DOJ: We can force you to decrypt that laptop

why should we have laws to protect people that really do have something to hide
 
I would think that "Innocent until proven guilty" would be enough. For example, simply because I have "Nothing to hide" isn't enough to compel me to give up my safe combination.
 
Last edited:
moparlvr4406 said:
why should we have laws to protect people that really do have something to hide
Click to expand...

I wish all the "nothing to hide" people would go find a country they like the constitition of and move there and stop weakening the one we have.

The 4th amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The 5th amendment:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Seem pretty clear to me what the authors were trying to do; protect themselves and us from the tyranny of goverment. That is why we are not a democracy but a republic, founded on the rule of law. An unhealthy collaboration of "tough on crime" Conservatives and "nanny statist" Liberals have eroded our protections. Wake up people they always usurp the power for a nobel and reasonable sounding purpose, then turn that power on the people for their ends.

MM
 
Last edited:
I do totally agree with innocent until proven guilty but if one truely has nothing to hide
why not just remove all doubt by complying ??
 
MonacoMike said:
I wish all the "nothing to hide" people would go find a country they like the constitition of and move there and stop weakening the one we have.

The 4th amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The 5th amendment:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Seem pretty clear to me what the authors were trying to do; protect themselves and us from the tyranny of goverment. That is why we are not a democracy but a republic, founded on the rule of law. An unhealthy collaboration of "tough on crime" Conservatives and "nanny statist" Liberals have eroded our protections. Wake up people they always usurp the power for a nobel and reasonable sounding purpose, then turn that power on the people for their ends.

MM
Click to expand...
I would move there to get away from the liars and thieves that seem to have more rights and privileges than those of us that work for a living honestly
 
moparlvr4406 said:
why should we have laws to protect people that really do have something to hide
Click to expand...
moparlvr, it's because our Constitution prohibits it in the Fifth Amendment....
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "

This is an interesting case. The article linked to above mentions cases where people have been ordered to give blood, hair samples, etc., to be used to identify them as the person at a crime scene, or to verify their blood alcohol, etc. IMO, in those cases, the suspect is not being asked to speak anything that would be used to convict him, he's being ordered to give forensic evidence.

In this case, the accused is not being asked to speak her passphrase. They have told her she could enter the phrase to decrypt the computer.

Minor difference? Yes, but I bet the requet by the prosecution is denied.
 
That is kind of an interesting case. If law enforcement had a search warrant for any/all documents related to "x" and they came across a file cabinet that was locked, they could ask for the key or they could just break the lock. They are not interested in the lock, but, rather the data. I don't think that the defendant would have any challenge to the authorities breaking the lock. In this case, the data that they want is "locked" inside a computer and only the owner has a key. In my mind, if the owner gives up the key (the password), then it is self incrimination.
It looks to me like DOJ is just going to have to find some other way to get around that lock.
Tough luck, but, I have to agree with Mike. The bigger picture is the protection of everyones rights.
 
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself

if one has to witness against him/herself....would that not indicate guilt ????
 
It looks like this question, ie: can prosecutors force someone to give up something that is in their mind, has been batted around in the courts for at least the last fifteen years. The sticking point is if the government prosecution can force someone to physically enter the code without divulging it to the government as GFC pointed out. I can see how the government can take something from you such as your fingerprints or blood or saliva, but, forcing you to physically do something would seem to be a little overreaching.
It's irrelevant that the government did not learn the code, they would be getting access by someone giving up something that is locked in their mind.
 
Last edited:
moparlvr4406 said:
if one truely has nothing to hide why not just remove all doubt by complying ??
Click to expand...

Because unless they have gone through the proper steps, its none of their freakin business thats why! This is just another piece of bullsh!t that the Feds want see if they can get away with. Last month Obama said that we Catholics were going to have to provide, to our employees, insurance that covered birth control. Yeah right. I doubt he'll try to tell us what to do again.

Lets not forget...If the DOJ wants information from your computer, they don't need your silly little password.
 
moparlvr4406 said:
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself

if one has to witness against him/herself....would that not indicate guilt ????
Click to expand...

Jim, That is just what was being "assumed" in the times when the founders wrote the citizen protections into the constitution. Once government has that power they can later do things none of us would agree are good. So your competitor has some connection in government, you are accused of a trumped up charge, you "have nothing to hide" so just show all your private papers to them. and later your competitor can learn what you do. These provisions also keep government from engaging in a hunt for wrong-doing. If you have nothing to hide just put all you rprivate business out for ALL to see.

MM
 
mwph said:
Lets not forget...If the DOJ wants information from your computer, they don't need your silly little password.
Click to expand...

True, but they would need time. A 256-bit-key AES requiring 2[SUP]200[/SUP] operations (compared to 2[SUP]256[/SUP] possible keys) would still take far longer than the age of the universe to complete
 
This is a very thorny issue.


CROSE said:
I would think that "Innocent until proven guilty" would be enough. For example, simply because I have "Nothing to hide" isn't enough to compel me to give up my safe combination.
Click to expand...

You must, therefore, be a terrorist. If you were not a terrorist, you would have nothing to hide and you would gladly decrypt the computer. You communist pig!

mwph said:
Because unless they have gone through the proper steps, its none of their freakin business thats why! This is just another piece of bullsh!t that the Feds want see if they can get away with. Last month Obama said that we Catholics were going to have to provide, to our employees, insurance that covered birth control. Yeah right. I doubt he'll try to tell us what to do again.
Click to expand...

See. . . .first it is your computer data. . . .then it is being required to provide common perscription medications under a plan you are paying for.

See the slippery slope?

By the way. . . .as your insurance agent, cancer is proof that you have been smoking. I am morally opposed to smokers, and would never date a smoker. Therefore, we will not be covering any treatments for cancer under your insurance plan. What's that? Your Brain cancer isn't related to smoking? Are you *sure*? Why, it so happens that we purchased a study that says that smoking DOES cause brain cancer. The medical issue is in doubt. . but our morals are clear. Sorry for your misfortune.

moparlvr4406 said:
why should we have laws to protect people that really do have something to hide
Click to expand...

MonacoMike said:
I wish all the "nothing to hide" people would go find a country they like the constitition of and move there and stop weakening the one we have.
Click to expand...

You know what? I am COMPLETELY with Mike on this one. You are innocent until PROVEN guilty.
I am glad it has taken putting a Democrat in the white house for everyone to suddenly realize that Liberty and Freedom should not be sold for the sake of false security.


Now the QUOTES Mike provided of the Bill of Rights are interesting. So. . .if I have a written JOURNAL, are the police allowed to use it as evidence against me? From my viewpoint, the police cannot simple TAKE the journal if I decline to VOLUNTEER it. It's that whole due process thing. You are INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. Not GUILTY UPON SUSPICION.

But. . if policy a LEGITIMATE suspicion; and obtain a LEGITIMATE court ordered warrent to obtain evidience. . . .and you were dumb enough to detail your crimes in a journal. . . .then is not the journal fair game? Even if it is in a locked vault? I suspect the answer is yes.

Ah. . .but now what if your journal, which was obtained from your vault with a search warrent, was written in the mystic language of the long lost ancient gabouni tribe?

Under what obligation are you to translate the journal for your accusers? And. . .how is encrypted text on a computer different? That is a more delicate point.

Now. . if the police have an expert on the language of the long lost ancient gabouni tribe. . . . . or have a really good decryption program. . . .then I think the Terrorist Pinko Communist Democrat is out of luck.
 
Last edited:
comsnark, first of all, is it really necessary to call someone a communist pig, even if it was done in jest?

As to your question about the journal, having written many affidavits for search warrants, the typical language that goes into the affidavit includes "writings, papers, journals, notebooks, records both computerized and written, data stored on computer hard drives, zip drives, floppy drives, " etc. It's both time consuming and embarrassing to have to go back to a judge for an additional search warrant and say "Oh, your honor, I forgot to mention journals before so I had to get another search warrant."

As to the contents of a safe, if the good guys believe the bad guys have fruits of the crime or evidence of criminal activity in a safe or bank safety deposit box, that would be mentioned in the affidavit. If the bad guy doesn't want to give up the combination to the safe you take the safe to a locksmith or have the locksmith come to the place being searched to get it open. Banks are no problem. They'll open a safe deposit box in a heartbeat if you have a valid search warrant.
 
Gofirstclass said:
comsnark, first of all, is it really necessary to call someone a communist pig, even if it was done in jest?
Click to expand...

I see how that could be misread.

It was the suspected person who is not only a terrorist, but also the communist pig. Probably a Liberal to boot.

My apologies to Crose for the poor punctuation.
 
comsnark said:
You know what? I am COMPLETELY with Mike on this one. You are innocent until PROVEN guilty.
I am glad it has taken putting a Democrat in the white house for everyone to suddenly realize that Liberty and Freedom should not be sold for the sake of false security.
Click to expand...

For the record I have always believed Liberty and Freedom must be fought for every day to maintain them from those that would do-gooder away our rights. The "Patriot Act" is something no founding father would support.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin, 1775


MM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,182
Messages
1,428,060
Members
61,088
Latest member
SGT LAT
Back
Top