Warp wrote:
>   "Of course, if Alice got a warrant, then she could probably force Bob
> to reveal the contents of the archive."

Hmmm. Apparently the premature post failed for some reason. :-)

I think the author of that sentence doesn't know what they're talking about.

>   I have always wondered about this. To what extent can authorities,
> legally, pressure a suspect to reveal information that only he knows,
> when this information would prove his guilt?

That's the "Fifth Amendment."  They can't. They can make you turn over 
*things*, but not information.

Or, alternately, they can ask you to reveal it if they promise not to 
prosecute you for it. So they can ask the accountant to disclose the 
password to the accounting files and promise not to prosecute the 
accountant, but then use the information to prosecute the boss, for example.

>   For example, if authorities ask the suspect what is the decryption
> password for a file, and the suspect says he can't remember it, can there
> be any consequences? How do authorities prove that he is lying, that he
> does remember perfectly, and is simply refusing to tell?

Well, in this particular case, the defendant already told them he had the 
password.  They're really arguing "I don't want your password, I want your 
locked files."  Since he told them he knows the password, they're arguing 
that they're not getting anything new from him.

Generally, the government doesn't get to do anything about that.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   For example, if authorities ask the suspect what is the decryption
> > password for a file, and the suspect says he can't remember it, can there
> > be any consequences? How do authorities prove that he is lying, that he
> > does remember perfectly, and is simply refusing to tell?
>
> I bumped "post" too soon...
>
>
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/court-self-incrimination-privilege-stops-with-passwords.ars
>
> If you care enough to track through it, you see that the problem is the
> encrypted partition was unlocked, he admitted it might have child porn, the
> border guards saw something that looked like child porn, and then the drive
> got locked.

huhuhu
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0318091dog1.html

This one got backfired. :P

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> This one got backfired. :P

Yeah. In general, the right answer is STFU, at least in America. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

http://xkcd.com/538/

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On 3/22/2009 9:43 AM, Darren New wrote:
> There's other stuff out there about the case. For example, he says the
> reason he might have child porn is he downloads bunches of porn, then
> deletes anything that looks suspicious, and he hadn't gotten around to
> cleaning up this latest batch.

Although I've pretty much come to hate humanity for the things they 
do[1], this actually sounds like a believable scenario.

[1] The difference between cardboard cutout characters and real people 
is that real people can have opposing ideas or emotions at the same 
time.  Yes, I hate people.  Yes, I think they're dicks.  At the same 
time, I have great hopes for our future and I'm consistently (one might 
say naively) optimistic about new people I meet.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

> Or, alternately, they can ask you to reveal it if they promise not to 
> prosecute you for it. So they can ask the accountant to disclose the 
> password to the accounting files and promise not to prosecute the 
> accountant, but then use the information to prosecute the boss, for 
> example.

Even in this case they are cutting a deal. Under no circumstances are you 
compelled to provide information that could incriminate yourself. They may 
promise not to prosecute but your ultimate dicision to waive your fifth 
amendment rights depends on whether or not you believe they have evidence to 
convict you.

However, if you give a statement under oath and they can prove that 
statement is false they can get you for purjury. Also, any statement you 
give can be used in court to prosecute you even if you are guilty of 
nothing. That is why if they ask you for the password and you say nothing 
they will have no evidence to prosecute. If they ask for the password and 
you say you don't know what it is and they can prove you knew what it is, 
they can use that in court as evidence of guilt.

I think this guy does a great job of explaining the fifth amenment

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Although I've pretty much come to hate humanity for the things they 
> do[1], this actually sounds like a believable scenario.

Yeah. Doesn't really matter, tho - you're still screwed. That's why STFU is 
always your best approach. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

On 22-3-2009 20:10, Mike Hough wrote:
>> Or, alternately, they can ask you to reveal it if they promise not to 
>> prosecute you for it. So they can ask the accountant to disclose the 
>> password to the accounting files and promise not to prosecute the 
>> accountant, but then use the information to prosecute the boss, for 
>> example.
> 
> Even in this case they are cutting a deal. Under no circumstances are you 
> compelled to provide information that could incriminate yourself. They may 
> promise not to prosecute but your ultimate dicision to waive your fifth 
> amendment rights depends on whether or not you believe they have evidence to 
> convict you.
> 
> However, if you give a statement under oath and they can prove that 
> statement is false they can get you for purjury. Also, any statement you 
> give can be used in court to prosecute you even if you are guilty of 
> nothing. That is why if they ask you for the password and you say nothing 
> they will have no evidence to prosecute. If they ask for the password and 
> you say you don't know what it is and they can prove you knew what it is, 
> they can use that in court as evidence of guilt.
> 
> I think this guy does a great job of explaining the fifth amenment
> 
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865 
> 
You may be right that it explains the fifth amendment, but to me as a 
foreigner it mainly emphasizes the idea that the US criminal system is 
too easy to misuse to get innocent people convicted. I think I prefer 
our system without a jury (and the somewhat related plea bargaining, 
something that is often quoted as a reason why you can not extradite a 
person to the US, because there is no guarantee that they will get a 
fair trial).
I have to admit that I don't know exactly how the system here works, 
what they tell you, what they record and to what extend a police officer 
may lie or withhold information, but as far as I know there are not many 
reasons for an average person to have to know that before being the 
subject of an investigation. I may be wrong (but don't extrapolate any 
US experience to assume I am).

I am also not completely sure that in the Netherlands you can prosecute 
a suspect for perjury. I vaguely remember that you can not even ask a 
first degree family member questions that may result in a conviction. 
yet, IANAL.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> You may be right that it explains the fifth amendment, but to me as a 
> foreigner it mainly emphasizes the idea that the US criminal system is 
> too easy to misuse to get innocent people convicted.

I'm not sure that's what he's saying there.  Indeed, I think there are lots 
and lots of guilty people who get away with it.

He's more saying "it can't help you to talk to the cops, because their job 
is to arrest you, not judge you."  He's saying "If you *are* guilty, stfu." 
He's saying "If you're not guilty, tell the judge, not the cop."

I *do* think our system is open to abuse. But it's mostly abuse *before* you 
get to the court room, methinks. It's cops arresting people without a good 
reason, or because they don't like your attitude, or etc. I don't think the 
judges or juries are particularly abusive.

> I think I prefer 
> our system without a jury (and the somewhat related plea bargaining, 
> something that is often quoted as a reason why you can not extradite a 
> person to the US, because there is no guarantee that they will get a 
> fair trial).

Welllll...  Depends what you mean by "fair trial."  The whole "fair" bit has 
been going downhill here, with the "war on drugs" and the "war on terror" 
and all that sort of stuff. And most of the unfairness in those situations 
are when laws get passed to let people bypass the trials altogether - 
confiscating "suspected" drug money, or claiming people are "enemy 
combatants." And stuff like cops turning off video recorders while they do 
things they shouldn't be doing.

I think for normal everyday stuff - did you steal the car, did you shoot the 
boss - it's a pretty fair system.

> I have to admit that I don't know exactly how the system here works, 

Most people don't know how the system works here either. That's why people 
have to make a video saying "Hey, dumbass, the cop's job is to arrest you, 
and its the judge's job to run the trial."

> what they tell you, what they record and to what extend a police officer 
> may lie or withhold information, but as far as I know there are not many 
> reasons for an average person to have to know that before being the 
> subject of an investigation. I may be wrong (but don't extrapolate any 
> US experience to assume I am).

Yes. That's why the video is "STFU, and get a lawyer who knows the rules." 
If you can't afford the lawyer, the government will hire one for you. He'll 
be really busy, but you'll have a lawyer. :-)  Since you're guilty until 
proven innocent, you need to just STFU unless your lawyer thinks saying 
something will make things better.

> I am also not completely sure that in the Netherlands you can prosecute 
> a suspect for perjury.

Here, it has to be something fairly important. If your testimony puts 
someone in jail, and a year later you admit you lied, something like that.

> I vaguely remember that you can not even ask a 
> first degree family member questions that may result in a conviction. 

I know here spouses are excluded (unless you're a "terrorist" or something).

> yet, IANAL.

Me neither. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

On 3/22/2009 4:19 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Since you're
> guilty until proven innocent, you need to just STFU unless your lawyer
> thinks saying something will make things better.

I thought it was the other way around - that the basis of our legal 
system was "Innocent until proven guilty?"

> andrel wrote:
>> I am also not completely sure that in the Netherlands you can
>> prosecute a suspect for perjury.
>
> Here, it has to be something fairly important. If your testimony puts
> someone in jail, and a year later you admit you lied, something like that.

I don't believe you can be prosecuted for perjury unless the testimony 
is tied to a criminal trial.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message