Topic: Judge Orders Defendant to Decrypt Laptop - page 2. (Read 5631 times)

We are actually in agreement.  No-one should be forced to testify against themselves.  And no-one should be allowed to obstruct justice by hiding evidence.  What I can see from your replies is that you didn't read the article.


"The judge in the Colorado case said there was plenty of evidence — a jailhouse recording of the defendant — that the laptop might contain information the authorities were seeking.

The judge ordered Fricosu to surrender an unencrypted hard drive by Feb. 21. The judge added that the government is precluded “from using Ms. Fricosu’s act of production of the unencrypted hard drive against her in any prosecution.”"

Ramona Fricosu has the trading history on her laptop so she has to give access to it.  She has been offered immunity for parts of the contents of the laptop but they do need to get the details of her mortgage applications. 

You're still presuming guilt.

If someone legitimately can't remember some fact that is required to prove their guilt, then you don't KNOW they're guilty. You shouldn't be compelling him to be a witness against himself. That's not justice.

If someone legitimately can't remember some fact that isn't required to prove their guilt, then why not prove their guilt without it? Compelling him to be a witness against himself when it's not necessary isn't justice.

If you do prove it, and they still legitimately can't remember, say, the code to a vault full of money, then what are you going to do? Keep them in jail for the rest of their life? That's not justice either.

You're advocating for a methodology that is guaranteed to hurt innocent people, AND to overpunish guilty people.

That's not a just methodology.

You really believe that if someone steals something from you, its wrong to insist he returns it ?  You have strange ideas of what justice is.


Generally, judges are very slow to lock people up before a conviction takes place.  The example that comes to mind is Judith Miller who took 5 months in jail before she talked.  But if the judge is convinced you are its "won't" not "can't" he does have the power to lock you up.

How can the judge arrive at this opinion? Does he administer a polygraph, or does he just assume that if I remembered it before, I remember it now?

Again: that's not justice.

You shouldn't.

Now if you are in court and the judge is of the opinion you are lying about "forgetting," you can expect to remain in jail until your memory improves. 

If I've forgotten where I left the garage door opener, how long should I wait in jail?

Maybe you need to take a step back and think things through.  You have a right to not to incriminate yourself so if a policeman says "Did you steal this car?" you can refuse to answer.  But you don't have a right to hide stuff you have stolen.  If a policeman says "I want to look in your garage for the stolen car." and he has a court order, you have to allow him into the garage.

Does that make it clear enough?

Clear enough?

Regarding this whole innocent until proven guilty or the other way around, how about we just leave it up to the individuals involved, but imprisoning an innocent person is punishable by the same imprisonment. It's not right at all for someone to be more reckless with another persons freedom than they would be with their own. Not just judges either, working for a facility that uses rules that lets them jail innocents is recklessly negligent. Maybe you can't check out the history of everyone who is locked down, but can certainly look and see if the procedure can lead to false imprisonment and determine if it's likely enough that you'll take the risk yourself.

I'm a little concerned that the point of that exchange flew right past you.

If the guy really did hide lots of keys (to what, who knows) it's entirely plausible: What if the guy REALLY DIDN'T REMEMBER?

Let's even say it's visibly probable that he's guilty. But the prosecutor wants proof that the $1000 was stashed away just to convince the jury.

Theft of $1000 is... what, under a year in jail? Maybe 6 months?

But the guy gets sent to jail indefinitely because he can't remember something? That's the BS part. Whether or not the judge believes him is irrelevant. The proper principle is innocent until proven guilty, so that we let the guilty go before we trample upon the innocent. And if that judge can't prove the guy really DOES remember, then the very real possibility exists that an innocent person is about to get screwed.

I recently came across a stash of... precious assets that I had squirreled away, and forgotten about. Had someone asked me about it, I wouldn't even remember, never mind recall the location. It sure would have sucked had that location been deemed an important enough part of some case that a judge would have tried to order me to disclose it.

"Your honor, I seriously, *seriously* don't remember!" (Said with a don't-give-a-flip shrug and grin because, really, I don't, and nothing can change that fact, but I can already see where this is going, so screw it.)

"That stash was worth $XXX! That smirk on your face tells me you're just lying. Well, maybe you'll just sit and decide how long you want to stay in jail while your memory comes back. Take him away!"

That's not justice. In no sense of the word.

I too enjoy red heads. but remember, you give em your key, and there are redheads in prison, and they aint ladies

Well, since I really don't have massive secrets on my laptop. I'll hold out for a BJ from a cute Red Headed Woman. Blondes also accepted.

15 minute minimum.

Russia discovered that in the Cold War, screw torture and money, just give them sex.

anyone will say anything to make torture stop, so that would be a fairly unreliable and archaic way to get information. Now Sodium Pentothal, that would probably do the trick, while violating my human rights at the same time. Its the American Way!

nah they'll just tourcher you. 

Your choice to change "human rights" to "human rights law", and then call it a facade, is quite telling.  

Do you not believe in any right against self-incrimination at all, or do you believe it just does not apply to the location of damning evidence? I'm arguing for a negative right (to remain silent), not for a positive right (to steal or hide evidence).

At first, I thought you might have been from an odd country. Now, I am thinking... are you an Alien?


Yes, you don't have the right to steal stuff but thieves exist. Your premise is that the thief must, once stolen something, take it to the authorities and provide all evidence of what he has done. I presume, you also want him to put himself in the jail, lock the door, and throw away the key.

I again point to the fact that I can accuse you (falsely), and you must provide me with what ever is needed to prove that you did it. You obviously don't mind authorities rummaging through not only you physical belongings but your memories too.

But if you live in such a utopian world where thieves turn themselves in and provide all evidence against themselves, don't let anybody know where it is cause their will be a lot of criminals headed there.

You don't have a human right to steal stuff. If you have stolen stuff, you don't have a human right to hide the evidence.  Your whole outlook seems to be based on the idea that one can steal stuff and then hide behind a façade of human rights law.  Thats not the case.

I Dunno. It's pretty scary upstairs for this guy! I'd hate to see what they dig up as my ghost watches in horror

lol,

 I am sure their is a government sponsored biology lab somewhere working on that for a $1 Billion Grant. It wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Perhaps one should have read the noob tutorials on the bitcointalk.org forums about securing your wallet, as the government will tell you you're SOL on getting your coins back. They want my passwords, they can pry them from my cold dead brain matter.