Man jailed over computer password refusal

he's hiding something if he's willing to sit in jail for that long instead of open up his computer.
they say he is of good character, but maybe he's just never been caught, and he is only 19 though and was a kid himself just a few years ago.

i cant believe theres no genius computer programmers that can hack his computer. i thought these hackers could do anything. they write a program to take down irans nuclear systems, but cant write a program to hack this kids computer?

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

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

Boyd was not a criminal case - it was a revenue (or tax) case. It does not seem to pertain to cases of subpoena duces tecum.

And even in regard to tax law, the following is said about Boyd:

The modern Court no longer assumes that the Fifth Amendment is a source of the Fourth's EXCLUSIONARY RULE or that the Fourth prohibits searches for MERE EVIDENCE. Moreover, the production of private papers may be compelled in certain cases, as when the Internal Revenue Service subpoenas records in the hands of one's lawyer or accountant.

Source

reply to post by christinaV


Sooo...if someone were to accuse you of "child exploitation" you wouldn't mind your home, computer and your whole life being exposed at the whim of an investigator?

How do you Americans still call yourselves free? If any person wants to discredit you it seems that they only need to mention "Child Exploitation", Child porn" or any other "Child evil".

As a side note, heavy level encryption currently available is beyond the 256byte range. The ssl you bank with is 128bit ... byte > bit by a whole lot. Normally encryption takes into account for upper case, lower case, symbols and numerals. Which greatly increases the number of possible combination's. Trial and error can also be thwarted by introducing a pause between entries that increases as each entry fails... this is referred to as tar pitting. So even if they wrote an exceptional program to crack this cipher, it could still take years.

..Ex

I was going to post this, yep it's disgusting he is beig imprisoned for refusing to give an encyrption key and as others have pointed out, what if he claimed he had simply forgotten it? 16 months for a bad memory, seriously? Now obviously if he does have child porn on that hard drive i hope he suffers in prison but lets be clear on this, there is no evidence he has it. Maybe he's just a liberal martyr!

You know i wouldn't give out such keys either, i have absolutely nothing to hide but on general principle i think this is wrong and i would go to jail on that principle. The police should not be able to force suspects to give information and you should not be subject to a prison term because you refuse to give a password.

The laws now are disgusting.

I see little difference between this and refusal to take a breathalyzer test being considered an automatic admission of guilt where DWI is concerned. If they do end up cracking the guy's password and find child porn on his machine, here's hoping he never sees the sunlight again.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
I see little difference between this and refusal to take a breathalyzer test being considered an automatic admission of guilt where DWI is concerned. If they do end up cracking the guy's password and find child porn on his machine, here's hoping he never sees the sunlight again.

Big difference, this is information and during a police investigation you have the right to remain silent. If you are forced to reveal this information you are essentially giving up your right to remain silent. If you are imprisoned because you exercise your right to remain silent then surely that utterly destroys the concept. Furthermore what if the suspect claims to have simply forgotten the password? It happens all the time so we would then be imprisoning someone for having a bad memory.

Look i'm with you, if the guy is guilty and they crack his hard drive then quite simply, good, screw him. However it is not correct someone can be imprisoned for witholding information when you don't know whether the information they are witholding is illegal.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
I see little difference between this and refusal to take a breathalyzer test being considered an automatic admission of guilt where DWI is concerned. If they do end up cracking the guy's password and find child porn on his machine, here's hoping he never sees the sunlight again.

Huh?.. a breathalyzer collects and calibrates a "chemical sample".. which (in Ca) people agree to submit when they signed on the "X" at DMV to "apply" for a license... to enjoy the "privileged" of driving a car. Even then.. you can refuse to submit a chemical sample and be found not guilty of DUI in court.. that won't stop the DMV administrative punishment of suspending your license for refusing.

Last I checked, I didn't agree to let the govt deny me freedom because of I choose to exercise my 5th amendment rights to "remain silent"... but seeing how this is a UK incident, different rules/laws apply I assume.

And BTW this is a 19 year old kid we're talking about.. IDK about you, but when I was that age.. younger adventurous high school girls, many looked older, sought college aged dudes. So maybe this dude does have some nude photos sent willingly to him some underage tart, or a gallery of 4 year old pics of his naked, then 15 year old, girlfriend... that makes him a NORMAL teen dude "young, dumb and full of (sperm)" IMO.

The govt could easily inflate common raging hormonal teenage digital exchanges as "child porn" or some-such bullfeces.. knowing that, it'd be stupid and foolish to allow some b-hole govt tool.. who is itching to file criminal charges...to access, judge and form an opinion about your private/personal images.

GOOD for the kid, F the man.

reply to post by Hefficide


Heffficide, with just words I can get out of speeding tickets. With words i can get out of debt. So, if I was in his shoes, regardless of if I had kiddie porn or not, I still wouldn't give them the password. Then I'd take it one step further and start counter-accusing, it's all Strawman and legalese. If you never let them gain juristication in the first place then they never have a case to stand on from the beginning; thus it's dismissed with no negative consequences to your end other then a tarnished reputation from the slanderish behavior of "the man". In the GRAND scheme of life that's not the worse thing. You know what they do to pedophiles in jail? Not good my brother says...

reply to post by govtflu


Quite right and as for UK law it used to be simple in such cases.

You would be arrested and during arrest the ever immortal line is uttered "you have the right to remain silent" or i think now they say "you do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence etc etc". This law utterly destroys that right, why do the police even bother to say it if it no longer counts in certain cases?

It won't change though because the government no longer listens to the people and sadly, even if someone stands up to the government they just get steamrolled, like this kid. A person stands up and shouts at the darkness, the rest of the people hear the shout, role over in bed and sleep. There will not be a revolution in the UK again, and tbh that is whats needed. A massive uprising to tell the politicians the system needs fixing, rights need to be restored and a reminder that they, along with the police serve the people and not the other way around.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
I see little difference between this and refusal to take a breathalyzer test being considered an automatic admission of guilt where DWI is concerned. If they do end up cracking the guy's password and find child porn on his machine, here's hoping he never sees the sunlight again.

The question has to be asked, how would you feel if they crack his password, and find nothing? Would you feel ok with the police coming into your house and searching every nook and cranny based on the accusation of someone? And if/when you refuse, then it becomes an admission of guilt. Sure doesn't seem like innocent until proven guilty.

Now to be clear, I don't know this guy, not if he's a child exploitation participant or not. I do know computers, and I can assure you I could find "questionable" material on almost anyone's computer. (yes, even if you deleted it)

..Ex

Originally posted by Hefficide

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

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

Boyd was not a criminal case - it was a revenue (or tax) case. It does not seem to pertain to cases of subpoena duces tecum.

And even in regard to tax law, the following is said about Boyd:

The modern Court no longer assumes that the Fifth Amendment is a source of the Fourth's EXCLUSIONARY RULE or that the Fourth prohibits searches for MERE EVIDENCE. Moreover, the production of private papers may be compelled in certain cases, as when the Internal Revenue Service subpoenas records in the hands of one's lawyer or accountant.

Source

Yeah, what the SCOTUS giveth, it also taketh away, but then, with a change in the Court's complexion, it sometimes giveth back. Boyd gave some protection. Then, Fisher v. US (2000) undercut Boyd. The latest pronouncement, though, in Hubell v. US (Sorry, I don't have the cite), "testimonial production" won renewed protection. That is one reason U S Attorneys are shifting back to using search warrants, rather than subpoenas, which are not subject to judicial gatekeeping.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by govtflu

 

You would be arrested and during arrest the ever immortal line is uttered "you have the right to remain silent" or i think now they say "you do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence etc etc". This law utterly destroys that right, why do the police even bother to say it if it no longer counts in certain cases?

Indeed.

Heff explained this:

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

But if telling the police where the key is, isn't it the same thing? If you have the right not to bear witness against yourself, than that includes giving up information verbally that will of course incriminate you. So I agree with you.

I think they could hack the system wouldn't you think?

Originally posted by thecinic
I think they could hack the system wouldn't you think?

What are you on about? If you're talking about breaking encryption then no, the police and government can't currently crack 256 bit AES as long as the password used for the encryption is long and random. The very fact they mention that GCHQ couldn't crack this proves the point.

Originally posted by harryhaller
Innocent until proven guilty?
Or we're sure you're guilty so we'll make you guilty anyway, without evidence.

They had enough evidence to investigate, to get a warrant, but obviously not enough evidence to charge him with anything.

www.pcpro.co.uk... refusing-to-reveal-encryption-keys

Oliver Drage, 19, was originally arrested in May last year and a spokesperson for Lancashire Constabulary told PC Pro that Drage was questioned “on suspicion of possessing indecent child images”.

This all runs around "child porn" ... that's the accusation. But he's only 19, if he had a photo given him by a 15 year old girl, he'd be jailed (almost) for life. But they don't have evidence to charge him, merely to suspect him.

This is nasty, although the cops over several months haven't been able to decrypt his password, so there is hope.

I would have to guess it must be drawn images, because it only states child images.
So i guess you cant even draw now? wow