Re: In child porn case, a digital dilemma

On Jan 17, 3:24 pm, xxxxxxxxx...@xxxxxxxxxxx (XXX) wrote:
"tiny dancer" <tinydancer...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wil...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.01.17.06.34.15@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 05:42:36 +0000, Chocolic wrote:

"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wil...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.01.17.00.40.48@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:19:28 -0500, tiny dancer wrote:

"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wil...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
messagenews:pan.2008.01.16.19.24.31@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:34:14 -0500, tiny dancer wrote:

In child porn case, a digital dilemma

U.S. seeks to force suspect to reveal password to computer files
By Ellen Nakashima
The Washington Post
updated 2:23 a.m. ET, Wed., Jan. 16, 2008 The federal government
is asking a U.S. District Court in Vermont to order a man to type
a password that would unlock files on his computer, despite his
claim that doing so would constitute self-incrimination.

Very interesting.  This problem has fascinated me for years.  I
once posted a riff about it on Usenet...

http://groups.google.com/group/seattle.general/msg/a16ee5575c15ccfd
? dmode=source

I think this guy is clearly protected by the 5th Amendment, and I
hope the courts continue to take that line.  At the same time, I
recognize the problem this poses for law enforcement, and for
society in general.

Charlie

I just can't get past this file name    ** "Two-year-old being raped
during diaper change,"***

How does one get past that?  Especially after reading here about
more than one instance of stings that involved *Live* online rapes
of children hosted by their parents/step-parents, etc.  Sort of 'pay
per views'.  How can we as society protect these poor, helpless,
defenseless children?

It's a good question for which there are no really good answers, only
messy compromises.  On the one hand, we as a society believe people
are entitled to privacy.  On the other hand, certain crimes can only
be stopped by invading someone's privacy.  I'm not sure how to strike
the balance, but I do believe people should be protected against
self- incrimination.
<snippage>
Charlie

Why is that?  If you committed a crime, especially something as
horrendous as raping a baby in a diaper, or any kind of crime
actually, why should you be protected against
self-incrimination.....if you committed a crime?  I don't understand
that at all.  I know you have that protection, I just don't friggin
understand it.

Chocolic

These rights exist to protect the public from abuses of authority.
Let's suppose this encrypted file is not child pornography, and instead
it is email correspondence that would show he is having an extramarital
affair.  Let's further suppose the guy is someone who has accused the
governor of some kind of corruption.  The governor might tell the state
troopers, "pull that guy over or raid his house so you can look through
his stuff and dig up some dirt I can use to shut him up."  Things like
this really happen, and have happened throughout history.  So the laws
of civilized countries specify some basic rights... the authorities
have to get warrant to search private property, they can't force
someone to testify against himself, they have to show probable cause
when they detain someone, etc.  It's understandable that people get
frustrated when those legal rights allow criminals to go free.  But I
think most Americans would not want to take our chances with the legal
system in countries that don't have a strong tradition of individual
liberties.

Charlie

Okay, while not the same, this example, I think, is similar in nature.
Here in N.C. we had an unsolved murder case.  The Eric Miller murder.
One of the suspects, prior to committing suicide, had spoken to his
lawyer.  The prosecution appealed this case through the state supreme
court IIRC.  After the death of one of the suspects, the DA wanted to
know if he implicated the other suspect prior to his committing suicide.
I'm paring this all down to the basics.  The ruling was that the judge
could look at the portion of the attorney's records to see if and what
was in there that could implicate the accomplice.  The dead guy was the
lover of the murdered guys wife.  It was well known the wife had killed
her husband, the only thing lacking was some bit of direct evidence to
nail her.  Once these records were unsealed, and the judge allowed a
certain portion of them to be used at trial, the wife cut a plea deal.

Personally, I think the judge acted badly, here.  But regardless, I am sure
that a MAJOR part of the argument was that the person who committed suicide
could not be harmed in anyway by the release of this information.  While he
would be incriminating himself (or really, the lawyer would be
incriminating him; the defendant still was never forced to actually
incriminate himself) there still would not be a consequence for the
defendant.  That is NOT the case, here.  The person is being asked to
incriminate himself.

I'm not suggesting this person with the computer be forced to have anyone
and everyone examine his files, but I don't see why a judge couldn't be
appointed to check out just the pertinent file/s to see if there are
criminal activities on there and if there is a child/children at risk
right now.

Because that information can be used against the computer owner -
self-incrimination.  And why should only children have this protection?  I
am pretty offended that my life, my wife's life, the life of my sister and
my friends, would not be worth as much as the life of a child.  I pay
taxes, my wife, my sister, my friends, ALL pay taxes!!!  You find me a
toddler paying taxes and then we will talk!



We ALL pay taxes in their behalf. Please don't run for any political
office. Thanx for playing.




td- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Relevant Pages

  • Court of Appeal rules no defence for refusing to hand over decryption keys
    ... The Court of Appeal has ruled that someone refusing to hand over decryption keys, having been served with a s49 Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act notice, can be prosecuted, notwithstanding the protections which exist in the UK against self incrimination. ... The whole thing hinges on the right to avoid self incrimination not being an absolute right - a number of exceptions are quoted in the decision - and the appellants being terrorist suspects, whose application to avoid handing over the decryption keys, according to the judges, proceeded on the assumption that what would be uncovered in the decryption would indeed be incriminating evidence. ... However without the encryption keys for the encrypted files present on the computer hard drives, and indeed the full key for encrypted file on the laptop on which the encryption key appeared to have been already partially entered in Sheffield, the encrypted files could not be accessed and their contents examined. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • IL The law didnt save her
    ... She tried a court order. ... But Michael Giroux ... protections to domestic violence victims, ... violates an order of protection, the person is supposed to face legal ...
    (alt.true-crime)
  • Re: Space shuttles carry two tons of lead blocks to compensate for design error
    ... I believe the X-33 was cancelled for political purposes, ... Making the internet a true free-for-all. ... The US Supreme Court was very clear on that in their historic decision ... First Amendment protection. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Text of Second Order of Protection against Polgar and Truong
    ... RESPONDENT MOTHER MAY NOT INTERFERE OR DENY ... WRITTEN IN THE DIVORCE ORDER OR FAMILY COURT ORDER. ... It is further ordered that this Temporary Order Of Protection shall ... Federal law provides that this order must be honored and enforced by ...
    (rec.games.chess.politics)
  • Re: Text of Second Order of Protection against Polgar and Truong
    ... RESPONDENT MOTHER MAY NOT INTERFERE OR DENY ... WRITTEN IN THE DIVORCE ORDER OR FAMILY COURT ORDER. ... It is further ordered that this Temporary Order Of Protection shall ... Federal law provides that this order must be honored and enforced by ...
    (rec.games.chess.politics)
Loading