Hacker News Reader

Comment by hackuser | Hacker News Reader

And for ease of reading, I'll reply to my own comment with other interesting issues:

* "The fact remains that the government has not brought charges," [his attorney] Donoghue said in a telephone interview. It seems a warrant is at issue, if I understand correctly.

* The contempt-of-court order against Rawls was obtained by authorities citing the 1789 All Writs Act. The All Writs Act was the same law the Justice Department asserted in its legal battle with Apple

* The authorities, however, said no testimony was needed from Rawls. Rather, they said, (PDF) "he can keep his passwords to himself" and "produce his computer and hard drives in an unencrypted state."

* My completely amateur thoughts: If they already can prove he has child porn, then they don't need the additional evidence. If they do need the additional evidence, then he is incriminating himself.

View on HN

> My completely amateur thoughts: If they already can prove he has child porn, then they don't need the additional evidence. If they do need the additional evidence, then he is incriminating himself.

Except that's not how it works, and that's not what the 5th protects against. Let's say you have bank records that incriminate you in some money-laundering scheme. The authorities know that you have these records, because an associate of yours has informed them that you do. The protection against self-incrimination is about transfer of information, not about pure action (even if that pure action implicitly transfers incriminating information). The incriminating information would be "I have bank records that detail illegal activity". The authorities already know that; they do not have to ask you to provide that incriminating information. However, it is absolutely within their rights to say "give me all your bank records dated from X to Y", and yes, you must comply.

Sure, you can try to provide incomplete or doctored records, but if they're able to prove that they're incomplete, you're in contempt of the court order, and they'll likely add obstruction of justice or evidence tampering to the list of charges.

In the narrowest possible view, the 5th protects you from being put up on the stand and to be coerced into a confession. Some/many judges interpret it a bit wider than that, but it seems few would find the request that Rawls turns over the files in question to be problematic.

And what happens if the one who testified that you do have the records lied? Do you go to prison for not producing documents you do not have? How would you prove you don't have them? What if you had them but shredded them once you didn't need them (because you shred all bank information, nothing special about these records)?

"My completely amateur thoughts: If they already can prove he has child porn, then they don't need the additional evidence. If they do need the additional evidence, then he is incriminating himself."

That's a good point. They either have proof he downloaded child porn or they don't. They're definitely trying to do more than prove it. Probably set a precedent increasing their power as usual.

"so you, Mr expert witness, are telling me that hashes collide? What's that you say, there are actually people who actively look for and produce such hashes for fun?? Ladies and gentlemen of the jury..."

And so on. I'm pretty sure pedophile is near the top of the "you better make damn sure they don't get off" list.

>I'm pretty sure pedophile is near the top of the "you better make damn sure they don't get off" list.

It's not illegal to be a pedophile. It's illegal to possess child pornography.

They have some evidence that he downloaded child porn, but it's the trial and jury that will evaluate if it's sufficient beyond all reasonable doubt. If they believe that current evidence has some chance of being not sufficient and there's extra incriminating evidence, then it's their right and duty to obtain that before passing it on to the court.

You can't answer the question "if they can prove" before court, as it's decided only then. You must finish the evidence gathering before you have a judgement on that.

It could be that they want the drives unencrypted in order to help other investigations into the sources of the material, and think it will be better to compel him to release it before sentencing so he can't use it as leverage to lessen his sentence.

This is my best guess also, it does however not appear to be in the spirit of the law.

They want to establish useful precedent ideally

Reply on news.ycombinator.com