(June 25, 2016 at 4:19 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(June 25, 2016 at 12:28 pm)Bella Morte Wrote: From the article:


If that isn't suspicious, I don't know what is.

Freenet is used to exchange all sorts of things, most of which are completely legal.

I'm aware. But you're ignoring the search terms generally associated with child pornography. Listen, I'm probably one of the biggest advocates for increased privacy here but this guy is dodgy.

(June 25, 2016 at 4:22 pm)Bella Morte Wrote:

(June 25, 2016 at 4:19 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Freenet is used to exchange all sorts of things, most of which are completely legal.

I'm aware. But you're ignoring the search terms generally associated with child pornography. Listen, I'm probably one of the biggest advocates for increased privacy here but this guy is dodgy.

How does anyone know if the search terms were entered by him?  The vast, vast majority of home PCs are very insecure, and it easy to imagine someone, anyone, gaining access to the guy's apartment and then doing "who knows what?!"  In fact, unless you've encrypted your entire hard drive, it would take a knowledgeable person only a few minutes to gain access to your PC, just by booting off a USB thumb drive and then running a Windows password crack program.  As most people's passwords use simple names, it would only take a few minutes to gain access; if not, some key reader hardware could be easily installed to capture their password for later retrieval.

Point is that it is very easy to frame someone for possessing child pornography, and for that matter, installing malware or botnets that can be used later on to email bomb threats or to use as proxies for other illegal activities and/or downloads.  Likewise, it is possible to have a self-uninstall mechanism on these types of malware, so that they uninstall themselves, leaving no trace whatsoever of their existence.

(June 25, 2016 at 1:44 pm)Tiberius Wrote: The way I see it -- and perhaps I'm alone in this line of thinking -- presumption of innocence is important, and so is the fifth amendment.

Forcing the accused to unlock a laptop with a password for the purposes of an investigation, if that laptop contains incriminating information, is self incrimination. The test for self-incrimination should be "could the police have obtained that exact piece of evidence without the help of the accused?" If the answer is "yes", then it is not incrimination.

I would rather see 1,000,000 guilty people go free, that sacrifice the 5th amendment and presumption of innocence.

I agree with you in this line of thinking. The problem is that in our legal system, the presumption of innocence is a nice myth and the fifth amendment means nothing in the face if getting re-elected which they need lots of convictions for.

(June 25, 2016 at 4:51 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(June 25, 2016 at 4:22 pm)Bella Morte Wrote: I'm aware. But you're ignoring the search terms generally associated with child pornography. Listen, I'm probably one of the biggest advocates for increased privacy here but this guy is dodgy.

How does anyone know if the search terms were entered by him?  The vast, vast majority of home PCs are very insecure, and it easy to imagine someone, anyone, gaining access to the guy's apartment and then doing "who knows what?!"  In fact, unless you've encrypted your entire hard drive, it would take a knowledgeable person only a few minutes to gain access to your PC, just by booting off a USB thumb drive and then running a Windows password crack program.  As most people's passwords use simple names, it would only take a few minutes to gain access; if not, some key reader hardware could be easily installed to capture their password for later retrieval.

Point is that it is very easy to frame someone for possessing child pornography, and for that matter, installing malware or botnets that can be used later on to email bomb threats or to use as proxies for other illegal activities and/or downloads.  Likewise, it is possible to have a self-uninstall mechanism on these types of malware, so that they uninstall themselves, leaving no trace whatsoever of their existence.

Again, you're talking to someone interested in that kind of thing. From the article, it suggests he wasn't using Windows so your point about Windows USB cracking programs is right out the window. It could be possible that the terms weren't entered by him, but it's extremely unlikely and the Feds can hold him under probable cause. Quite rightfully so, too.

Quote:Likewise, it is possible to have a self-uninstall mechanism on these types of malware, so that they uninstall themselves, leaving no trace whatsoever of their existence.

That's an excellent excuse for paedophiles to use when caught. "It was a virus!"

Aye, alright mate.  

(June 25, 2016 at 5:00 pm)Bella Morte Wrote:

(June 25, 2016 at 4:51 pm)Jehanne Wrote: How does anyone know if the search terms were entered by him?  The vast, vast majority of home PCs are very insecure, and it easy to imagine someone, anyone, gaining access to the guy's apartment and then doing "who knows what?!"  In fact, unless you've encrypted your entire hard drive, it would take a knowledgeable person only a few minutes to gain access to your PC, just by booting off a USB thumb drive and then running a Windows password crack program.  As most people's passwords use simple names, it would only take a few minutes to gain access; if not, some key reader hardware could be easily installed to capture their password for later retrieval.

Point is that it is very easy to frame someone for possessing child pornography, and for that matter, installing malware or botnets that can be used later on to email bomb threats or to use as proxies for other illegal activities and/or downloads.  Likewise, it is possible to have a self-uninstall mechanism on these types of malware, so that they uninstall themselves, leaving no trace whatsoever of their existence.

Again, you're talking to someone interested in that kind of thing. From the article, it suggests he wasn't using Windows so your point about Windows USB cracking programs is right out the window. It could be possible that the terms weren't entered by him, but it's extremely unlikely and the Feds can hold him under probable cause. Quite rightfully so, too.

Quote:Likewise, it is possible to have a self-uninstall mechanism on these types of malware, so that they uninstall themselves, leaving no trace whatsoever of their existence.

That's an excellent excuse for paedophiles to use when caught. "It was a virus!"

Aye, alright mate.  

I mentioned "Windows" realizing that he had a Mac, and I did that because most home computers are running Windows, and my concerns is not with this guy per se, but our civil liberties in general.  Of course, the same trick that works with Windows will also work with OS X.

(June 25, 2016 at 1:02 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(June 25, 2016 at 12:00 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Can't this guy plead the 5th?

Exactly, extracting a password from a suspect is a form of self-incrimination, it seelms to me.

I would argue that it's more like demanding access to a house via a locked door once you have a search warrant. The fifth amendment isn't about keeping the government from getting into places where you hide stuff (that's the 4th and 6th). Rather, it's more or less about the government not being allowed to force you to say what's in your *brain.

(June 25, 2016 at 4:57 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:

(June 25, 2016 at 1:44 pm)Tiberius Wrote: The way I see it -- and perhaps I'm alone in this line of thinking -- presumption of innocence is important, and so is the fifth amendment.

Forcing the accused to unlock a laptop with a password for the purposes of an investigation, if that laptop contains incriminating information, is self incrimination. The test for self-incrimination should be "could the police have obtained that exact piece of evidence without the help of the accused?" If the answer is "yes", then it is not incrimination.

I would rather see 1,000,000 guilty people go free, that sacrifice the 5th amendment and presumption of innocence.

I agree with you in this line of thinking. The problem is that in our legal system, the presumption of innocence is a nice myth and the fifth amendment means nothing in the face if getting re-elected which they need lots of convictions for.

See my comment above; I think this is a misinterpretation of the fifth amendment. An officer can force you to let them in your house if they have a warrant. So too can the officer force you to let them into your computer if they have a warrant. This is like saying "having to hand an officer a key to your storage space is self-incrimination for fifth amendment purposes." (Edited to add: if it's not clear, such an argument is specious) The password (like the key) isn't what's incriminating; it's whatever physical stuff is in the computer (storage space).

The fifth amendment is wayyyyy less expansive than most people think. TV has something to do with that.

(June 25, 2016 at 11:22 am)Jehanne Wrote: He's accused of having kiddie porn, but says that he can't remember the passwords to his drives:

http://www.geek.com/news/feds-want-to-ke...e-1655449/

But, let's say that he has truly forgotten his passwords (it's happened to me before), or, he (as I posted in the top comment) deliberately created "spoof" drives to deceive the police and/or others into thinking that he had something "naughty" on those drives when, in fact, they contain nothing but gibberish.

Should a man be jailed for "refusing" to hand over to the Feds a password that he does not know?

   I'll laugh the Feds out of court and bitch slap them with the 6th Amendment on the way out.

(June 25, 2016 at 6:08 pm)TheRealJoeFish Wrote:

(June 25, 2016 at 4:57 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: I agree with you in this line of thinking. The problem is that in our legal system, the presumption of innocence is a nice myth and the fifth amendment means nothing in the face if getting re-elected which they need lots of convictions for.

See my comment above; I think this is a misinterpretation of the fifth amendment. An officer can force you to let them in your house if they have a warrant. So too can the officer force you to let them into your computer if they have a warrant. This is like saying "having to hand an officer a key to your storage space is self-incrimination for fifth amendment purposes." (Edited to add: if it's not clear, such an argument is specious) The password (like the key) isn't what's incriminating; it's whatever physical stuff is in the computer (storage space).

The fifth amendment is wayyyyy less expansive than most people think. TV has something to do with that.

Let's say that the guy is telling the truth, if only for a hypothetical scenario; in this case, he does not know the password.  How could he possibly give the cops something that he does not have access to?

(June 25, 2016 at 12:00 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Can't this guy plead the 5th?

5th grade? Sounds about right.