5th Amendment protection or not?

[Humodour]

Pop: How exactly do you plan to excise the password from him?

How does a judge always get people to obey his orders? They have the stubborn one sit in a jail cell until his lawyers can appeal him out, which can take months, if not years, and only if his lawyers are good enough to get the appeal approved.

 

Suspicion that somebody has something incriminating stored in an encrypted file is not grounds to throw somebody in jail any more than suspicion that somebody has incriminating evidence stored in their head is.

Edited February 16, 2008 by Krezack

[thepixiesrock]

Yeah wait, since when did they check the contents of your computers? I knew they checked the computer's exterior to see if it was like a bomb or a drug carrage and stuff, but when did they start actually booting them up and seeing what's on it?

[Humodour]

Yeah wait, since when did they check the contents of your computers? I knew they checked the computer's exterior to see if it was like a bomb or a drug carrage and stuff, but when did they start actually booting them up and seeing what's on it?

 

I was wondering that, too. I mean, there are many secrets that people carry for many good, legal reasons. It doesn't seem lawful at all to force people to show the contents of their hard drives... not to mention it sounds like a logistically horrible process for both customs and the traveller.

[tarna]

Why the hell can't they crack the encryption? It can't realistically be that hard.

 

"When they came for the Jews I did nothing for I was not a Jew"...

 

Yeah, right. Here's my version:

 

"When they came for the people who liked looking at pictures of babies getting raped I said 'Hell yeah!' And threw jagged chunks of rock at the sick ****s. Because sometimes there are people who should be collected by large unpleasant men in the middle of the night."

Gee Wals, I never took you for the 'Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out' sort of guy. "Ya gotta break a few eggs to make an omelett" sound familiar? Maybe "The ends justify the means"?

 

If you're familiar with the quote I referenced, then you know that it is about protecting the 'unpopular', the unsupported, those that you wouldn't normally give a s*** about because it didn't concern you or you didn't care about normally. Sitting around with your thumbs up your ass only allows your own protections to be eroded by tyrants in power ( ie Baby Doc Bush ).

 

What they will do to him without proof, they will do to you and NEVER think otherwise.

 

Who knows, this idiot may have only had pictures of girls from a Sears catalog for all we know. If you blindly believe the media I would be sadly disappointed in you as I know you to be smarter than that. This subject can certainly cause a knee-jerk reaction though. It does with me as well. If his pics are of girls in swimsuits posing suggestively, that is one thing. If they are nude but by themselves, that is another. If there is a guy in the scene, my recommendation would be a 480 volt connection to each ear and one to his junk and simmer until well-done.

 

His 'guilt' has yet to be determined and he should be afforded the protections accorded by our laws ( and not circumvented ) until then. We can stone his ass after the trial. :wink:

[Azarkon]

I never quite understood the murderous rage against non-performing pedophiles. There are worse deviancies in the world than masturbating to naked kids. But this board is, perhaps, not the best place to discuss something like this.

[Humodour]

Well said, Tarna.

[Tale]

I never quite understood the murderous rage against non-performing pedophiles. There are worse deviancies in the world than masturbating to naked kids. But this board is, perhaps, not the best place to discuss something like this.

A) They're encouraging the production of this porn. Which encourages the exploitation of the children to produce the porn

B) It's a gross violation of the child's privacy.

 

There's nothing (legally) wrong with fake images of child pornography. Drawings (assuming no model), models that are legal but don't look the part, etc. It's not about the deviance, it's about the photograph. It's about the making of that photograph. It's about the distribution of that photograph.

Edited February 16, 2008 by Tale

[Azarkon]

A) is debateable. If they pay for it, sure. But if they don't? If they have no contact whatsoever with the original producers, as is often the case? Where does the encouragement come from?

 

B) is true and gets into the whole issue of informed consent, which children, presumably, don't have. However, the blame there rests with the person who releases the photo, not the person who sees the photo. Do people get in trouble for looking at celebrity nudes taken without their consent? Somehow, I doubt it.

 

Besides, I think you would be hard-pressed to argue that it's the legal aspects which (invasion of privacy, informed consent, etc.) determine people's reactions, in this case. I do, in fact, think that people will have just as adverse of a reaction against pretend play and maybe even drawings, at least in the West. Other cultures are actually pretty different, in this respect.

Edited February 16, 2008 by Azarkon

[thepixiesrock]

So are you saying looking at child porn shouldn't be extremely discouraged?

[Nick_i_am]

Erm, the issue here isn't the harm people do looking at it, it's the harm that's done by making it and therefore, by proxy, of being a customer to those who make it, encoraging them to make more. In the eyes of the law it doesn't matter where the individual got it, he's still helping it spread.

 

EDIT: you know, this is the problem with opening a thread then only replying to it 10 minutes later.

Edited February 16, 2008 by Nick_i_am

[Azarkon]

So are you saying looking at child porn shouldn't be extremely discouraged?

 

I think it should depend on the particulars of the porn. Certainly I don't think non-practicing pedophiles should be subject to the same anathema as practicing ones, and within the non-practicing category, I think a significant distinction should be made between people based on whether they 1) are part of an actual child porn circle, or not, 2) pay for it and distribute it, or not, and whether the porn itself is a) fake, b) naturalistic, or c) sexual.

 

Such a discrimination would help rationalize the case against pedophiles, at least for me. As it is, I don't quite understand the pitchfork and torch routine against anyone who is accused of being a pedophile, regardless of the details. And I do think that North Americans are quite particular in this notion; you should understand what I mean if you're at all familiar with Japanese geek culture.

Edited February 16, 2008 by Azarkon

[Nick_i_am]

Well, there's already a grey area regarding girls who are technically underage but still sexually matrue.

 

the legal age in the UK is 16, and in canada it gets as low as 14 but ONLY among peers. That is to say, an adult getting happy happy with a 14 year old is going right in the party-van (more so if they was in a position of power over the child), but a 16 year old doing the same won't get put right on the sex offenders list.

 

This goes counter to the way I understand things are done in the US whereby if an 18 year old sleeps with a 17 year old he gets a criminal record.

 

This is to say, while the filenames hint at actual pedophilia rather than gray-area material there has to be a distinction when branding 'pedophilia' since it isn't really properly done in the US to my understanding.

Edited February 16, 2008 by Nick_i_am

[Enoch]

This goes counter to the way I understand things are done in the US whereby if an 18 year old sleeps with a 17 year old he gets a criminal record.

State laws differ on this, so I can't be 100% sure, but I'm pretty certain that a vast majority of states' "statutory rape" laws have exceptions for consensual partners who are close in age.

 

 

Also, just because it's legal for minors to get it on doesn't mean that it's legal to distribute sexual images of them. Entirely different area of the law. I'm pretty sure that nekkid pictures of anyone under 18 are grounds for prosecution, nationwide. Doesn't matter how old the people taking/looking at them are.

[Guard Dog]

Enoch is correct. In Florida for example a three year difference of age will not lead to statutory rape so long as a) the act was consensual b) One of the parties was at least 16. However the age of consent by law remains 18 so go figure.

 

The reason that child porn is so heinous is that the child in the photo is being exploited because they can not consent. I did some looking and in Florida any one who knowingly receives or transmits child porn is looking at a class C felony and we have sentencing guidelines here and class Cs will get you 36 months in State Prison plus a truckload of fines and registration as a sexual predator. FL is harsher than most states. Of course it is on the state to prove the "knowingly transmitted or received" part.

 

On the larger issue I'd agree that compelling him to reveal a password should certainly be DOA in any court as a 5th amend violation. Furthermore, I would challenge the validity of the search as unreasonable under the 4th amendment based on the following: What was the agent looking for? Terrorist info? State secrets? The law requires the searching authority to look for just what they are charged to look for. They do not get to fish around and act on whatever they find. Additionally, is the DHLS allowed to search the data on the computer of just the physical device itself? I really suspect it would be the latter. In either of those cases the whole thing should be dropped as an illegal search. If I am interpreting correctly. I am not a lawyer but I believe that is correct reasoning.

[Azarkon]

Furthermore, I would challenge the validity of the search as unreasonable under the 4th amendment based on the following: What was the agent looking for? Terrorist info? State secrets? The law requires the searching authority to look for just what they are charged to look for. They do not get to fish around and act on whatever they find. Additionally, is the DHLS allowed to search the data on the computer of just the physical device itself? I really suspect it would be the latter. In either of those cases the whole thing should be dropped as an illegal search. If I am interpreting correctly. I am not a lawyer but I believe that is correct reasoning.

 

This is what I was referring to earlier. I was not aware that authorities had the right to search through people's HDs as per standard examination.

[~Di]

My humble view: If there is no legal way to access the evidence, then there is no evidence... same as any other criminal investigation. Sucks when bad guys get off, but there are reasons we have laws.

[Sand]

I would agree Di, but in this case the guy showed the evidence to the officers then password protected it.

[Gorgon]

About 'passive' pedophiles, sexuality and sex drive may not be supressed permanently, and if the only way to act out your sexuality is to violate children there is always going to be a chance that it will happen for real.

Edited February 17, 2008 by Gorgon

[~Di]

I would agree Di, but in this case the guy showed the evidence to the officers then password protected it.

 

Hmm, that sounds like rather sloppy policework. If the authorities saw the evidence and neglected to confiscate the computer... indeed, handed the computer back to the suspect, thus allowing the suspect to "hide" or tamper with that evidence... then they are stuck with having made a pretty danged lousy decision. I don't know about Canadian law, but in the USA I think that the testimony of a police officer having witnessed evidence of a crime is sufficient probable cause to have a judge issue a warrant. The warrant would require the suspect to turn over the files. Now if the suspect refused to, he can be jailed for contempt... but cannot be charged with the crime itself. 'Tis a conundrum, but the bright side is that a guy with child porn will sit in jail one way or the other.

[thepixiesrock]

Yeah wait, where did it say he set up password protection afterwards?

[thepixiesrock]

Alright, so after re-reading it, I'm positive you're wrong.

[Tale]

Sand doesn't understand encryption.

[thepixiesrock]

I would agree Di, but in this case the guy showed the evidence to the officers then password protected it.

 

Hmm, that sounds like rather sloppy policework. If the authorities saw the evidence and neglected to confiscate the computer... indeed, handed the computer back to the suspect, thus allowing the suspect to "hide" or tamper with that evidence... then they are stuck with having made a pretty danged lousy decision. I don't know about Canadian law, but in the USA I think that the testimony of a police officer having witnessed evidence of a crime is sufficient probable cause to have a judge issue a warrant. The warrant would require the suspect to turn over the files. Now if the suspect refused to, he can be jailed for contempt... but cannot be charged with the crime itself. 'Tis a conundrum, but the bright side is that a guy with child porn will sit in jail one way or the other.

 

As I understand the issue, it isn't that there isn't evidence to warrant them searching his computer right now, it's that the guy can't be made to incriminate himself by giving up the password. They can't get a warrant to make him give up a password. They can get a warrant to search a computer, but there is no way for themt o get the password to actually search the computer.

[Azarkon]

About 'passive' pedophiles, sexuality and sex drive may not be supressed permanently, and if the only way to act out your sexuality is to violate children there is always going to be a chance that it will happen for real.

 

So we should lock people up based on their sexual orientations, because of what they might do?

 

That, my friend, is the slip into thought control.

Edited February 17, 2008 by Azarkon

[~Di]

I would agree Di, but in this case the guy showed the evidence to the officers then password protected it.

 

Hmm, that sounds like rather sloppy policework. If the authorities saw the evidence and neglected to confiscate the computer... indeed, handed the computer back to the suspect, thus allowing the suspect to "hide" or tamper with that evidence... then they are stuck with having made a pretty danged lousy decision. I don't know about Canadian law, but in the USA I think that the testimony of a police officer having witnessed evidence of a crime is sufficient probable cause to have a judge issue a warrant. The warrant would require the suspect to turn over the files. Now if the suspect refused to, he can be jailed for contempt... but cannot be charged with the crime itself. 'Tis a conundrum, but the bright side is that a guy with child porn will sit in jail one way or the other.

 

As I understand the issue, it isn't that there isn't evidence to warrant them searching his computer right now, it's that the guy can't be made to incriminate himself by giving up the password. They can't get a warrant to make him give up a password. They can get a warrant to search a computer, but there is no way for themt o get the password to actually search the computer.

 

Since that was my original understanding, I revert to my original post on the matter: "My humble view: If there is no legal way to access the evidence, then there is no evidence... same as any other criminal investigation. Sucks when bad guys get off, but there are reasons we have laws."