What is Digg?438 Comments
- Napoleone, on 12/16/2007, -4/+125You've gotta love the Bill of Rights. This is a huge victory for privacy. It will hold up on appeal, unless it meets a Bushie.
I remember that the government wanted to make it illegal to encrypt files, with the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act II. It's a good thing that didn't come to pass. - Stiffler, on 12/16/2007, -3/+86They could never force you to reveal it before this anyways. All you have to do is say that you forgot it. They can't prove that you still remember your password...
- scrumpy, on 12/16/2007, -1/+68Well mines 12345. You know just in case.
- modad, on 12/16/2007, -1/+671 2 3 4 5? That's amazing! I've got the same combination on my luggage!
- latrosicarius, on 12/16/2007, -2/+59sounds like the kinda thing an idiot would have on his luggage
- DarkDragon, on 12/16/2007, -1/+53All right:
People:1 Government:[CLASSIFIED] - nicktx, on 12/16/2007, -4/+50That'll probably help until they waterboard you and get it out of you.. /sigh
- latrosicarius, on 12/16/2007, -1/+47Wait... did anyone see this?
"thousands of images of adult pornography and animation depicting adult and child pornography."
These are animations? As in cartoons? As in not even real CP? - BobTrips, on 12/16/2007, -3/+45We can waterboard him, can't we George?
- latrosicarius, on 12/16/2007, -3/+40It's the fifth amendment-- the right not to self incriminate.
Also, this applies to illegal search & seizures too. If they don't have probably cause, they shouldn't be able to just snoop around and try to crack your pass - najdorf, on 12/16/2007, -1/+36Also he could say he forgot the password, nobody could prove it's false.
- thebellmaster1x, on 12/16/2007, -1/+31Welcome to the skewed world of the PROTECT Act where drawings of children equate to the sexual abuse of a child.
- InfamousAtheist, on 12/16/2007, -2/+32Sacrificing constitutional rights in the name of is never worth it, even if the guy is a disgusting pedophile.
We've been busting people for all sorts of crimes without (well OK, sometimes) violating their constitutional rights for over 200 years now. If this guy's guilty of a crime, he's left some other evidence somewhere. I'd rather see our rights remain protected and this guy go free *in this particular instance* than sacrifice those rights for everyone so we can catch one perv.
Besides, can't the cops use the testimony of the agent who supposedly saw the illegal material to get a warrant to search his home, monitor his internet communication, phone calls... oh wait... they don't even need that under Bush.... - TheKrillr, on 12/16/2007, -2/+30dugg for how strong the schwartz is with you all
- latrosicarius, on 12/16/2007, -2/+24Prepare for immediate departure. And change the combination on my luggage
- bloodqc, on 12/16/2007, -0/+19'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id ... - Uranium118, on 12/16/2007, -2/+21Wait, customs can open your computer and check whatever they want when you go to the USA? Last time I went to the USA, I didn't even need a passport.
- dinorama1234, on 12/16/2007, -0/+18Nope. ANY evidence can and will be used against the defendent. Therefore, he or she can't be compelled to provide a statement or testify. The 5th extends past compelling someone to confess.
- inactive, on 12/16/2007, -0/+18Actually no, possession of simulated child porn is legal. See Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition
- thespudmall, on 12/16/2007, -2/+19Prepare Spaceball 1 for immediate departure. And change the combination on my luggage.
- mlfoley, on 12/16/2007, -5/+22I hate CP freaks, and I hate the government. God, this is a quandary. :(
- Napoleone, on 12/16/2007, -1/+18Wow, I missed that. How the hell would that even be illegal, right?
- madmccoy, on 12/16/2007, -0/+16Careful,. with lolicon you have to THINK OF THE FAKE CHILDREN.
- latrosicarius, on 12/16/2007, -1/+17what does that have to do with anything...
- Napoleone, on 12/16/2007, -0/+16Except that if a Judge doesn't believe the person, they can be charged with contempt of court.
- jmnormand, on 12/16/2007, -2/+17and they have the contents of the laptop. what use they can make of it is their own problem not the defendants...
- inactive, on 12/16/2007, -0/+15Doesn't that mean that 3/4 of the male population of Japan...
Kekekeke. - Qeveren, on 12/16/2007, -0/+14They -can- search. However, forcing him to divulge the passkey (information 'stored in his head') would be a violation of his right not to self-incriminate, according to the judge.
I guess it's akin to not having to answer when the police ask where you've hidden the drugs in your house/car/whatever. - inactive, on 12/16/2007, -1/+14Too many arguments to chip away at the rights of the citizen against unwarranted intrusions seem to have "child pornography" as their basis, as this "appeal to emotion" is a very strong one, since all good people do not wish children harmed.
However, appeals to emotion are never logical and often fallacious. The logical outcome should be to continue to investigate the crime if you believe the investigation warranted. Prosecutions proceed and succeed in the Courts all the time without prior introduced evidence, that have subsequently been found inadmissible, and yet the system continues to function as the guilty are punished and some guilty parties go free.
That is the price we pay for our universal liberties, yes even child molesters sometimes go free, certainly the ones who have not been caught are still free. Would it be logical to stop every single human and frisk them for child pornography and jail those who do not comply with our demands? The right against self incrimination is absolute, otherwise you could be tortured into providing evidence against you. - Napoleone, on 12/16/2007, -0/+12The Constitution makes it clear that the Congress is entitled to the information of the Executive. That branch and its members would not be covered. They know that going in, though.
- mechnoch, on 12/16/2007, -1/+12So, to make the 5th amendment argument valid, could you just change your password to "IAmGuiltyOfDownloadingIllegalChildPornography", or somesuch?
- TheSwashbuckler, on 12/16/2007, -0/+11Not for a criminal inquiry.
Of course, if they plead the fifth that could be used as grounds for impeachment, not that this piece of ***** Dem Congress would actually impeach Bush. - tgc1, on 12/16/2007, -0/+10You know, I always find it interesting that people are quick to judge and quick to move for throwing a guy away because he downloaded questionable content. The type of people who do that need help, of the psychiatric variety. Not jail time. That's just my opinion however. Many will disagree. I also think that instead of prosecuting the people who download those sorts of thing, they should be going after the people who created it.
- inactive, on 12/16/2007, -3/+13In Canada child porn must involve a child.
Drawings and cartoons are protected art.
Hentai FTW - thebellmaster1x, on 12/16/2007, -0/+10It doesn't matter that child pornography is sick. Law is law. If you apply it unequally, that's discriminatory.
- init100, on 12/16/2007, -0/+10Everyone has something to hide.
- Elliuotatar, on 12/16/2007, -0/+9Do you even understand WHY we have a right to privacy in the constitution? Our founding fathers didn't put it in there because they didn't want people to know about their medical history or their credit score. Do you think they won their freedom by following the rules? The right to privacy compliments our other rights. The right to privacy protects the identity of the newspaper writer who is excercising his right to free expression by writing articles which are critical of the government. Kill the right to privacy just so that you can catch some pedophiles and the whole house of cards will come tumbling down.
- Chucara, on 12/16/2007, -3/+12First banning waterboarding, now this? The iron fist is getting awfully loose isn't it, Darth Bush?
Atleast you could still rig another election - do you have any family members left that you haven't already gotten into office? - latrosicarius, on 12/16/2007, -0/+9The minute you start making "exceptions" to people's constitutional rights, you might as well start living in fascism.
Also, not quite sure that downloading images is as bad as "murder", but whatever floats your boat... - sonnybobiche, on 12/16/2007, -3/+12No, they would be guilty of obstruction of justice.
- p51d007, on 12/16/2007, -1/+10As much as I don't like child porn, crack dealers, terrorist etc, the government has NO RIGHT to
my crypto key. When you start diluting the 1st amendment, where does it stop? - inactive, on 12/16/2007, -1/+10Ya I can't imagine letting anyone touch my laptop going over the border.
Sounds more like this guy got caught with a porn stash and immediately everyone says kiddie porn. - HalfGiraffe, on 12/16/2007, -1/+10Since the government has no right to pry into my thoughts and my thoughts are encrypted on the computer, the government can't force me to give up the key. Sounds pretty logical to me.
- dinorama1234, on 12/16/2007, -0/+9Then how about, "All this stress of being charged with a federal crime has got me confused. I guess I just forgot the password. Sorry."
- latrosicarius, on 12/16/2007, -0/+8you would be more creeped out?? Because cartoon CP is worse than actual CP???
- PhilLesh69, on 12/16/2007, -0/+8Nobody likes the kiddy porn peddlers, but that is no reason to abandon your privacy.
This is how they always do it. Pick out the most undesirable elements of society and use them as the reason to take away rights and privacy and freedoms.
We have to take our shoes off at the airport because of terrorists. They're scary, so nobody questions it. We can be stopped in a roadblock because of drunk drivers. Drunk driving is bad, so most people don't view it as an inconvenience to be stopped on a cold and rainy night when all they want is to just get home.
If you have nothing to hide, you have no reason to disclose anything. If you have nothing to hide, you SHOULD have nothing to worry about, meaning you should be left alone. - jmskyrocket, on 12/16/2007, -1/+9I have to completely agree with the judge's decision. If they want to convict him, they need to do the work. He played his cards right, regardless of suspected criminal activity, he still has a right to privacy. The fifth amendment would definitely cover supplying personal password information to the authorities. "[no one]... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" - since there is no document in question, the information exists only in the accused's mind, it must be protected.
- mrjit, on 12/16/2007, -1/+9Kind of defeats the purpose of pleading the fifth if you have to give up your passphrases.
- sonnybobiche, on 12/16/2007, -0/+8RTFA.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 422 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is