United States of America, who have set its boundary conditions, which include those enumerated in the Bill of Rights. It is thus impossible for Congress to have jurisdiction of anything without the Constitution as amended having jurisdiction of it; the Constitution as amended has jurisdiction over Congress. Since always.
Or do you argue that the border is outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Government entire? If so, I can accept that the rights as enumerated in the Constitution may not be protected by the anarchy present there. But then, at that moment of dissolution of the Federal Government's power, the laws of Congress cease to matter either, and your measures of security must be enforced by the barrel of a gun. At that moment, any action by the Government would be unilateral and outside its charter, and thus cease to be an act of the Government as instantiated and legitimized by the will of its citizens. At that moment, rights have nothing to do with it. Only might.
A is A. Either something is a right or it is not. And no-one should expect less privacy from an organization than the leader of that organization has deemed the minimum. Until that leader - until the people themselves - change their minds and in doing so change the charter, the Government is incapable of exceeding the boundary conditions specified there without ceasing to be the Government, ceasing to be legitimate, and sublimating back into the form of some thugs on the border, acting on their own whims, who'll let you through if you do as they tell you.
And if we find that this leaves a legitimate instantiation of the Government with insufficient power to protect us from our enemies, we must decide whether we value that protection over a bit of extra liberty on the border, and change the charter accordingly. Until then, we'll be protected only by an illegitimate Government, or illegitimate agents of the Government - and I'd rather be unsafe from outside than be guarded by false guards.
Sorry for making you read all of that. I'll shut up now. >_>