Forensic examination also disclosed that Doe [Rawls] had downloaded thousands of files known by their "hash" values to be child pornography. The files, however, were not on the Mac Pro, but instead had been stored on the encrypted external hard drives. Accordingly, the files themselves could not be accessed.

Not really just because you may have downloaded files doesn't mean you actually got what you where downloading .

This statement belies an understanding of hash values and algorithms.

I have downloaded movie files and when they were finished and I watched them they where not what I thought they were .

That means you downloaded a movie with an incorrect title. Regardless of the title fooling you, the hash value for that title is unique. It wouldn't change unless something in the video changed. The fact that they have evidence that he downloaded thousands of known child pornographic content based on hash values means he indeed downloaded them. If he meant to download something else, then he should have disclosed that in part of his argument. And he had a responsibility to report the files to the authorities.

Further circumstantial evidence is Rawl's sister had reported that her brother showed her hundreds of pictures and videos of child pornography. This, combined with the forensic evidence, was a compelling enough reason to order the man to unlock the hard drives.

They can prosecute him on the evidence they have. They want to make it easier for the jury show and tell. They also want to preclude him being able to say "once I realized what it was I deleted it," or "someone else stole my wi-fi."

The question is, can they make you give up the combination to a safe that the government has in its possession? Or must the government pay a safe cracker to open it? But the reality is much more like the Apple case than most of you are willing to admit. This guy made the safe -- the password -- and they are asking him in his capacity as the manufacturer of the safe to open it, exactly like asking Apple to crack open the iPhone was. The only difference and the court may not see it as a difference is the safe belongs to the manufacturer, not a 3rd party.

---

This statement belies an understanding of hash values and algorithms.

how so if I look at the title of a movie weather the # is known to police to be child pornography is irrelevant as I am not downloading it because of the # only the title so I may not find out what it is until it finishes and it doesn't mean I did not delete it .

yes I know it's a bit rich to believe he didn't with so many but he does have a legal point to say no or I didn't know what they where and is still not a reason to hold off on the court case as they seem to have plenty to convict so why hold him indefinitely that's just mean really .

---

If this article is correct, then there does need to be a review of internet pornography laws.
Chicago girl allegedly sexually assaulted on Facebook Live as 40 watched

Jeffrey Urdangen, a professor at Northwestern University’s law school and the director of the school’s Center for Criminal Defence, said it was not illegal to watch such a video or to not report it to the police. He said child pornography charges would not apply unless viewers had downloaded the video.

---

Put that scumbag in Gitmo!
http://www.svtplay.se/video/12621660/gitmo/gitmo?info=visa

The question is, can they make you give up the combination to a safe that the government has in its possession? Or must the government pay a safe cracker to open it? But the reality is much more like the Apple case than most of you are willing to admit. This guy made the safe -- the password -- and they are asking him in his capacity as the manufacturer of the safe to open it, exactly like asking Apple to crack open the iPhone was. The only difference and the court may not see it as a difference is the safe belongs to the manufacturer, not a 3rd party.

Actually, there's a key difference between this and the infamous iPhone case: Apple wasn't the defendant in that iPhone case, therefore compelling Apple to provide a backdoor key for that single case would set a very bad precedent that software developers would be A) required to build in backdoor keys, B) hand them over to the government when requested, and C) cause reputable harm in the eyes of the public for said company. In that case, the defendants were two shooters who killed 14 people and the government wanted to force Apple to unlock the encrypted iPhone. Since Apple wasn't on trial, Apple shouldn't have been compelled to unlock it.

This guy is on trial and is not the manufacturer of the encryption software (or the safe as you put it). He is only holder of the key ("password"). They want him to unlock it. So far, they are not asking Apple to unlock it.

I will agree, though, that this is still a very slippery slope and I would like to see SCOTUS rule in the matter to get clear direction. (Though, if it is a conservative court like it's shaping up to be, conservatives embrace a police state and will side with law enforcement every time, so I'm not sure it will be a fair hearing even if it is made to look like one.)

If this article is correct, then there does need to be a review of internet pornography laws.
Chicago girl allegedly sexually assaulted on Facebook Live as 40 watched

Jeffrey Urdangen, a professor at Northwestern University’s law school and the director of the school’s Center for Criminal Defence, said it was not illegal to watch such a video or to not report it to the police. He said child pornography charges would not apply unless viewers had downloaded the video.

Not that I disagree with you, but where do you draw the line? What if other people were watching it on a computer and I walked into the room and wasn't OK with it? Should I be charged too? (And I do hope you mean internet child pornography laws. I don't think regular pornography laws need changing.)

I would like to see SCOTUS rule in the matter to get clear direction. (Though, if it is a conservative court like it's shaping up to be, conservatives embrace a police state and will side with law enforcement every time, so I'm not sure it will be a fair hearing even if it is made to look like one.)

That's the very reason SCROTUS should not be asked as he's the one stacking the deck to be a police state

---

And I do hope you mean internet child pornography laws. I don't think regular pornography laws need changing.

Of course the internet child pornography laws are probably the most important ones that need review.
But there does not seem to be any consensus internationally what should and want shouldn't be allowed under the "regular pornography" headings.
We now have this in the UK, UK porn legislation: What is now banned under new government laws (2014)

BDSM, spanking and other sex acts are now subject to tight restrictions

vice.com has some interesting cases.

---

The question is, can they make you give up the combination to a safe that the government has in its possession? Or must the government pay a safe cracker to open it? But the reality is much more like the Apple case than most of you are willing to admit. This guy made the safe -- the password -- and they are asking him in his capacity as the manufacturer of the safe to open it, exactly like asking Apple to crack open the iPhone was. The only difference and the court may not see it as a difference is the safe belongs to the manufacturer, not a 3rd party.

Actually, there's a key difference between this and the infamous iPhone case: Apple wasn't the defendant in that iPhone case, therefore compelling Apple to provide a backdoor key for that single case would set a very bad precedent that software developers would be A) required to build in backdoor keys, B) hand them over to the government when requested, and C) cause reputable harm in the eyes of the public for said company. In that case, the defendants were two shooters who killed 14 people and the government wanted to force Apple to unlock the encrypted iPhone. Since Apple wasn't on trial, Apple shouldn't have been compelled to unlock it.

Actually the two shooters weren't the defendant either. Apple was the defendant, and not because the shooters were dead, but the phone was owned by a different government agency who was very willing to have it unlocked, in essence the phone itself would have been the defendant, but it waved by its owner being willing. Yes, things can be defendants see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Thirty-seven_Photographs

This guy is on trial and is not the manufacturer of the encryption software (or the safe as you put it). He is only holder of the key ("password"). They want him to unlock it. So far, they are not asking Apple to unlock it.

This guy isn't on trial. He is being investigated, but no charges have been filed except contempt of court.

As to manufacturer, who do you ask to open the safe? The locksmith who set the combination? The manufacturer who thinks it is impossible to open without the combination?

I will agree, though, that this is still a very slippery slope and I would like to see SCOTUS rule in the matter to get clear direction. (Though, if it is a conservative court like it's shaping up to be, conservatives embrace a police state and will side with law enforcement every time, so I'm not sure it will be a fair hearing even if it is made to look like one.)

Yes SCOTUS needs to rule and with this kind of case there is tremendous political pressure to rule for a police state. Very much like being forced to give up your social media passwords when you cross the international border.

---

The Bowling Green Massacre was terrible.

Can't make this stuff up.



(You ever heard what they say about people who live in glass houses?)

---

#resist

This guy is on trial and is not the manufacturer of the encryption software (or the safe as you put it). He is only holder of the key ("password"). They want him to unlock it. So far, they are not asking Apple to unlock it.

This guy isn't on trial. He is being investigated, but no charges have been filed except contempt of court.

As to manufacturer, who do you ask to open the safe? The locksmith who set the combination? The manufacturer who thinks it is impossible to open without the combination?

Fair point, he isn't on trial yet. But I do not think it's OK to force the manufacturer to open the safe. Manufacturer's shouldn't be in the business of undermining the security of their own products, whether by breaking open by brute force or by holding secret skeleton keys that open all.

Here's another one to get your ulcer going. Don't like it? Use your filter................

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Here's another one to get your ulcer going. Don't like it? Use your filter................

Why would i want to ? you might be a "T.F.Y" or that's how you come across on these boards but least you ain't so " two faced " as certain posters matey ;-)

---

Life is what you make of it :-)

When i'm good i'm very good , but when i'm bad i'm shi#eloads better ;-) In't I " buttercups " p.m.s.l at authoritie !!;-)

But I do not think it's OK to force the manufacturer to open the safe. Manufacturer's shouldn't be in the business of undermining the security of their own products, whether by breaking open by brute force or by holding secret skeleton keys that open all.

And we agree that is an unconstitutional taking of the value of the brand of lock, which is what SCOTUS needs to rule.

---

This guy isn't on trial. He is being investigated, but no charges have been filed except contempt of court.

Uhh... Contempt of court is not really a 'charge'.

Contempt of court is behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice, and dignity of the court.

Failure to comply with a Judge's order is the very definition of 'contempt of court' (defy the authority of the judge).

A person is in 'contempt of court' because the Judge declares them to be. The Judge then orders them punished in some way. In many jurisdictions, this punishment can be up to 6 months in jail, per 'offense' (this can run indefinitely because at the end of the 6 months, you appear before the judge again, and are again ordered to do whatever, and another refusal is another CoC and another 6 months).

The USA may be a Constitutional Republic, but inside a courtroom, the Judge is Dictator. I've seen a person (a spectator, not a witness or anyone else involved in the case) found in CoC by the Judge for just wearing a shirt (it had some slogan on it) that the Judge did not approve of. When ordered to leave the Courtroom and go change the shirt, the person refused. They got Jail for the rest of the day (until, IIRC, 5PM that day).

I've narrowly avoided a CoC myself. During a Trial (I was a spectator in that one), I suffered an intensely painful leg cramp. After briefly crying out in pain
(at a very Critical time in the testimony of one witness), I started to leave the courtroom (not wanting to be a further disturbance). One of the bailiffs followed me out, and told me to wait outside, the Judge wanted to see me at the next recess. I explained what happened to the Judge and apologized. Thankfully, he understood. There are some Judges (even some friends of mine that are Judges -- one of them known as 'Maximum Jack' said he would have put me in Jail for a couple of days, friend or not, for disturbing his Court like that) that would not have.

In my opinion, the defendant was boned either way he went. Provide the password to unlock the hard drive and go away for a long long time on a kiddieporn conviction, or defy the judge and not provide the password and still *likely* go away for a long long time. Perhaps it makes sense for him (if he was guilty of the kiddieporn charges) to refuse and take the CoC until the Judge tires of it. That way the kiddieporn charge verdict is in some measure of doubt (very very small amount of doubt, but one never knows -- a GOOD lawyer MIGHT be able to argue successfully that without the actual *proof*, he shouldn't be found guilty... maybe...). IF he was NOT guilty of the kiddieporn charges, then he is a damn fool for not immediately unlocking it.

On another note, I DO have concerns that forcing people to provide unlock/decrypt passwords is a violation of their 5th amendment rights against self-incrimination. Their 4th amendment rights (secure in their personal papers, etc.) are pretty much out the window, since it is a Judge ordering it. But the 5th amendment rights against self-incrimination? Large can of legal worms here, in my opinion. YMMV, SSFD.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

This guy isn't on trial. He is being investigated, but no charges have been filed except contempt of court.

Uhh... Contempt of court is not really a 'charge'.

Contempt of court is behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice, and dignity of the court.

Failure to comply with a Judge's order is the very definition of 'contempt of court' (defy the authority of the judge).

It can be a charge and require a trial. In those cases, rare, it would be treated as a felony.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/criminal-contempt-of-court.html

---

For such an Iconic President, I would have thought that it would be in a museum.

JFK's diary up for auction

Just wondering how long will it be before today's media take his words out of context & use it for their own purposes.

Grey area.......not being asked for the password is the key point(unintentional pun). It's the same as being asked to unlock a room in a private residence under a search order but not providing the searchers with the key, They have access to the contents but not the means to access.

This will be interesting.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

IF such a demand were made of me regarding my computers, I would, before the judge had time to blink, simply smash the hard drives into oblivion.
Thus rendering the demand moot.
Of course, the judge might at that point demand that I sit in jail for contempt of court.

But, that would not get them the hard drives back.

Meowmycivilliberties.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster