Skip to comments.
So Much For The Fifth Amendment: Man Jailed For Seven Months For Not Turning Over Password
Tech Dirt ^
| 28 April 2016
| Tim Cushing
Posted on 05/03/2016 8:45:34 AM PDT by Lorianne
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-31 last
To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...
21
posted on
05/03/2016 10:08:28 AM PDT
by
SunkenCiv
(Here's to the day the forensics people scrape what's left of Putin off the ceiling of his limo.)
To: taxcontrol
Im with you on this one. No 4th violation as there is a legal warrant. However, being required to supply evidence to the prosecution does seem to violate the 5th. Even if a clever lawyer can win the argument that it doesn't violate the letter of the 5th, it still violates the spirit of the 5th. Compelling someone to actively assist in their own prosecution is sufficiently distasteful that it should be out of bounds regardless of legalistic quibbling.
22
posted on
05/03/2016 10:23:35 AM PDT
by
Pollster1
(Somebody who agrees with me 80% of the time is a friend and ally, not a 20% traitor. - Ronald Reagan)
To: thoughtomator
Rather perverse that a man can be jailed for refusing to cooperate with his own prosecution.I think it illustrates the depth to which our legal systems has fallen pretty well.
23
posted on
05/03/2016 10:31:08 AM PDT
by
zeugma
(Woohoo! It looks like I'll get to vote for an abrasive clown for president!)
To: Pollster1
They are purposely trying to force him to incriminate himself: "ANYTHING you say can AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU IN A COURT OF LAW!"
If he is guilty it us up to the prosecution to prove it, "beyond a reasonable doubt". It is not up to the accused to do "the States" job for them. If they want it unlocked... let them do it themselves.
24
posted on
05/03/2016 10:33:05 AM PDT
by
Jmouse007
(Lord God Almighty, deliver us from this evil in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, amen.)
To: Lorianne
So, he was not jailed for not turning over his password, as the lying headline says.
This is like opening a safe. If the court can order someone to open a safe (search done with warrant), then they can order someone to decrypt data.
He was jailed for not complying with the search warrant (court order).
Headlines should not aim for sensationalism, but for a clear statement of the facts.
25
posted on
05/03/2016 10:35:02 AM PDT
by
I want the USA back
(The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it. Orwell.)
To: Lorianne
What happened to his fifth amendment protection against self-incrimination? Let the state find some other way to convict him.
-PJ
26
posted on
05/03/2016 10:37:01 AM PDT
by
Political Junkie Too
(If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
To: drypowder
To be technical the poor bozo violated his parole.
To: I want the USA back
So the penalty for not complying with the search order is to be jailed forever? Seems disproportionate at first glance.
To: Pollster1
How about water-boarding him until he spills the password? It’s not torture, after all... /s?
29
posted on
05/03/2016 11:01:23 AM PDT
by
Moltke
(Reasoning with a liberal is like watering a rock in the hope to grow a building)
To: I want the USA back
So, he was not jailed for not turning over his password, as the lying headline says.
This is like opening a safe. If the court can order someone to open a safe (search done with warrant), then they can order someone to decrypt data.
He was jailed for not complying with the search warrant (court order).
Headlines should not aim for sensationalism, but for a clear statement of the facts.
_____________________________________________________
Wrong!
Courts have already decided that you don't have to unlock a door or a safe, the prosecution can break the door down with whatever means they want when they have a warrant however. The same is true here, they have the drive(s) let them have at it. If there was a code that you kept your personal notes in could you be required to decrypt it, heavens no, that would be self incrimination. I say he should keep his mouth shut even if he is a pervert. Let the law figure it out.
Our 1st 10 amendments have already been watered down too much.
30
posted on
05/03/2016 11:38:48 AM PDT
by
JAKraig
(my religion is at least as good as yours)
To: Lorianne
In addition to strong encryption, we need devices that you can set up with two passwords. The one that locks the device, and the one that shreds everything immediately, perhaps even physically torching the drive.
31
posted on
05/03/2016 12:25:27 PM PDT
by
BlueMondaySkipper
(Involuntarily subsidizing the parasite class since 1981)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-31 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson