Man jailed over computer password refusal

reply to post by spikey


Sure a lot of cops are good people. It is mostly at a higher level that corruption occurs - this is what I have experienced and far from defending my legal rights these ones supported the illegal activities of others both in the City Council and private sector but that is getting away from the topic.
Who knows what the truth of this story is -
It is sheer foolishness to blindly trust any authority

Wouldn't it be same as witholding information? plus if he had nothing to hide shouldn't he just give the password? this will just make people more suspicious

oops double post

Once he gives them his password they'll be able to plant whatever they want - then he'll definitely be guilty won't he...

It is a smart decision not cooperating. By doing that, they would surely 'find' something and his refusal is preventing the police state from planting that.

Our legal system allows for people to be held indefinitely on a judge's order if someone does not turn over something. It is a legal term that essentially means that the accused/imprisoned holds the keys to their own freedom.

There was a case where a man was in jail for 14 years for not turning over hidden money that was awarded to his ex-wife in a divorce. Another where a man who embezzled funds was required to "Turn over" the money when in fact he had spent it all, and he no longer had it. I believe he is still in jail to this day and it has been many years.

Both of them are in jail for no other reason than they refused to hand something over. Although the guy who embezzled funds claims he has nothing to hand over so he can never 'release himself' from prison.

Our legal system has ways of forcing people to talk, and they do it through duress, torture, and other force of coercion.

Originally posted by TheNewKid
Wouldn't it be same as witholding information? plus if he had nothing to hide shouldn't he just give the password? this will just make people more suspicious

It would only be withholding information if; the police had proof that a crime had in fact been committed. What is on his hard drive is private, privileged information, and not for the police to look through any time they want.

Originally posted by autowrench

It would only be withholding information if; the police had proof that a crime had in fact been committed. What is on his hard drive is private, privileged information, and not for the police to look through any time they want.

Actually the legal standard for search is "reasonable suspicion" not proof. Information obtained by complaint, as is the case here, is legal grounds for "reasonable suspicion".

~Heff

Originally posted by Expat888
He was arrested on child sexual exploitation charges.. He doesnt deserve sympathy and is getting off way too lightly...

edit on 6-10-2010 by Expat888 because: Clarification

Ya he sure is.. cause you know no one accused is ever innocent. Lets string him up, because he's been accused of a crime. This is why there is a judicial system. ANYONE can be accused of a crime, it doesn't make you guilty.

Now in fairness, I don't know the particulars of this event, but the above comment is completely inane. If you knew how easy it was to put material on your computer, and then accuse you of distributing it, you would be a lot more careful about who you strung up.

..Ex

i am willing to bet since he is 16 then he has pictures of his 16 year old girlfriend. and they are the goverment you mean they can't blow through a 50 key encryption wow. doesn't scotland yard have a computer crime division or for that matter interpol or mi5

Originally posted by Hefficide

This is an interesting bit of law here!

A computer is a physical device and, as such, is open to reasonable search and seizure. The law won't look at binary data as an extension of thought, but rather as evidence stored within a physical device.

In that regard, withholding a password is no different than refusing to give the police the key to, say, a shed or a storage unit. Keys are not considered protected by self-incrimination law.

~Heff

That's not exactly true. There are several cases that hold that the act of production can be testimonial, and, as such, covered by the Fifth Amendment.
For example, a subpoena requesting the production of "any recods you might have showing the payment for heroin shipments could probably be successfully resisted since producing them would show you kept such records.

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

That's not exactly true. There are several cases that hold that the act of production can be testimonial, and, as such, covered by the Fifth Amendment.
For example, a subpoena requesting the production of "any recods you might have showing the payment for heroin shipments could probably be successfully resisted since producing them would show you kept such records.

The fifth amendment is a protection against self incrimination, but withholding physical evidence cannot be construed as an exercise of a fifth amendment right. If subpoenaed to provide known documents, one must provide those documents or be prepared to face criminal penalty.

I am not familiar with any case where a subpoena duces tecum was successfully countered by a fifth amendment argument. If you are aware of such, please provide a link to information as I would be very curious in reading the ruling.

~Heff

reply to post by Expat888

what if you or i discovered evidence of a conspiracy one night by using a pc ? then locked it safe in a file .next day the door come off and we got arrested, friends and nieghbours were told a bullsh.t story about us and we was locked up
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Hefficide


if he is a pedo then fry him

If i had been him i would have encrypted it by creating an encrypted container inside a encrypted container inside a encrypted container.

If forced i would give them the first password and never tell them about the second or third levels of data hidden on the drive under there own passwords.
www.truecrypt.org...

if i had documents for after TSHTF that i would not want people to open as a prosecutor or someone else could pull selected parts and make the documents look like planing for a terrorist attack.

I have seen cops use documents or evidence taken completely out of context just to try to get a conviction.

The less evidence they have the less they can use.

If it was child porn i can see why he would not want to give the password.
In the US it is a life sentence. because after prison time you have to register as a sex offender the rest of your life.

In the US sooner or later the government would have to give up and he would never be convicted.
And the only record he would have would be for not giving them the password.(contempt of court)

reply to post by TheDeader


Hi,

It does not say why they can't break the password. Or what the password is exactly protecting. Is it the entire computer? OR access to specific folders and files? Either way there are experts that can do this i would imagine within the police force?

I would of thought under the LAW during questioning the boy can remain quiet. Either way if he is harboring indecent pictures of minors or anything pertaining to this then he will get what is coming.

However, the title of this thread says MAN jailed etc. 16 years old are not adults or men. They can't buy alcohol, or get married without parents permission. Not really a man. Could still be doing GCSE's so definitely not a man.

It seems to me the way the government types get around this is due to licensing. You license the software on a computer, you don't actually own it, including the operating software. I assume that the reason the computer can be taken and broken down anyway at all, is due to the fact that the makers and software creators have made a deal, they can sell their product but they have to allow the government types to look at anything on their product = your computer.

What he is doing is preventing them from accessing the licensed stuff, not "his" stuff but the stuff they have access to by right.

What is really the point here is you own nothing, you have nothing, you are nothing, unless the government folks say so. If the gun at your head, or the jail time doesn't convince you, simply referring to the terms of use you agreed to when you bought your programs and installed them is enough.

I did look around for other reports, but they all said basically the same thing.

He was arrested last year, i assume he's been on bail since, sentencing is where the reporters got hold of it.

But about the "right to silence". That's like the cops asking you where you hid the gun. They believe the "gun" is in the hard drive, which they have in their possesion. Now if the officers come into your house with a warrant, are you obliged to tell them about your secret compartment under the stairs?

They could even be 100% sure you have a secret compartment, just not where. If they have a warrant, and have access to the poperty, they should not complain if they cannot find what they're looking for. And if they cannot access a room, then under the warrant they have the right to break the door down. If you have a reinforced steel door that they cannot breakdown, well good for you. They do still have the legal right to break it down though, that isn't in dispute. They also would have the legal responsibility, should breaking the door down ruin the house.

Just for clarity, i have 2 daughters, i am NOT a fan of pedo anything. What concerns me is the way that like "terror", "pedo" is the magic key that makes us all go: "well thats ok then, he's just a stinking pedo". The reaction is right, but the accusation isn't proven. Right now he's just a kid who did something "noticeable" online. They have presented no evidence that he committed a crime. We are not even told what crime he is suspected of, the "pedo" label has been applied as an afterthought, referring to the unit that investigated him. i imagine ANY crimes online, including filesharing, would be investigated by the same "online crime fighters" as would investigate "pedo-stuff" in chat rooms etc.

As to the password, i really don't like the assumption that if you have a strong password it's "suspicious". Like "he's got a big padlock on his gate, must have something valuable to hide."
That kind of thinking is just weak.

Originally posted by Hefficide

Originally posted by 4nsicphd


The fifth amendment is a protection against self incrimination, but withholding physical evidence cannot be construed as an exercise of a fifth amendment right. If subpoenaed to provide known documents, one must provide those documents or be prepared to face criminal penalty.

I am not familiar with any case where a subpoena duces tecum was successfully countered by a fifth amendment argument. If you are aware of such, please provide a link to information as I would be very curious in reading the ruling.

~Heff

Take a look at Boyd v. United States [116 U.S. 616 (1886)], a Supreme Court case.

If the police were desperate to plant something on him then they could just put something on an unencrypted part of the drive, no need for a password to do that.

I think he's just playing a numbers game, being convicted of failing to supply a password has a maximum sentence of 2 years, distribution of child pornography has a maximum sentence of 10 years and then signing the sex offenders register

Doesn't the government have the encryption keys from all commercial software.

I wouldnt be surprised if there were backdoors built into some of the more popular Encryption program for the NSA or who ever to exploit. TPTB in all likelyhood has backdoors in just about any peice of software and hardware out there.

Let's assume they has the skeleton keys for all software - they don't want you to know they can access it so they can't use it for these non-national security cases.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

^ good thread.