And I thought my password was cool.
It starts with t7p, is not a phrase or anything similar, and is 25 characters long (for my default anyways). For my porn, it's 35. Seriously.
People in this thread:
"Open up we have a warrant!"
"no!"
*locks door with super glue and shit*
*Police knock down door*
"OH GOD MY RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED"
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;25293564]He's technically already incriminating himself by not giving it. Every time he refuses to give it, he's incriminating himself further.
Well, that and people like to excuse the dumbest shit by going 'GURD GURVEN RIGHT' at everything.[/QUOTE]
Hahaha oh my god what a bad post
s0beit isn't exactly the brightest politically but at least he understands the point of rights
[editline]03:27AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=ZekeTwo;25296121]They can still subpoena you for your password and jail you if you refuse[/QUOTE]
Nnnnnooooo I don't think so. That's precisely what the 5th Amendment prevents. Do you have a reference for this?
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;25302625]
Nnnnnooooo I don't think so. That's precisely what the 5th Amendment prevents. Do you have a reference for this?[/QUOTE]
Corporations may also be compelled to maintain and turn over records; the supreme court has held that the fifth amendment protections against self-incrimination extend only to "natural persons." There are, however, a few restraints on the government; it may not, for instance, compel a person to keep records for a corporation if those records could be used against the record-keeper himself.
As a condition of employment, workers may be required to answer their employer's narrowly defined questions regarding conduct on the job. If an employee invokes the Garrity rule (sometimes called the Garrity Warning or Garrity Rights) before answering the questions, then the answers cannot be used in criminal prosecution of the employee.[citation needed] This principle was developed in Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 US 493 (1967). The rule is most commonly applied to public employees such as police officers.
Wiki's article, seems you're right.
[QUOTE=Pepsi-cola;25292891]You're :downs:[/QUOTE]
Posted from a phone.
They used the terrorism act against him. =/ So that they could keep him locked up for longer. That why this is in the news.
it would be hilarious if they somehow cracked it and the only thing inside it was a text document saying "lol"
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;25289739]The police are probably well aware of the legality of having an encrypted harddrive. Think again though:
The guy is being suspected of having CP and when they find an encrypted HDD after searching his house with a warrant, he refuses to give up the password? Surely if he's got nothing to hide, he could just give the password?
Yeah, try proving your innocence now.[/QUOTE]
If you're not doing anything illegal in your house I'm sure you won't mind the government putting 24-hour surveillance in it.
He's a ginger after all, he has no soul.
[QUOTE=The Mighty Boatman;25304272]If you're not doing anything illegal in your house I'm sure you won't mind the government putting 24-hour surveillance in it.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't like getting watched 24 hours a day, regardless of whether what I was doing was legal or not.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;25302625]Nnnnnooooo I don't think so. That's precisely what the 5th Amendment prevents. Do you have a reference for this?[/QUOTE]
I thought the whole point of a subpoena was to compel people to bring forth evidence? If it doesn't work that way I'm wrong and that's great. (Since it would apply to me as well given the similar wording to the 5th in The Charter)
[QUOTE=ZekeTwo;25307546]I thought the whole point of a subpoena was to compel people to bring forth evidence? If it doesn't work that way I'm wrong and that's great. (Since it would apply to me as well given the similar wording to the 5th in The Charter)[/QUOTE]
It compels you to bring forth the evidence if you can, or so I believe. however, as it's already been stated a couple of times.
Say you forgot.
Argument over, they can't prove otherwise.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;25289466]Congratulations, you just got yourself arrested for obstruction of justice.[/QUOTE]
it seems odd to me. In america i think this might be different.Giving up the computer would be compliance. But being forced to tell the password would be a breach of the 5th would it not?
If it is the only evidence on me I would sit as silent as a duck and just plead the 5th. I should not be forced to participate in my own conviction.
fuckdapolicelolololololololololololololololololol1
/what, isn't that what everyone uses?
~329,534,115,078,589,300,000,000 years for my password to be cracked.
So he's being punished because he pleads the 5th essentially? Hmmm.
[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;25310534]~329,534,115,078,589,300,000,000 years for my password to be cracked.
So he's being punished because he pleads the 5th essentially? Hmmm.[/QUOTE]
it's in the UK
[QUOTE=Sackboy;25310560]it's in the UK[/QUOTE]
I thought there was a similar law there as well.
There ought to be regardless.
[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;25310762]I thought there was a similar law there as well.
There ought to be regardless.[/QUOTE]
No, read the laws before assuming things.
[QUOTE=Superstormj;25287478]Whatever the fuck was on that computer, i need it.
Also, fucking noob cops. Take the hard drive out and connect it to another computer. Voila, 10 mins and you have access...[/QUOTE]
:cop:
[QUOTE=Jiyoon;25288329]Kids got cp or warez. probably better that he didnt give them his password or else whatevers on there would get him in worse trouble[/QUOTE]
Gotta be Cp, and probably a lot of it.
[QUOTE=Mokkan13;25310925]:cop:
Gotta be Cp, and probably a lot of it.[/QUOTE]
Or it could contain videos of him raping and/or killing people. Or maybe even documents of terrorist activities he is planning.
The point is nobody actually knows what is on the hdd as they can't access it.
[QUOTE=watehfreak;25287852][img]http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/security.png[/img]
Doesn't matter if the encryption is secure. Not saying that the police can torture, but it doesn't mean that they can't get the password from you.[/QUOTE]
Bullshit, put a keyfile on a USB drive, then destroy the thumbdrive when necessary.
A quantum computer would crack it in a few seconds.
Jailing someone for refusing to release potentially self-incriminating information is messed up.
[editline]10:40PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sackboy;25310560]it's in the UK[/QUOTE]
They have the exact same thing
[quote=wiki]
[b]Right to remain silent[/b]
A defendant in a criminal trial may choose whether or not to give evidence in the proceedings. Further, there is no general duty to assist the police with their inquiries.
Although certain financial and regulatory investigatory bodies have the power to require a person to answer questions and impose a penalty if a person refuses, if a person gives evidence in such proceedings, the prosecution cannot adduce such evidence in a criminal trial.[3]
[/quote]
Except for
[quote=wiki]
[b]Encryption and the right to silence[/b]
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000[12] s.49 and s.53 make it a criminal offence (with a penalty of two years in prison) to fail to disclose when requested the key to any protected information.
[/quote]
Which is an absolutely ridiculous law. You can't say "The person being investigated shouldn't have to tell the cops where the key to his or her safe is", and then when someone makes a ultra-titanium-super-amazing-safe say "Welp, now it's illegal not to tell us where the key to a ultra-titanium-super-amazing-safe is"
CP?
[QUOTE=Baldr;25287954]I think he has something to hide that will let that 4 months look like a joke.[/QUOTE]
yh his 4chan folder
just going across the letters in the middle row asdfghjkl to 50 presses going back to a at L would take a desktop computer about 8 octillion years.
To unarmed: CP= kiddie pr0n.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;25292705]Are you dumb? Try reading the law before talking about it:
[quote]RIPA regulates the manner in which certain public bodies may conduct surveillance and access a person's electronic communications. The Act:
enables certain public bodies to demand that an ISP provide access to a customer's communications in secret;
enables mass surveillance of communications in transit;
enables certain public bodies to demand ISPs fit equipment to facilitate surveillance;
enables certain public bodies to demand that someone hand over keys to protected information;
allows certain public bodies to monitor people's internet activities;
prevents the existence of interception warrants and any data collected with them from being revealed in court. [/quote]
That's from wikipedia.
As much as that summary is rather vague, it quite clearly states it's illegal to say no.[/QUOTE]
Cya guys , never using internet again. Seriously , what happened to the word "Privacy"
[QUOTE=Instant Mix;25349758]Cya guys , never using internet again. Seriously , what happened to the word "Privacy"[/QUOTE]
bye
Does anyone know why they actually wanted the password, or what he had on there? I saw the thread when it was brand new and haven't searched through but this page didn't show much.
[QUOTE=Instant Mix;25349758]Cya guys , never using internet again. Seriously , what happened to the word "Privacy"[/QUOTE]
Just "forget" your passwords I guess.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
