Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Give us your password or go to jail!

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,256 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Failing to say something is not the same as actively refusing to provide evidence which you have been instructed to by law. Speech is not inherently true. Objective evidence is. Requiring a person to give a statement is not the same as requiring them to produce specific evidence that they are known to have (beyond reasonable doubt).

    The US position is slightly different. There's physical evidence, and there's abstract knowledge. A combination to a safe, or a password, is abstract knowledge, it exists only to the questioned person. As such, it's protected by the right to avoid self-incrimination.
    However, there are exceptions. For example, if the police are looking for something that they know is fact, then it's not protected. To take the example of the arms dealer's safe mentioned above, if the police know that he's an arms dealer, but don't know where the arms are, they can't compel him to open the safe to see. If, however, they saw him place the arms into the safe, then he can be compelled to reveal the safe combination to allow access to the evidence.

    NTM


  • Options
    #93
    stepbar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,123 ✭✭✭stepbar


    feelingstressed wrote: »
    16 weeks, he did the right thing....from a legal point of view

    He probably knew full well if he gave the password he would be convicted of something a lot more serious.
    Clearly he has something to hide

    In a sad world yes he did....


  • Options
    #94
    randylonghorn
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 29,509 Mod ✭✭✭✭randylonghorn


    Deleted User wrote: »

    or more seriously do you have the right to privacy!
    In general, yes, but where police can show good reason to suspect that you have kiddie porn or something of that kind of seriousness on your computer, no.

    In much the same way that you have a right to privacy in your own home, but a search warrant can be issued which breaches that if cause can be shown.

    The whole self-incrimination debate is a different one, but in general the right to privacy doesn't cover covering up a crime.


  • Options
    #95
    wolfric
    Registered Users Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭wolfric


    While i guess now this doesn't apply to the uk or ireland, doesn't Americas right not to incriminate yourself, stop the authorities from making you give up a password. However for example they can force you to give up a physical key.


  • Options
    #96
    aquaman
    Registered Users Posts: 172 ✭✭aquaman


    Different scenario:

    Disgraced ex banker, Michael Fingleton or Fitzpatrick are investigated for reckless banking contributing to our economic mess; a warrant is issued for access to key financial records held on a personal computer, which is encrypted:

    Should the password be given up or witheld based on privacy principals?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    stepbar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,123 ✭✭✭stepbar


    aquaman wrote: »
    Different scenario:

    Disgraced ex banker, Michael Fingleton or Fitzpatrick are investigated for reckless banking contributing to our economic mess; a warrant is issued for access to key financial records held on a personal computer, which is encrypted:

    Should the password be given up or witheld based on privacy principals?

    I doubt either had a 50 character encrypted password.....


  • Options
    #98
    wolfric
    Registered Users Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭wolfric


    aquaman wrote: »
    Different scenario:

    Disgraced ex banker, Michael Fingleton or Fitzpatrick are investigated for reckless banking contributing to our economic mess; a warrant is issued for access to key financial records held on a personal computer, which is encrypted:

    Should the password be given up or witheld based on privacy principals?

    Laws don't change however if you enrage or get people passionate about something they will make an exception for just about anything.

    For example you wouldn't sport murder lightly but if the person hit hard enough or hit a wide audience (both of which you've referenced) you'd have people volunteering left right and centre even if it's against the law and/or immoral.


  • Options
    #99
    aquaman
    Registered Users Posts: 172 ✭✭aquaman


    stepbar wrote: »
    I doubt either had a 50 character encrypted password.....

    I wouldn't be surprised!


  • Options
    #100
    randylonghorn
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 29,509 Mod ✭✭✭✭randylonghorn


    aquaman wrote: »
    Different scenario:

    Disgraced ex banker, Michael Fingleton or Fitzpatrick are investigated for reckless banking contributing to our economic mess; a warrant is issued for access to key financial records held on a personal computer, which is encrypted:

    Should the password be given up or witheld based on privacy principals?
    Financial records relevant to their companies are not personal / private information though, whether held on a personal computer or not.


  • Options
    #101
    aquaman
    Registered Users Posts: 172 ✭✭aquaman


    wolfric wrote: »
    Laws don't change however if you enrage or get people passionate about something they will make an exception for just about anything.

    For example you wouldn't sport murder lightly but if the person hit hard enough or hit a wide audience (both of which you've referenced) you'd have people volunteering left right and centre even if it's against the law and/or immoral.

    My point is (while playing devils advocate somewhat) if information is held digitally, which may or may not be evidence in a criminal prosecution, it should be made available to the authorities on production of a valid warrant.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    aquaman
    Registered Users Posts: 172 ✭✭aquaman


    randylonghorn wrote: »
    Financial records relevant to their companies are not personal / private information though, whether held on a personal computer or not.

    What if both private and personal info are stored on the same encrypted drive?


  • Options
    #103
    fergalr
    Registered Users Posts: 1,922 ✭✭✭fergalr


    aquaman wrote: »
    Different scenario:

    Disgraced ex banker, Michael Fingleton or Fitzpatrick are investigated for reckless banking contributing to our economic mess; a warrant is issued for access to key financial records held on a personal computer, which is encrypted:

    Should the password be given up or witheld based on privacy principals?

    Do you mean they should they give up their encryption password?
    Or do you mean they should be jailed if they don't?
    Two separate questions.


    Anyway, they dramatically swept on Fitzpatrick in the early hours of the morning, a dawn raid at 6:30am, to make sure he didn't have time to destroy any evidence. Several months after it was publicly announced they started the investigation of him. I'm sure he didnt see it coming.


  • Options
    #104
    aquaman
    Registered Users Posts: 172 ✭✭aquaman


    fergalr wrote: »
    Do you mean they should they give up their encryption password?
    Or do you mean they should be jailed if they don't?
    Two separate questions..

    I was posing the question.....

    but yes I do believe that (in this hypothetical scenario they should give up their encryption password or be jailed if not.


  • Options
    #105
    Amalgam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,026 ✭✭✭Amalgam


    Hmm, isn't it the case, with UK and Irish law, that if an ISP logs the downloading of 'certain material', a court case still hinges on material evidence being uncovered on the computer\laptop.

    As far as I can tell, the Police were tracking a group of individuals because of online activity, but have to seal the offence with material on the offender's PC\Laptop.

    People have walked free from Irish courts due to this very situation. Basically, someone sits at home downloading 'certain material' and when the person is raided, the laptop has gone 'missing', so, you're left with just the ISP logs, which, with a good solicitor, you can safely walk away from.


  • Options
    #106
    randylonghorn
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 29,509 Mod ✭✭✭✭randylonghorn


    aquaman wrote: »
    What if both private and personal info are stored on the same encrypted drive?
    Tough luck, they shouldn't have stored company info on a personal laptop in the first place.

    The fact that they did (hypothetically, ofc) would raise questions and even suspicions as to why.


  • Options
    #107
    fergalr
    Registered Users Posts: 1,922 ✭✭✭fergalr


    Amalgam wrote: »
    Hmm, isn't it the case, with UK and Irish law, that if an ISP logs the downloading of 'certain material', a court case still hinges on material evidence being uncovered on the computer\laptop.

    As far as I can tell, the Police were tracking a group of individuals because of online activity, but have to seal the offence with material on the offender's PC\Laptop.

    People have walked free from Irish courts due to this very situation. Basically, someone sits at home downloading 'certain material' and when the person is raided, the laptop has gone 'missing', so, you're left with just the ISP logs, which, with a good solicitor, you can safely walk away from.

    This is a good thing.
    An IP address alone should not be enough to convict someone of an offence.

    From a technical perspective, Im not even sure that finding illicit material on someone's computer should be enough to put them away.
    It just makes it nearly trivial for someone technically sophisticated to frame the average use.


  • Options
    #108
    ch750536
    Registered Users Posts: 3,736 ✭✭✭ch750536


    stepbar wrote: »
    Not if you have kiddie porn on it you don't.... :mad:

    Who the hell puts a 50-character encryption password on their PC unless they have something to hide?

    Me, I have my bank details on here. Also have my personal diary.


  • Options
    #109
    Owwmykneecap
    Registered Users Posts: 2,237 ✭✭✭Owwmykneecap


    stepbar wrote: »
    Not if you have kiddie porn on it you don't.... :mad:

    Who the hell puts a 50-character encryption password on their PC unless they have something to hide?

    No smoke without fire? is that what our justice system is to boil down to?


  • Options
    #110
    CrazyRabbit
    Registered Users Posts: 8,659 ✭✭✭CrazyRabbit


    Amalgam wrote: »
    Hmm, isn't it the case, with UK and Irish law, that if an ISP logs the downloading of 'certain material', a court case still hinges on material evidence being uncovered on the computer\laptop.

    As far as I can tell, the Police were tracking a group of individuals because of online activity, but have to seal the offence with material on the offender's PC\Laptop.

    People have walked free from Irish courts due to this very situation. Basically, someone sits at home downloading 'certain material' and when the person is raided, the laptop has gone 'missing', so, you're left with just the ISP logs, which, with a good solicitor, you can safely walk away from.
    Yes.
    Illegal material being downloaded by a specific IP address is not proof enough. Multiple users on one computer, open Wifi, easily hacked wifi's that are using WEP, darknets etc can all mean an innocent person gets the blame.

    And we all know that it is possible for files to be downloaded onto your machine without your knowledge. Eg...some botnets have hundreds of thousands of slave computers, all with compromised security. In truth, it's actually hard to prove beyond any doubt that a specific person knowingly downloaded certain files. Most countries rely on 'reasonable doubt' to determine guilt because of this.


Advertisement