"Judge won’t release man jailed 2 years for refusing to decrypt drives"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15200451 (4 days ago, 46 comments)
"Man Who Refused to Decrypt Hard Drives Still in Prison After Two Years"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15155523 (11 days ago, 265 comments)
I'm really just curious how this works.. if the state doesn't want to go to trial without a piece of evidence they believes to exist, how long can they hold you and deny your "right to a speedy trial"? Is this normal for judges to hold people in contempt to buy time to gather evidence?
> Why don’t they go to trial without the files allegedly stored on the encrypted devices? It comes down to reasonable doubt.
If there is genuinely reasonable doubt that the disk contains CP, then it cannot be a foregone conclusion that the disk contains CP.
If it is a foregone conclusion that the disk contains CP, then the judge should simply instruct the jury to that effect. The jury might disagree, but that's why we have juries: so that the justice system doesn't imprison people for years without independent oversight.
dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/yourharddrive
"Regardless of the technical legal reason he's in jail, the actual reason he's in jail is for being a terrorist."
Somehow I remember there had been a recent very high-profile precedent being set for having the permission to "delete private data" and "wiping computer data" before handing over your computer to law enforcement.