Defendant Ordered to Decrypt Laptop May Have Forgotten Password

[03trubluGT]

Exactly right.

I can refuse to open the laptop, and they can call in whatever the hell they want.

Not my problem if they can't get into it. I won't incriminate myself by opening it for them.

I still say that the NSA/FBI can get passed encryption.

[03trubluGT]

You can't argue with the cops man. Everyone's a criminal, and the and the jacked up system is always right. Even though by design its subject to change. And I like how stupid they are when they ask people why they carry a gun. I can't even count the times I've had some sheriff/cop/HIpo ask me that over the course of my life. Its written all over their face, that they ask cause they're piss scared of being shot, even though they opted for the job. Yet they don't realize that if we lose our guns... guess who is next. They're so hypocritical. They'd prefer we not have guns, yet they damn sure want one to defend their own life. And then on top of all this, they wonder why average (non-criminals) people don't like them. This is why I'm still an advocate of an IQ test for any would be LEO, as well as paying them much more than they currently make. Like double or even triple.

[sc281]

I still say that the NSA/FBI can get passed encryption.

okay, then why aren't they doing it?

[ThreeFingerPete]

This would be far from trampling of someone's rights. Would you rather a person maintain the right to victimize you or someone you love?

We have rights for a reason, Matt! Just because a crime was committed, that doesn't give away those rights. Otherwise, people would be violated without any recourse, because we'd have effectively given up those rights for the sake of better investigation and prosecution of crimes.

I do hope that if she's guilty, then she's found guilty. I hope that they can recover the contents of the drive, and that she will be punished for any crimes that she may have committed. I will not for a moment entertain the idea that it's worth setting a dangerous precedent of steamrolling people's constitutional rights to do so.

[Forever_frost]

We have rights for a reason, Matt! Just because a crime was committed, that doesn't give away those rights. Otherwise, people would be violated without any recourse, because we'd have effectively given up those rights for the sake of better investigation and prosecution of crimes.

I do hope that if she's guilty, then she's found guilty. I hope that they can recover the contents of the drive, and that she will be punished for any crimes that she may have committed. I will not for a moment entertain the idea that it's worth setting a dangerous precedent of steamrolling people's constitutional rights to do so.

I agree. Forcing her to unlock her computer is a violation of the 5th. If you allow this, what's next? Police demanding you to unlock your trunk because they think you may be guilty of something at some point?

[03trubluGT]

We have rights for a reason, Matt! Just because a crime was committed, that doesn't give away those rights. Otherwise, people would be violated without any recourse, because we'd have effectively given up those rights for the sake of better investigation and prosecution of crimes.

I do hope that if she's guilty, then she's found guilty. I hope that they can recover the contents of the drive, and that she will be punished for any crimes that she may have committed. I will not for a moment entertain the idea that it's worth setting a dangerous precedent of steamrolling people's constitutional rights to do so.

This whole argument revolves around what side of the argument you are on.

So, how is this one case going to open Pandora's Box?

[Forever_frost]

This whole argument revolves around what side of the argument you are on.

So, how is this one case going to open Pandora's Box?

By setting a precedent that the court can order you to unlock your computer or unlock anything if you've been accused of a crime. It's ordering you to testify against yourself. If they want to hack it fine, but making her do it? 5th amendment

[03trubluGT]

By setting a precedent that the court can order you to unlock your computer or unlock anything if you've been accused of a crime. It's ordering you to testify against yourself. If they want to hack it fine, but making her do it? 5th amendment

They are going to get it one way or the other.

When is the last time the Govt took "no" for an answer???

[racrguy]

They are going to get it one way or the other.

When is the last time the Govt took "no" for an answer???

The difference being the government ordering someone to give them the information to incriminate themselves and the government doing actual investigating and gathering the information that way.

[Forever_frost]

They are going to get it one way or the other.

When is the last time the Govt took "no" for an answer???

Following this train of thought, you really think you should be able to kick in someone's door on a hunch right? Afterall, when was the last time you took a closed door for an answer?

[line-em-up]

....

I still say that the NSA/FBI can get passed encryption.

From past experience with them, I wonder whether are truly capable of it.

[crapstang]

Lady: "I don't recal...."
Authorita': "ahh fuckkkk youuuuuu"

[SMEGMA STENCH]

This whole argument revolves around what side of the argument you are on.

So, how is this one case going to open Pandora's Box?

How is any one case ever going to do that? Maybe you'll learn one day when its you on the other end of it. You know, you won't be a cop forever. And maybe some day some cop says he had cause, on you.

[ThreeFingerPete]

They are going to get it one way or the other.

When is the last time the Govt took "no" for an answer???

I posted a response, but it apparently isn't here. Oh well. Nobody is saying that they shouldn't go get it. Forcing you to give it to them is not the same thing.

[Geor!]

They are going to get it one way or the other.

When is the last time the Govt took "no" for an answer???

Well let's all lay down then.