Maybe. But let's be honest here: there's CP on that drive. This is a good case for spinning around on HN arguing about the extent of the bill of rights protections in the face of creative application of the All Writs Act. It's a terrible one for actually defending the perp. I mean, come on.
> Maybe. But let's be honest here: there's CP on that drive. This is a good case for spinning around on HN arguing about the extent of the bill of rights protections in the face of creative application of the All Writs Act. It's a terrible one for actually defending the perp. I mean, come on.
The thing with the law and rights is, is that they are the same for everyone. Eroding them for this guy also erodes them for you.
Don't you think its wrong to be able to hold someone forever without evidence? Isn't one of your rights that you don't have to incriminate yourself?
Or do you think that some people should have less or more rights than yourself?
>It's a terrible one for actually defending the perp. I mean, come on.
Who is defending him? I cannot in good conscience call him a perp as he has not been charged with, let alone convicted of, a crime. I am only pointing out that there are a myriad of possibilities one of which is that there is child pornography on the drive. However, we do not know that for a fact.
But just as I said, he may fear decrypting the drive because of what is on it (only he knows at this point). He may think it is better to be seen as the little guy being bullied by big brother than to be vilified by those who will presume him guilty of having "CP on that drive" and becoming "the perp" without due process.
Forgive me if I am incorrect but don't our laws apply equally regardless of the crime one is suspected of commiting?
> Forgive me if I am incorrect but don't our laws apply equally regardless of the crime one is suspected of commiting?
The All Writs Act is a law, and it allows exactly what is happening here. The question at hand is about whether that is in conflict with the fourth and fifth amendments. Equal protection is an entirely different thing and not at issue here.
And again, if you want to talk about the constitution I'm all for it. But just don't do that in the context of "you know, maybe this guy is innocent". That's silly and counterproductive.
The practical thing happening here is that the prosecution almost certainly could build a case on the evidence they have, but in practice they don't have to because the judge is willing to hold the guy in jail on procedural grounds.
Again, I'm saying there is a good argument that this was a bad decision and that the All Writs Act shouldn't be construed to allow this. But that's an academic point. In the real world, chances are very near zero that there is any "injustice" going on in this particular case.
Not a "game", maybe, but it's still zero sum. Which prosecution specifically do you want to skip so that the system can go through the motions to "do its freaking job" and get a conviction?
Once more: this was a practical decision by prosecutors to deliver as much justice as they could given limited resources. It seems all but certain (yes, in the "beyond a reasonable doubt" sense) that there is no objective injustice involved in holding this guy.
I don't think many people on this thread would have a problem with the case if the guy had gone in trial for possessing child pornography and had been convicted.
