back to article Child abuse suspect won't be forced to decrypt hard drive

A federal appeals court has ruled it improper to compel a child pornography suspect to decrypt his hard drive because such an act would violate his Fifth Amendment rights. The ruling (PDF) by the Atlanta-based US 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of an unnamed suspect from Florida (known in court papers as "John Doe") …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

            1. Vic

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Meanwhile, back in Blighty...

              > The police would already require a warrant.

              This is not true.

              Section 49 of RIPA 2000 allows "any person with the appropriate permission under Schedule 2" to issue a disclosure requirement notice. Note that the people descried under Schedule 2 are not all police or judiciary.

              There is very little control over who can issue S49 notices :-(

              Vic.

            2. Graham Marsden
              Boffin

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Meanwhile, back in Blighty...

              @rtli-

              Try researching a little law. Obstructing a Police Officer means, for instance, deliberately getting in his way when he's trying to arrest a suspect. Simply saying "I'm not going to help" is not an offence, nor should it ever be.

              As for "if they don't -know- the password", under the sort of laws you seem to prefer, the prosecution could simply claim "the defendant *does* know the password and is refusing to reveal it, so he should be locked up for obstructing us until he tells us what it is!"

              In vain would the Defence say "he doesn't know it" because you have presumed guilt and require the Defence to prove innocence. Corrupt cops would *love* that...

              1. Vic

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Meanwhile, back in Blighty...

                > In vain would the Defence say "he doesn't know it" because you have presumed guilt

                This is actually the law in the UK.

                A disclosure notice may be issued under Section 49. Section 53 makes it an offence to comply with such a notice.

                The onus is upon the defendant to demonstrate that he does not have the key. Failure to do so can get you 2 years (or 5 years if someone mentions "National Security").

                RIPA 2000 is one of our shittiest laws.

                Vic.

            3. ElReg!comments!Pierre

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Meanwhile, back in Blighty...

              >"It's now a criminal offence *not* to give up your password if the Authorities demand it."

              >I don't see a problem with that. Of course, if they don't -know- the password, they can't very well

              >give it out, but then that would be a pretty compelling point for the defence should such a case

              >reach trial, no?

              That's a nice contradiction you have there. Either you are forced to reveal the password OR you can claim that you don't know it. There's no middle ground. With the law you "don't see a problem with" I can deposit an encrypted hard drive in your mailbox, knowing that you will keep it at home at least for a few days out of curiosity, and immediately call the anonymous tip-off line saying you are a kiddie fiddler. See you in ten when you get out of the slammer. How do you like them apples?

              1. rtli-

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Meanwhile, back in Blighty...

                "With the law you "don't see a problem with" I can deposit an encrypted hard drive in your mailbox, knowing that you will keep it at home at least for a few days out of curiosity, and immediately call the anonymous tip-off line saying you are a kiddie fiddler. See you in ten when you get out of the slammer."

                How fortunate we have a jury-based legal system based on evidence, rather than the deranged examples of an internet poster.

                1. Hayden Clark Silver badge
                  Unhappy

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Meanwhile, back in Blighty...

                  Nope - you'd still stand trial. If you could *prove* that the drive was given to you recently, you would be acquitted. Best of luck with that.

                  Also, remember. They Police seize your drives on a (erroneous/malicious) tipoff. You give them the keys (as you have to). They find no child pornography.

                  They do find:

                  * Your MP3 collection

                  * A ripped DVD or two, plus perhaps a copy of DVDRipper/DVDShrink.

                  * A few "choice" videos and images in your brower cache

                  * Some software you maybe installed from work with no license

                  * Your Windows OS is a key-hacked one, as you lost the key to your OEM install or change too much hardware or something.

                  * You're an "Occupy" activist, and you were arranging a protest.

                  ... and so on.

                  All this stuff will get passed to the appropriate authorities. You *will* get nicked for something.

              2. rtli-

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Meanwhile, back in Blighty...

                "That's a nice contradiction you have there. Either you are forced to reveal the password OR you can claim that you don't know it."

                Yep, that's the size of it. If you know it, you have to reveal it. If you don't know it, you have to reveal that you don't know it. Except...that's not a contradiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction). I think you mean dichotomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichotomy). Now explain to me why a dichotomy is a bad thing in law?

                1. Graham Marsden
                  FAIL

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Meanwhile, back in Blighty...

                  @rtli-

                  "How fortunate we have a jury-based legal system based on evidence, rather than the deranged examples of an internet poster."

                  Yet one particular deranged internet poster seems to be happy with the idea of instead of a Jury being told "If the prosecution can't prove their case, you *cannot* find the defendant guilty" them being told "if the defendant cannot prove his innocence you *must* find them guilty".

                  "Now explain to me why a dichotomy is a bad thing in law?"

                  Apart from playing sad little word games, you really don't understand this principle of "Presumption of Innocence" do you? Under the system you propose, you either have to incriminate yourself by revealing your password or incriminate yourself by saying "I don't know it" in which case the prosecution says "AHA! He clearly has something to hide therefore the jury must find him guilty!"

                  Presumed guilty until proven guilty. Bravo.

                  1. Intractable Potsherd
                    Thumb Up

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Meanwhile, back in Blighty... (Graham Marsden)

                    Well done, Graham - I wish I wasn't limited to one thumbs up! It really is frightening how willfully ignorant some people are of the presumption of innocence and the need for the prosecution to build an adequate case that will persuade a jury to convict the suspect.

                  2. rtli-
                    FAIL

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Meanwhile, back in Blighty...

                    "...or incriminate yourself by saying "I don't know it" in which case the prosecution says "AHA! He clearly has something to hide therefore the jury must find him guilty!""

                    Is _that_ where you were going with that? If your problem is the "guilty until proven innocent" aspect of RIPA, you should have bothered to mention it at any point before this. Transferring the burden of proof is clearly crap. So is totally failing to make a coherent argument, though. Try less tempestuous rambling, more actually bothering to state your point.

                    1. Graham Marsden

                      Oh deary, deary me, rtli-

                      Now that the fallacies in your arguments have been explained again, but this time in terms that even you cannot wilfully misunderstand, you stoop to ad hominem attacks.

                      1. rtli-

                        Re: Oh deary, deary me, rtli-

                        "fallacies in your arguments"

                        No, I stand by everything I said. I don't believe the Fifth Amendment has any place in that ruling, and I don't have any issue with making withholding a crypto password a criminal offence. The only problem I have is with transfer of the burden of proof. But if you have encrypted the hard disk on your computer and you fail to hand over the password, despite a warrant, you are deliberately blocking the police from accessing evidence, and you deserve a sentence irrespective of whether you were even a suspect in the case.

                        Blocking the gathering of evidence wastes time and police resources, and that impacts society negatively. This is precisely why we have laws: to protect society from individuals who believe they are more important than other people.

                        (I'm talking about you there, by the way.)

                        1. Graham Marsden
                          Big Brother

                          Re: Re: Oh deary, deary me, rtli-

                          "This is precisely why we have laws: to protect society from individuals who believe they are more important than other people."

                          Society has Rights such as the Presumption of Innocence and the Right to Silence to protect individuals from the authorities (and people) who believe that convicting someone of a crime is more important than protecting the liberties of everyone.

                          (I'm talking about you there, by the way.)

                          "Better a hundred guilty men go free, than one innocent man suffer." - William Blackstone.

                          "Better a hundred innocent men suffer, than one guilty man go free" - rtli-

                          1. rtli-
                            Facepalm

                            Re: Re: Re: Oh deary, deary me, rtli-

                            "Better a hundred guilty men go free, than one innocent man suffer." - William Blackstone.

                            That would be Benjamin Franklin. William Blackstone said "ten". But don't bother researching this stuff before spouting it, or anything. Regardless, you're applying it wrong.

                            If I follow your argument to its conclusion, the police should never be allowed to perform _any_ action, since it would be presuming guilt. No arrests. No searches. After all, there's almost certainly a 1% chance they'll get it wrong.

                            1. Graham Marsden

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh deary, deary me, rtli-

                              Oh deary, deary me. Once again, rtli- you ignore the argument and, instead, attempt a pathetic point-scoring exercise. "Oh look, Graham said ten instead of a hundred, I WIN!!!" Yeah, whatever.

                              As for your "rebuttal" this is *why* we have things like the Right to Silence and the Presumption of Innocence and Due Process and the requirements for Search Warrants and Habeas Corpus and all those other pesky little things that you seem to be quite content to sweep away just to "help Police with their enquiries."

                              I'll leave you with the words of Thomas Moore in "A Man for All Seasons":

                              * * * * *

                              William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

                              Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

                              William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

                              Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

                              * * * * *

                              Feel free to get the last word in (I'm sure you will). I've wasted enough time here.

                              1. This post has been deleted by its author

                              2. rtli-
                                FAIL

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh deary, deary me, rtli-

                                "As for your "rebuttal"."

                                All I've done is use the same logical fallacy as you (reductio ad absurdam), on your own argument. I also pointed out that appeal to authority, which is also a fallacy by the way, works better if you (a) understand the context of the quote, and (b) actually get the quote right.

                                "I've wasted enough time here."

                                Ah, the time-honoured act of storming out. Ta ta.

                2. ElReg!comments!Pierre
                  FAIL

                  @ rtli- about contradiction.

                  > Yep, that's the size of it. If you know it, you have to reveal it. If you don't know it, you have to reveal that you don't know it.

                  No. Either you have to reveal it, or you don't. If you have to (as is the case currently in Blighty), you cannot claim that you don't know it (unless you can prove that you don't own the device, but if it was found in your possession and the malicious poster was smart enough to not leave a money trail, good luck with that). The contradiction that you don't want to see is, as I previously said, either you _have_, as in _are required to_ provide the password, OR you can claim that you do not know it. These options cannot coexist under the same law. There is therefore a clear contradiction in your post, where you say that you see no problem with people _being required to_ provide the password because they can still plead ignorance. That's just not compatible. That parrot is not resting. It's an ex-parrot.

                  1. This post has been deleted by its author

                  2. rtli-

                    Re: @ rtli- about contradiction.

                    "You _have_, as in _are required to_ provide the password."

                    I wasn't defending the entirety of RIPA as written, just the notion that withholding a password be a criminal offence. Theory, not implementation.

                    "Either you have to reveal it, or you don't."

                    Having to reveal it if you know it is not inconsistent with not having to reveal it in every situation. You're trying to create a dichotomy where none exists.

                    1. ElReg!comments!Pierre
                      WTF?

                      Re: Re: @ rtli- about contradiction.

                      > Having to reveal it if you know it is not inconsistent with not having to reveal it in every situation.

                      No, in the hypothetical case of a legal system in which you only have to reveal _if you know it_, that could work. However, the law as it stands requires you to reveal the password. Not to reveal _whether_ you know the password. To give the actual damn thing. You are NOT allowed to say "sorry I don't know/remember it". You _have_ to give it up. If you can't, then you won't, and you're a criminal. Simple as that.

                      And don't feign ignorance, that is the very aim of the law (to stop those dangerous paedorists using the "I don't remember" excuse). And you bloody well know it, as shown by you previous posts.

                      > You're trying to create a dichotomy where none exists.

                      I am not creating a dichotomy, just outing your lies.

                      1. ElReg!comments!Pierre
                        Meh

                        Re: Re: Re: @ rtli- about contradiction. (@ me)

                        > I am not creating a dichotomy, just outing your lies.

                        Sorry for that line if you are sincere on your posts being ẗheoretical as, you lately claim. Your earlier wording is certainly suggesting otherwise, but hey, malice shouldn't be always presupposed when stubborness fits the bill just right.

                        I won't withdraw my post though.

                        1. rtli-

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: @ rtli- about contradiction. (@ me)

                          "I won't withdraw my post though."

                          Fair enough. I don't see why you would want to, to be honest.

                      2. rtli-

                        Re: Re: Re: @ rtli- about contradiction.

                        "In the hypothetical case of a legal system in which you only have to reveal _if you know it_, that could work. However, the law as it stands requires you to reveal the password."

                        True and true. What I was originally responding to was the line:

                        "Remember than in Britain it's now a criminal offence *not* to give up your password if the Authorities demand it."

                        Now I interpret "if the Authorities demand it" as meaning by way of contrast to the ruling in America, viz that it would be against the Fifth to _ever_ have to give up your password. The legal checks and balances behind "the Authorities demand[ing] it" don't enter into the discussion. So explain to me why I'm suddenly accused of supporting every part of RIPA? All I'm after is middle ground: due process _and_ the authority to search for evidence.

                        1. ElReg!comments!Pierre

                          Re: @ rtli- about contradiction.

                          > All I'm after is middle ground: due process _and_ the authority to search for evidence.

                          Good luck in your search.for middle ground. There's none. Either you have to provide the password no matter what, and in this case tough luck if you don't have it/don't remember it, OR you don't have to provide the password, in which case expect crims and innocents alike to refuse to provide it, for protection and/or privacy reasons Or just because they can, which is as good a reason as any.

  1. This post has been deleted by its author

  2. Paul Uszak

    Other good news...

    ... is that this provides confirmation of the effectiveness of TrueCrypt. Presumably a lot of money has been spent on this case, so it (kinda) proves that the civilian authorities can't break the encryption. Don't know about the spooks in Langley though...

  3. Trevor 7

    If they know he is a kiddie fiddler why do they need the disks?

    The real issue is that if the police already "know" he has pictures, then why do they need the disks? If they don't really have any other evidence then all they have is an accusation.

    And if you think that just an accusation is enough, you clearly not dealt with the demographic of people known in the US as "White trash". These are the petty, selfish individuals that live for immediate gratification and inflated egos. They have no issue with lying to get revenge. They are the reason that Child Protective Services anonymous tip line is called the white trash revenge tool.

    Those of us accustomed to dealing with intelligent honest individuals may not understand why the 5th amendment is there, but after just a few encounters with people lacking those traits will quickly understand why it is there.

  4. JaitcH
    Thumb Up

    TrueCrypt - guaranteed unbreakable by the U.S. government

    This has got to be the best endorsement any product could receive.

    Wonder why the U.S. Government doesn't use it: Or commercial intelligence companies?

    Is PGP still unbroken?

  5. Dr. Ellen
    Trollface

    Another viewpoint

    Forget the password and the encryption. Where did [he] get a laptop with five hard drives?

    "...the suspect allegedly refused to supply the passphrases for five of his laptop hard drives and five external hard drives."

  6. kain preacher

    Khaptain

    Look up the McMartin trial.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial.

    All some has to do is make a complaint and the cops will haul you in for questioning . Even anonymous complaints will be investigated by child protection services. You have cases of kids being ripped out of homes for 30 days only for a judge to say it's unfounded . If you have to many complaints even if the all are unfounded they will take you kids away to air on the safe side. That kind of stuff shows up on an enhanced background check .

  7. chris lively
    Alert

    Fishing

    Cops, by their nature, routinely go on "fishing" expeditions. The idea being to simply let a suspect talk their way into a chargeable offense. This has been going on for as long as there have cops.

    So the situation could simply be that someone accused this guy of peddling child porn. The cops try and see if it's true. However they can't find any real damning evidence. The "victim's" parents keeps on them and are very convincing in their demands for justice.

    This is enough to convince a judge to let them raid the guys house and take his computers. However, being encrypted they still don't have anything.

    Meanwhile, the guy was straight up and never did anything like this. However, maybe he browsed a few adult sites and maybe that history is stored on one of those computers. Heck, maybe he downloaded 1,000's of videos... But, to his knowledge everything was perfectly legal.

    It's possible that a picture of a 17 year old is on those disks. It's equally possible this guy never went looking for it and certainly didn't intend to download that. However, as we all know, browsers grab whatever shows up on a page...

    Now if the cops find 1 ( one ) naked picture of a person under 18 on those drives he goes to jail and is branded a pedophile for the rest of his life. The person doesn't even have to actually be under 18; just look like it with no way to verify age.

    That said, would you turn over the encryption keys of your hard drive? The answer should be hell no.

  8. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. MissingSecurity

      Re: Cmon guys read the paper

      Whats trying to be protected is the 5th amendment, which by definition is trying to protect against abusive governments.

      While this sounds cut and dry, your still looking at this from an emotional state rather than a right. Regardless of the case, we are granted this right, and it important to defend it even when you may be demonized for protecting a pedo.

      We know the popo were watching him, we know they have a fairly solid circumstantial case. I think the police were accustomed to being granted access, and a judge fairly ruled in favor of the constitution. You might argue had they not been relying on this encryption being granted, they may have tried a different more sure tact, since if this guys was routinely renting to distribute, you could have caught him in the act rather than relying on this.

      I think the integrity of our system (and possible the blighty system) is for people accept we grant people rights, regardless of our judgements.

      I have encrypted drives with nothing on them of consequence (not even porn), but I wouldn't give my keys to prove my point just because the government want them. I don't see why this is an issue if they feel they can already incriminate him.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

        1. kain preacher

          Re: Re: Re: Cmon guys read the paper

          Lets stick with the porn theory . There is a charge in the federal and most local statues that makes posing obscene porn illegal. What is obscene porn ? It's defined by the local community. So just because it's legal in one area does not mean it will be legal some were else in the United States . Oh and people seem to have this twisted notion that only perverts look at porn. So even if it's legal you are pervert and must be kept away from kids . Look at the GOP and these so called family values.

          1. rtli-

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Cmon guys read the paper

            "Lets stick with the porn theory . There is a charge in the federal and most local statues that makes posing obscene porn illegal. What is obscene porn ? It's defined by the local community. So just because it's legal in one area does not mean it will be legal some were else in the United States . Oh and people seem to have this twisted notion that only perverts look at porn. So even if it's legal you are pervert and must be kept away from kids . Look at the GOP and these so called family values."

            But that's not relevant to this case. Just because there's one law you disagree with, doesn't mean all laws should be reinterpreted on the off-chance it offsets the law you don't like.

  9. Sureo
    Big Brother

    Simple

    They should just ask the NSA to decrypt the drives for them. It should take them .... oh say 5 minutes? If they can spare the computer time from their other pressing matters.

    1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

      Re: ask the NSA to decrypt them

      No point in asking. If the NSA can do this, it's probably the most valuable intelligence secret in the world today and the NSA will *not* be willing to advertise this capability to the whole world just to help the local plod.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Holmes

    Hey, I'm prepared to believe this guy is guilty.....

    However, that doesn't meet the standards of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And his 5 disk drives could be full of kiddie porn, or they could be full of pictures of him with adult sex partners (perfectly legal, but you wouldn't want it being ogled by the cops), or emotional personal correspondence, or evidence of illegally sheltered personal income, or pirated music and videos--or just about anything else you can imagine!! Maybe he just doesn't like cops and he thinks that the 5th amendment should protect him from having to cooperate in that manner.

    Here is a common example of self-incrimination when the cops already (should have) evidence against you. Do you know how cops ask you "Do you know how fast you were going?" when they pull you over for a speeding stop? Well, under the 5th amendment you don't have t answer that question. Its a common ruse/trick of sorts among traffic cops to get you to boost the state's case against you through self-incrimination. And remember "Whatever you say can be used against you in court", so once you say or provide something, it can be used against you, even if you admit you were doing 40 mph in a 35 mph zone.

  11. ph0b0s

    Paedo case = common sense / logic bypass

    You can see why it is always crimes involving children or terrorism that are used to test case law. Nothing bypasses peoples facility for common sense and logic like cases involving these emotive subjects. These types of cases means people are happier for rights they have enjoyed, to be eroded, than they would be under different circumstances.

    It is true that this 'dodgy' sounding person might get off scot free. In the same way that sometimes murders get away with it, due to lack of evidence. But out come the cries that letting a Paedo get way with it, can never be allowed to happen, even if the law has to be put aside to stop it.

    If it was the Justice Dept trying to get a judge to force someone who allegedly broke a companies DRM, on a device they own, against DMCA to decrypt their hard drive so the hack can be discovered. Or a hard drive with evidence that someone was speeding / driving dangerously in their car. I know the reaction would be completely different, even though the same case law applies to both scenarios.

    The idea that you have your liberty taken away (the result of contempt of court or defying a RIPA requestion in the UK), becuase you will not divulge something that will lead to your incrimination, is completely analogous to to a confession under duress / torture. In the US the Supreme Court already have ruled on this, as in you cannot be forced to pull a pass code from your head to unlock a safe. An encrypted hard drive is completely analogous to a safe with a combination.

    The advent of encryption means investigators have to think of more inventive, legal, ways of gaining the evidence they need, rather than relying on the justice system to bail them out, by eroding peoples liberties. People's respect for the principle of innocent until proven guilty, should be no different whether the alleged crime involves children or speeding. Something quite a few commenting here seem to have forgotten.

    1. Intractable Potsherd
      Thumb Up

      Re: Paedo case = common sense / logic bypass

      Bravo, ph0b0s - perfectly put!

  12. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Old Handle
      Paris Hilton

      Re: Kiddie Porn and Speeding

      I'm honestly confused by this statement. Why is it sad that people want him considered innocent until proven guilty like everyone else? Or am I completely misunderstanding?

      1. kain preacher

        Re: Re: Kiddie Porn and Speeding

        If you scroll down you will see were one poster said all logic seems to go out the window when it comes to kids and terrorist. Then they subscribe to theory you have to crack a few eggs to make an omelet, even if that egg you crack is innocent .

      2. This post has been deleted by its author

        1. ph0b0s

          @Khaptain

          If they crack the HDD and find evidence why can they not arrest him again. Did not think double jeopardy applies if the charges are dropped, before the end of the case. It is only if a jury finds him innocent that you cannot retry him on the same evidence for the same charge. If you have new evidence, I am not aware of any reason not to charge him. Then you even add the charge of possession of child porn where at the moment he is charged, I assume, with distribution.

          If there is not enough evidence the alleged criminal gets to walk, even if an alleged paedo. There is not one justice system for alleged paedos and one for everyone else, as much as people might wish that was the case.

          And why you ass stand up for the rights of a alleged paedos? I do becuase I know these cases against paedos, are used as the thin end of the wedge, to set bad precedent that will be used against everyone else accused of a crime. This something most calling for blood seem to miss....

        2. Criminny Rickets

          Re: Kiddie Porn and Speeding

          @Khaptain

          The guy may not necessarily walk away as you put it. If my understanding of US law is correct, once the investigation has started full swing, the police have so much time to bring the person to trial, which I believe is 7 years, but again, could be wrong. As the guy doesn't have to give up his keys, this just means the police have to try other ways. They could try and get an agency to decrypt the drives, so in 5 months when they do, then there's your evidence to bring him to trial. Alternately, put a stakeout on the guy when he goes and checks into different hotels. There is probable cause that the guy would do it again, so they should have no problem getting a warrant that says they can enter his hotel room when they see the same type of videos being uploaded to Youtube from this hotel. They quickly enter the room while he is sending files, and before he had time to lock his hard drives down again, and thus is caught in the act. No more worries about 5th Amendment rights.

          1. kain preacher

            Re: Re: Kiddie Porn and Speeding

            From the time the charge him they have 180 days to bring him to trial.

            For possession of child porn they have up to 20 years to bring charges from the original date of the crime .

        3. ph0b0s

          @Khaptain, one last thing on your comment

          "The facts in this case are pretty damned strong in relation to this guy being guilty."

          If the 'facts' are so 'stong' they should be able to convict on those 'facts' alone, without having to force him to cooperate in convicting himself. It's not the suspect's job, but the police / prosecution's, to gather good enough evidence. If they cannot due to technology etc, it is their problem not the suspects.

          It may mean law enforcement needs their own versions of NSA supercomputers to break encryption. In the same way police needed faster squad cars to catch criminals in fast cars. They did not change the way the justice system works, just becuase criminals could literally out run the law. It is all a money issue where authorities would rather erode freedoms, than resource their law enforcement properly.

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.