1. 11

Follow up to previous post: https://lobste.rs/s/9vxips/child_porn_suspect_jailed_indefinitely

Ordinarily I wouldn’t bother with a new post, but there’s been a new development in the proceedings: the suspect now claims to have forgotten the password.

  1.  

  2. 5

    I’m glad Ars linked the briefs, they’re compelling reading. I don’t know how long the link is good for, but here’s the judge’s decision (Ars’s link was only to the first page). I really don’t know enough to read the implications, it seems like reason 4 is the important one - the defendant didn’t explicitly say they forgot in the face of the government’s demand. Maybe that was an oversight, maybe there’s a legal reason not to do so, like avoiding questioning. As there isn’t a criminal proceeding, the defendant’s 5th Amendment right to self-incrimination might be limited.

    1. 4

      Cynically, I think this is the best outcome for the government: it sounds as if they have a strong circumstantial case that the suspect does have child porn on the drives, and that they know child porn is on the drives.

      Therefore, forcing decryption furthers the needle towards key disclosure. There’s no downside: a judgement for the government strengthens the all writs act, a judgement against them means the government proceeds with prosecution without the files.

      1. 1

        Isn’t this a slippery slope though, if we have a bank robber that doesn’t use a mask, hides the money and gets caught. Is it right to hold them indefinitely until they tell the police where they hid it?

        1. 1

          That would be an interesting case. Since it is “inevitable” that the police conclude the robber took the money, perhaps they can. That said, the police haven’t asked for the password, only that he produce a decrypted copy of the data. So that’s like demanding the robber return the money, without telling where it was hidden.