Porn, passwords and rights in the Internet age

[Gaidin]

No, they know it's there because the Federal Agent saw it.

Adult porn, animated child porn, and file names hinting at the actual incriminating stuff?

Did I miss something or has the agent actually seen perfectly legal pictures and some file names that *might* be illegal?

[Gaidin]

No, they know it's there because the Federal Agent saw it.

Adult porn, animated child porn, and file names hinting at the actual incriminating stuff?

Did I miss something or has the agent actually seen perfectly legal pictures and some file names that *might* be illegal?

ouch..speed re-reading is bad. yea apparently the agent saw them. Nevermind my question.

[SCRawl]

You realize that your entire argument here is predicated upon the assumption that it is impossible to deal with it in any manner other than making a single subjective exception to the rules, don't you? It is a very American trait to assume that constitutional rules are written in stone and cannot be questioned, hence your assumption that I was talking about making a one-off exception to otherwise untouchable rules.

The same argument applies if you make a general exception in the legislature or a one-off exception in a court room. The players just change. From a lawyer and a judge interaction in the case of a on-off court exception, to congress in the case of a general exception. For example, the PATRIOT act and its continued renewal and spin offs. We made exceptions to our long standing rules of evidence post 9/11. And this has opened the door, not just legally, but societally for other exceptions to be made.

"We have already done X, lets expand it and do Y and subsequently lets expand XY and do Z"

What has that gotten us just after 9/11? It has gotten us warrantless wiretaps, military commissions, torture, trial-free imprisonment of US citizens and legal residents, and the suspension of Habeus Corpus.

I view the rights in the constitution as social constructs. They do not exist concretely as a metaphysical quality of humanity like many of my fellow americans think they do. But they are usefull, and I fear the social consequences of playing fast and loose with them. In terms not only of individual liberty, but social and criminal justice as well.

The issue here is that the world has changed since the constitution was drafted. This situation couldn't have existed, say, 30 years ago, because information couldn't be locked up in this manner. It is beyond the scope of the constitution, unless you believe that the constitution is a swiss army knife, largely unchanging but still able to deal with all issues now and forever.

[Gaidin]

The issue here is that the world has changed since the constitution was drafted. This situation couldn't have existed, say, 30 years ago, because information couldn't be locked up in this manner. It is beyond the scope of the constitution, unless you believe that the constitution is a swiss army knife, largely unchanging but still able to deal with all issues now and forever.

Encryption on or off the computer is hardly new and has been in use since at minimum ww2. They're just pissed the encryption he had doesn't have a back door for police use.

[Kamakazie Sith]

The issue here is that the world has changed since the constitution was drafted. This situation couldn't have existed, say, 30 years ago, because information couldn't be locked up in this manner. It is beyond the scope of the constitution, unless you believe that the constitution is a swiss army knife, largely unchanging but still able to deal with all issues now and forever.

Encryption on or off the computer is hardly new and has been in use since at minimum ww2. They're just pissed the encryption he had doesn't have a back door for police use.

Actually, I'm sure they're more pissed that a person who is transporting child porn might get away with concealing evidence because the 5th amendment could possibly be interpreted in such a way.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The issue here is that the world has changed since the constitution was drafted. This situation couldn't have existed, say, 30 years ago, because information couldn't be locked up in this manner. It is beyond the scope of the constitution, unless you believe that the constitution is a swiss army knife, largely unchanging but still able to deal with all issues now and forever.

Encryption on or off the computer is hardly new and has been in use since at minimum ww2. They're just pissed the encryption he had doesn't have a back door for police use.

Encryption and coded messages have been used LONG before that

[CmdrWilkens]

It comes down to, I think a rather pointed distinction: We presume that everyone is innocent until they are proven guilty. We construct the rules within and under the constitution to create garuntees that the trial of fact, and law, will be fair and protect our individual rights. In this guys case regardless of whether he did or did not commit the crime he has the right to be presumed innocent (as does every other person) and he has the right to withold information from the prosecution which would aid his prosecution. The point will always remain that is any court can compel an individual to surrender information (not physical objects but information) then the system of precedent, which dates back to the origins of English Common Law, allows that any other court may use that as justification to force disclosure.

Now here we have an interesting situation because there are witnesses who will testify that they obtained informaiton from the computer. They cannot reproduce the information so they want to confirm its existence. The problem lies in that the only way to get the information is to force the suspect to divulge information (or to brute force the password). What we cannot get around is that compelling the suspect to provide the password is divulging information and it is not, nor can it be, the equivalent to handing over physical objects. Could an exception be made? Certainly, but for starters the best you are going to get is a contempt of court case for refusal to surrender the password when the subpoena is issued. The problem is that making an exception is highly unlikely to actually aid the prosecution AND it does open the doorway to forcing individuals to provide testimony. By the same logic a grand jury could subpoena an individual to surrender locaitons where crimes were committed or other information retained solely in their mind. All that does is create an environment where suspects (whose guilt has not been proven and whom might be innocent) are constantly being cited for contempt of court simply for refusing to divulge knowledge in their heads. That's the threat: for absolutely NO GAIN you create a system where the innocent can, and WILL, be jailed for contempt.

Lets go back to the body analogy I made earlier. Lets make it even closer to the case above. Two agents testify in court that they saw me bury a body however they cannot show where the body is only that it is somewhere in a graveyard. So lets make the exception you want in two different cases:

Case A: I did bury a body, the subpoena compels me to reveal where the body is, I state that I have never buried a body, I am cited for contempt and sit in jail for 30 days or so, the police fail to find the body, I go free.

Case B: I didn't bury a body, the subpoena compels me to reveal where the body is, I state that I have never buried a body, I am cited for contempt and sit in jail for 30 days, the police fail to find the body, I go free.

The ONLY difference between scenario A and B is that in the later case an innocent person was jailed for contempt. The point is that witnesses can be inaccurate, they can conspire, they can perjur themselves and it can be damn difficult to defend against. Requiring someone to provide evidence which resides only in their head cannot serve a positive purpose and can only result in negative consequences for innocent people. Unless you actually believe that someone with knowledge vital to their prosecution on felony charges would divulge that information, and face the felony penalties, to avoid the misdemeanor charge of contempt.

[SCRawl]

The issue here is that the world has changed since the constitution was drafted. This situation couldn't have existed, say, 30 years ago, because information couldn't be locked up in this manner. It is beyond the scope of the constitution, unless you believe that the constitution is a swiss army knife, largely unchanging but still able to deal with all issues now and forever.

Encryption on or off the computer is hardly new and has been in use since at minimum ww2. They're just pissed the encryption he had doesn't have a back door for police use.

Encryption and coded messages have been used LONG before that

Yes, the science of cryptology has been around for centuries. In this case, though, its application is far different from encrypted documents from yesteryear. In this case, it is known -- insofar as the veracity of a federal agent can be counted upon -- what the encrypted hard drive contains. WW2-era encrypted documents would not have been readable (and subsequently unreadable) in the same manner.

In other words, 30 years ago (as an example) one could not know the contents of encrypted documents unless they (a) had the encryption key (or a device which incorporated it) and actually decrypted them, (b) were the ones who'd encrypted them in the first place, or (c) actually watched the encryption process.

[Darth Wong]

You realize that your entire argument here is predicated upon the assumption that it is impossible to deal with it in any manner other than making a single subjective exception to the rules, don't you? It is a very American trait to assume that constitutional rules are written in stone and cannot be questioned, hence your assumption that I was talking about making a one-off exception to otherwise untouchable rules.

The same argument applies if you make a general exception in the legislature or a one-off exception in a court room.

What the fuck part of "I'm not talking about making exceptions" do you not understand, Einstein?

I view the rights in the constitution as social constructs. They do not exist concretely as a metaphysical quality of humanity like many of my fellow americans think they do. But they are usefull, and I fear the social consequences of playing fast and loose with them. In terms not only of individual liberty, but social and criminal justice as well.

Oh yeah, because no country in the world could possibly function without EXACTLY the same rules as YOUR constitution, right? Any deviation from this perfect ideal MUST be a catastrophe!

[Alyrium Denryle]

Oh yeah, because no country in the world could possibly function without EXACTLY the same rules as YOUR constitution, right? Any deviation from this perfect ideal MUST be a catastrophe!

That is a strawman Mike and you know it. I can sit here and list problems with our constitution and form of government. But in this case changing the rules would, as CmdrWilkens pointed out, only lead to negative consequences given US case law, the way our system is set up etc. Our justice system is far from perfect, but I would rather have what we have right now, than make changes that could negatively impact the ability of people, innocent, and guilty, to defend themselves in court.

If we made the change you suggest it would have disastrous effects for OUR legal system. Other countries are just fine (well, maybe not Australia as we have seen with Stofsk) they have set up their legal system with certain assumptions in place and worked around those to create a system of justice which works for them. We set up OUR system with a slightly different set of assumptions which it is built upon. If we change the rules, it would be like changing operations in a large equation. You get different results. Results that may not be desirable.

What the fuck part of "I'm not talkikng about making one-off exceptions" do you not understand, Einstein?

Alright, then clarify exactly what you mean, and what you are proposing. I would hate to be having this conversation and merely be talking past eachother.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Yes, the science of cryptology has been around for centuries. In this case, though, its application is far different from encrypted documents from yesteryear. In this case, it is known -- insofar as the veracity of a federal agent can be counted upon -- what the encrypted hard drive contains. WW2-era encrypted documents would not have been readable (and subsequently unreadable) in the same manner.

Except in terms of our legal system, it is not known. Again, rationally, we know it is there. But due to the presumption of innocence worked into our system, the police can only testify that it is there. Imagine the can of worms that would be opened up if on any agents say so, someone could be forced to testify against themselves. Take a look at CmdrWilkens' post above. He summed it up far better than I can.

[SCRawl]

Yes, the science of cryptology has been around for centuries. In this case, though, its application is far different from encrypted documents from yesteryear. In this case, it is known -- insofar as the veracity of a federal agent can be counted upon -- what the encrypted hard drive contains. WW2-era encrypted documents would not have been readable (and subsequently unreadable) in the same manner.

Except in terms of our legal system, it is not known. Again, rationally, we know it is there. But due to the presumption of innocence worked into our system, the police can only testify that it is there. Imagine the can of worms that would be opened up if on any agents say so, someone could be forced to testify against themselves. Take a look at CmdrWilkens' post above. He summed it up far better than I can.

Oh, I read the post, and he makes a good point, though his analogy doesn't quite work.

You know, I can imagine the officer on the stand, giving his testimony to the jury:

Prosecutor: "Did you see the child porn on the laptop?"
Officer: "Yes."
P: "Can you show it to us?"
O: "No."
P: "Why not?"
O: "The data are encrypted, and we don't have the encryption key."
P: "Who has the encryption key?"
O: "The defendant."
P: "Did you ask the defendant for the encryption key?"
O: "Yes. He declined to produce it."

Would a thinking juror actually not get that the laptop almost certainly contains something incriminating? I suppose the defence would argue that they're actually hiding something that has nothing to do with the case at hand.

[Alyrium Denryle]

That is probably how it could go. And it is within the bounds of existing law.

[brianeyci]

I would like to add to the discussion about "animated" child porn. Legally there may be a difference, but ethically animated child porn is not benign. It can be just as dangerous as real child pornography.

On the CBC they interviewed a former child abuser, and he explained it. Cops too explained it. Masturbation is a very powerful, overwhelming rush. If someone inclined towards children views child pornography and masturbates to it, and does it a lot, every time he does it, it increases his likelihood of actually going out and travelling and kidnapping a child. Note that it is not a carthasis. We're not talking about normal people being forced to view child porn like raising Blanka in Street Fighter. These are people who are already inclined towards children, who masturbate to child porn. The pleasure centers are rewired, and over time the guy starts believing that the child wants it, that they're waiting for him.

Then he goes out and rapes one. This is the pattern cops see, confirmed by pedophiles themselves. So animated child pornography can be just as dangerous as real pornography, even if it's not exploiting a child directly.

Note this isn't the same as viewing pornography in general. A man who becomes incited by normal pornography has an outlet -- he can date women, or hire prostitutes, and have real sex to satiate his urges. He doesn't have to rape. A child can never give consent, and it is always rape. So the pictures are directly responsible for increasing his already present desire to rape a child.

Note: when they say animated it could refer to the sites that create "virtual" child pornography, but who use software to turn barely legal actors into underage. This is a disgusting abuse of a loophole of the law: they are creating what looks like child porn, is child porn, and is a perfect for a future child rapist to train on. I am betting this fucker is not watching Fry and Leela fuck, but almost real pictures that would take a trained eye to spot, just as dangerous as the real thing.

[Zablorg]

I would like to add to the discussion about "animated" child porn. Legally there may be a difference, but ethically animated child porn is not benign. It can be just as dangerous as real child pornography.

On the CBC they interviewed a former child abuser, and he explained it. Cops too explained it. Masturbation is a very powerful, overwhelming rush. If someone inclined towards children views child pornography and masturbates to it, and does it a lot, every time he does it, it increases his likelihood of actually going out and travelling and kidnapping a child. Note that it is not a carthasis. We're not talking about normal people being forced to view child porn like raising Blanka in Street Fighter. These are people who are already inclined towards children, who masturbate to child porn. The pleasure centers are rewired, and over time the guy starts believing that the child wants it, that they're waiting for him.

Then he goes out and rapes one. This is the pattern cops see, confirmed by pedophiles themselves. So animated child pornography can be just as dangerous as real pornography, even if it's not exploiting a child directly.

Note this isn't the same as viewing pornography in general. A man who becomes incited by normal pornography has an outlet -- he can date women, or hire prostitutes, and have real sex to satiate his urges. He doesn't have to rape. A child can never give consent, and it is always rape. So the pictures are directly responsible for increasing his already present desire to rape a child.

Note: when they say animated it could refer to the sites that create "virtual" child pornography, but who use software to turn barely legal actors into underage. This is a disgusting abuse of a loophole of the law: they are creating what looks like child porn, is child porn, and is a perfect for a future child rapist to train on. I am betting this fucker is not watching Fry and Leela fuck, but almost real pictures that would take a trained eye to spot, just as dangerous as the real thing.

Disturbing as child porn is, I think this is a slippery slope fallacy. How is this claim any more valid than the claim that whatching regular porn increases your likelyhood of raping someone?

[Zablorg]

ghetto edit: More specifically, I dispute your claim that child porn necisserely incites the pedophile to do anything.

[CmdrWilkens]

You know, I can imagine the officer on the stand, giving his testimony to the jury:

Prosecutor: "Did you see the child porn on the laptop?"
Officer: "Yes."
P: "Can you show it to us?"
O: "No."
P: "Why not?"
O: "The data are encrypted, and we don't have the encryption key."
P: "Who has the encryption key?"
O: "The defendant."
P: "Did you ask the defendant for the encryption key?"
O: "Yes. He declined to produce it."

Would a thinking juror actually not get that the laptop almost certainly contains something incriminating? I suppose the defence would argue that they're actually hiding something that has nothing to do with the case at hand.

There's a couple problems not the least of which is that the Defense counsel (if they were in any way competent) would object as soon as the last quesiton would be asked and there would never be a response entered onto the record. Moreover any judge worth his salt would clearly instruct the jury to ignore the casual connection. The end result is that evenif the jury provides a guilty verdict then it is almost a matter of certainty that it would be overturned on appeal. Now that's not an absolute and there certainly exists the possibility that it wouldn't go through but I rather expect not.

Anyway if the Prosecution can get a guilty verdict on the evidence of the two officers who witnessed the porn then it remains yet more proof that tampering with the 5th amendment serves no purpose other than to open the door to abuses of the system to incriminate and/or harm innocent persons. In all of this I don't like the idea of the guy getting away with shit but I'd rather keep an eye on him and nab him later rather than open the door to hundreds of innocent people being jailed for contempt charges.

[brianeyci]

Disturbing as child porn is, I think this is a slippery slope fallacy. How is this claim any more valid than the claim that whatching regular porn increases your likelyhood of raping someone?

Did you even read my fucking post? I explained that it's not comparable to real pornography, but since you didn't read it let me say it again. People who get incited by real pornography can go out and fuck without raping a woman, but sex with a child is always rape. I explained why child pornography incites pedophiles to go out and rape children -- it is a pattern observed by police officers who are specialists in child pornography (Toronto has a world renowed squad hunting them) and testimonials by child abusers themselves who say that the catharsis argument is bullshit. They say they watch it, they jerk off to it, and it gets more and more uncontrollable until they go out and do it.

In the last three years 44% of the people arrested in Toronto for possessing child pornography have also been charged with or convicted of sexually abusing children. "Everybody we arrest says 'I don't do anything other than look. I would never abuse. I just do it for my own personal pleasure.' Well, I know that almost 50% of those people lie," says Detective Sgt. Paul Gillespie.

I can only conclude that you didn't read my post at all, and decided to knee jerk like a sanctimonious ass. Animated child pornography, virtual child pornography is dangerous dumbfuck; cops say so, child abusers say so. I believe even psychologists say so.

For pedophiles, child pornography is like placing a loaded gun in the hands of a psychopath.

[Gaidin]

In other words, 30 years ago (as an example) one could not know the contents of encrypted documents unless they (a) had the encryption key (or a device which incorporated it) and actually decrypted them, (b) were the ones who'd encrypted them in the first place, or (c) actually watched the encryption process.

Amusingly, one can not know the contents of computer encryption unless they (a) know the algorithm and have the proper key, or (b)were the ones who encrypted them in the first place.

About the only difference is watching the encryption doesn't help you know what the data is. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Zablorg]

Animated child pornography, virtual child pornography is dangerous dumbfuck; cops say so, child abusers say so. I believe even psychologists say so.

Thank you, that was all that was needed. You hadn't sourced anything, so I was skeptical.

[Kamakazie Sith]

There's a couple problems not the least of which is that the Defense counsel (if they were in any way competent) would object as soon as the last quesiton would be asked and there would never be a response entered onto the record. Moreover any judge worth his salt would clearly instruct the jury to ignore the casual connection. The end result is that evenif the jury provides a guilty verdict then it is almost a matter of certainty that it would be overturned on appeal. Now that's not an absolute and there certainly exists the possibility that it wouldn't go through but I rather expect not.

This is why I've been trying to say that this case is exceptionally different.

We're not talking about a suspected location of evidence, and I don't see how this could reasonably lead to people who are suspected of comitting a crime being forced to incriminate himself. He's already done that when he crossed the border and in doing so gave them consent to search it. The location of the evidence is known, and it's being withheld.

Anyway if the Prosecution can get a guilty verdict on the evidence of the two officers who witnessed the porn then it remains yet more proof that tampering with the 5th amendment serves no purpose other than to open the door to abuses of the system to incriminate and/or harm innocent persons. In all of this I don't like the idea of the guy getting away with shit but I'd rather keep an eye on him and nab him later rather than open the door to hundreds of innocent people being jailed for contempt charges.

That would be great, and it would be ideal as I'm not okay with letting him go on just a small interference charge.

[Glocksman]

Does Canadian law permit the police or the courts to compel someone in this situation to divulge the password?
If so, why doesn't the US just deport the sicko back to Canada and hand the RCMP the copied encrypted files so that Canada can charge and convict him?

[Winston Blake]

The issue here is that the world has changed since the constitution was drafted. This situation couldn't have existed, say, 30 years ago, because information couldn't be locked up in this manner. It is beyond the scope of the constitution, unless you believe that the constitution is a swiss army knife, largely unchanging but still able to deal with all issues now and forever.

In 1586, the execution of Mary Queen of Scots and six men was decided on the fact that England's spymaster was able to crack a cipher she used in correspondence with the conspirators. Revealing the key to a cipher is basically the same as revealing a password.

It's interesting that people don't shy away from the "impregnable safe" example. By this logic, a rich person who can afford a far more secure safe than a poor person actually deserves superior protection under the law.

They may not deserve it, but I think they possess it. A smart criminal who destroys all evidence of a crime would genuinely possess superior protection under the law too, since he can't be convicted without any evidence. Is that discrimination against stupid people?

And what about killers being compelled to reveal the locations where they buried the bodies? I suppose that's a violation of their rights too?

How do you propose to compel suspects to give up information? What form of compulsion do you think should be used to get information out of a person's mind? IIRC these 'right to remain silent' style laws were originally created in response to legalised witchhunts and torture confessions.

Now show me exactly what the negative outcome of this would be, instead of vague handwaving about government abuse. Exactly what's going to happen here? The government, armed with a search warrant ... would be able to execute it! OMG, the sky is falling! Individual liberties are being destroyed! Police state! RARRRR!!!

CmdrWilkens gave an example of arbitrarily holding people in contempt of court. I'll add that once it's legal to 'compel' people to reveal information, interrogators can ask any question and if the suspect says 'I don't know', they can let loose with their compulsion techniques.

'Alright Jim, who's the killer?'
'My name's John, and I don't know what you're talking about.'
'Tell us who the killer is or we'll auction off your car.'
'What killer!?'
'Stand up.'
*sixteen hours later*
'Did I tell you to sit down? Stand the fuck up. Feel like telling us who the killer is now?'
'Frank did it, my coworker, it was all him, please let me go home.'
*In other news, the Teddy Bear Murderer was convicted today when a brave witness came forth*

[Knife]

Forgive my Law and Order knowledge of the law; but wouldn't the fact that the boarder agent saw the child porn be enough probably cause for search warrents to the guys home?

I think if the prosecutors to try him, they're going to have more discovery than just the laptop to nail the sick fucker.

[Keevan_Colton]

Brian, your stuff your spouting there is heavily based in the media effects model, the same reasoning that says people who play violent games will go on killing sprees...