Give us your password or go to jail!

28064212 wrote: »

Yes, and the Gardaí and the UK police share a huge amount of law. I switched between using "Gardaí" and "police" deliberately.

One of the laws they specifically do not share is the controversial RIP legislation which is what the guy was convicted of violating; hence I think its important to maintain that distinction.

28064212 wrote: »

No, they can disclose what you were arrested for and what you were convicted for. No private information from the police is in that article, only stuff that was in the public domain.

I didn't see that he was arrested for anything other than failing to provide his passport. The articles write that he was under investigation for other crimes. Was he also arrested for them?

28064212 wrote: »

Hearsay at best. What examples do they have of leaking information that they are legally required to keep private?

I don't really follow the UK current affairs, but I can recall several politically relevant leaks from the Gardai here in Ireland (which you argue are similar) over the last few months. I believe one such forced Trevor Sargent to resign? And that an investigation has been ordered into how the disgraceful behaviour by the TD PJ Sheehan was made public too?
Thats only two examples off the top of my head.

Do you ever wonder what the phrase 'who was known to the Gardai' means? You often hear it after someone has been died. I wonder what that phrase means? Does it necessarily mean 'was arrested by the Gardai'? How do the media source these things?

28064212 wrote: »

Incredibly illegal, and they would be sued for a massive amount


Which, as I've already stated, the police are legally required to keep private. If any information is disclosed, you are entitled to sue them for damages arising from it. If you're suspected of carrying drugs in your briefcase, they are entitled to search that, and you don't have the right to refuse on the grounds of sensitive business information. How much information could they get on you if your business was suspected of money-laundering and they got a warrant to inspect your accounts? What about a warrant to search your home?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence

Are you familiar with the idea of a 'right to remain silent'?
Do you see any reason why lots of different countries might have decided such a right was a good idea?
It must strike you as a very curious thing that such a right exists?

Do you have any thoughts on the right to remain silent? If it is a bad right, why?
Do you think that forcing someone to go to jail unless they break their silence and tell you what their password is, is compatible with a right to remain silent?

Sykk wrote: »

Naab police, use a copy of *** (Better not say) to easily surpass the password and boot right into the OS. Fail

Your post does not seem to make any sense? Fail?

fergalr wrote: »

One of the laws they specifically do not share is the controversial RIP legislation which is what the guy was convicted of violating; hence I think its important to maintain that distinction.

I was referring to the responsibilities of both forces to keep private information private, rather than the legislation he was convicted of.

fergalr wrote: »

I didn't see that he was arrested for anything other than failing to provide his passport. The articles write that he was under investigation for other crimes. Was he also arrested for them?

The article does not say he was arrested for not providing his password. Admittedly I was wrong also, it just says he was arrested "by police tackling child sexual exploitation", they could have been working on a different case for a while, although it certainly implies that's what he was arrested for. But the police would have had a warrant for the computer on the back of evidence implicating him in a crime

fergalr wrote: »

I don't really follow the UK current affairs, but I can recall several politically relevant leaks from the Gardai here in Ireland (which you argue are similar) over the last few months. I believe one such forced Trevor Sargent to resign? And that an investigation has been ordered into how the disgraceful behaviour by the TD PJ Sheehan was made public too?
Thats only two examples off the top of my head.

Trevor Sargent - I fail to see the relevance. Were the Gardaí legally required to keep the letter Sargent sent confidential? Is there any evidence the Gardaí leaked it (keeping in mind they had no apparent motive to do so)?

PJ Sheehan - Again, I fail to see the relevance. Were the Gardaí legally required to keep the report confidential? Or was it a matter of public record once someone actually knew where to look? And where did the leak come from?

fergalr wrote: »

Do you ever wonder what the phrase 'who was known to the Gardai' means? You often hear it after someone has been died. I wonder what that phrase means? Does it necessarily mean 'was arrested by the Gardai'? How do the media source these things?

Which is a condemnation of the media, not the Gardaí. It's a phrase which means nothing, but fills column inches. I'm "known to the Gardaí", it's where I applied for my passport. It's bad, lazy journalism, but I don't see what it has to do with the discussion.

fergalr wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence

Are you familiar with the idea of a 'right to remain silent'?
Do you see any reason why lots of different countries might have decided such a right was a good idea?
It must strike you as a very curious thing that such a right exists?

Do you have any thoughts on the right to remain silent? If it is a bad right, why?
Do you think that forcing someone to go to jail unless they break their silence and tell you what their password is, is compatible with a right to remain silent?

Speech is not objective evidence. It is open to a huge range of interpretation and varies massively depending on the precise circumstances, and it may not be informed speech.

Also, one thing I should have made clearer: I don't believe the suspect should be required to give up his password. He should be required to give access to his computer though. It's the difference between opening a locked door for the police (with a search warrant) and giving them a key. He can give them a key if he wants, but he has to at least open the door

Can you tell me your response to this scenario I posted earlier?

A suspected arms dealer is arrested and a warrant is issued to search his home, where there is believed to be a weapons shipment. The police search the home, finding nothing, except for a walk-in safe which they can't access. Should the suspect be required to give up access to the safe?

28064212 wrote: »

I was referring to the responsibilities of both forces to keep private information private, rather than the legislation he was convicted of.

The article does not say he was arrested for not providing his password. Admittedly I was wrong also, it just says he was arrested "by police tackling child sexual exploitation", they could have been working on a different case for a while, although it certainly implies that's what he was arrested for.

That will have been the police having an off the record chat with the media to give them context for the story. This happens all the time...

28064212 wrote: »

But the police would have had a warrant for the computer on the back of evidence implicating him in a crime

Did you say something about hearsay before? :P
The police will have had evidence to suspect him in a crime. The standard of evidence required for a warrant is very different than the standard of evidence to convict someone of something, of course. To be honest, we can't read anything into that the police had a warrant.

28064212 wrote: »

Trevor Sargent - I fail to see the relevance. Were the Gardaí legally required to keep the letter Sargent sent confidential? Is there any evidence the Gardaí leaked it (keeping in mind they had no apparent motive to do so)?

PJ Sheehan - Again, I fail to see the relevance. Were the Gardaí legally required to keep the report confidential? Or was it a matter of public record once someone actually knew where to look? And where did the leak come from?

The relevance is that you were saying that the police keep information in investigations private, and that the individual potentially paranoid about the legal, but private, material they had on their hard drive leaking out, was an unreasonable fear.
These cases are relevant because they are two high profile examples, off the top of my head, where gardai have been leaking information to the media.
Both matters were confidential; neither was a matter of public records - I deduce this from the fact that the gardai started internal investigations into the sources of the leaks in both matters.

28064212 wrote: »

Which is a condemnation of the media, not the Gardaí. It's a phrase which means nothing, but fills column inches. I'm "known to the Gardaí", it's where I applied for my passport. It's bad, lazy journalism, but I don't see what it has to do with the discussion.

No, you don't understand the working relationship between the media and the gardai (unless I'm very much misinformed).
What that phrase means is that there is no evidence that can be used to convict or trial someone of wrong doing, but that a garda has had a chat with the journalist covering the case, and told the journalist 'yes this person is a criminal', on the condition they won't be quoted.
The journalist then has a sourced, privileged, confidential statement, so is allowed say 'was known to the gardai' without fear of libel.
Its a way of the police communicating information to the public that they aren't actually allowed communicate, and it happens all the time.

I don't think this is necessarily a terrible thing; Im not sure, and it depends on the circumstances a lot - but its naive to assume that everything that should legally be completely secret is in fact completely secret.

28064212 wrote: »

Speech is not objective evidence. It is open to a huge range of interpretation and varies massively depending on the precise circumstances, and it may not be informed speech.

You did not answer the question about whether people should have a right to remain silent.

28064212 wrote: »

Also, one thing I should have made clearer: I don't believe the suspect should be required to give up his password. He should be required to give access to his computer though. It's the difference between opening a locked door for the police (with a search warrant) and giving them a key. He can give them a key if he wants, but he has to at least open the door

He can't give them access to his computer without revealing the passphrase, clearly.

In most progressive countries we recognise that someone has a right not to be compelled to act against their own interests in criminal proceedings.
Its hard to administer a just justice system without it.

28064212 wrote: »

Can you tell me your response to this scenario I posted earlier?

A suspected arms dealer is arrested and a warrant is issued to search his home, where there is believed to be a weapons shipment. The police search the home, finding nothing, except for a walk-in safe which they can't access. Should the suspect be required to give up access to the safe?

It's not clear what you mean to 'give up access to the safe'?
The suspect shouldn't be allowed stand in front of them or get in their way. The police should be allowed move the suspect if the suspect does.

The police should have the power to search the suspect for keys to the safe. They should have the power to go through all the suspects stuff and look for any such keys. They should have the power to question the suspect, and any and all accomplices.

But they shouldn't have the power to force the suspect to do tell them how to open the safe, and potentially self-incriminate.
If the suspect won't talk to the police, they should have the power to open the safe with a drill. If they aren't able to open the safe - lets say they cant find it - then thats tough luck.

The police shouldn't be allowed to ask 'Where have you hidden the bodies' resulting in the suspect either A) Admitting the murder charge, which the suspect is entitled to a fair trial on or committing the further hypothetical offence of 'refusing to talk to the police'

The right to silence is important, and jailing someone for refusing to say something is not right.

There's two other observations to make:
1) If he had instead said he had forgotten his password, would he have been jailed? Probably - in which case its a serious crime to forget something? Why? Have you ever forgotten a password?

2) This is supposed to be counter terrorism legislation, brought in to fight terrorists, which this guy has not been accused of.


Like I said, I don't know whether this guy is guilty or innocent. I think we should not presume guilt, on the basis of his silence, like some here are doing. And I also think the RIP legislation is not compatible with a right to silence.

pwd wrote: »

nudist wrote: »

Like a linux live cd ? and then copy and paste the home folder? Physical access is root access no?

Probably? If you connect the drive to a different computer, you can access the full content also, without a password.

With sufficient time, and in the absence of countermeasures, or encryption, then yes.
Just to clarify, in the case being discussed, there apparently was encryption.

28064212 wrote: »

You can't possibly make a statement like that without backing it up. The arresting officer will have been named in the court case. I don't know what the requirements are for obtaining the information on which officer is assigned to which department, but I don't believe it would be particularly difficult to find out.


I was using the term implicate in its weaker sense i.e., it suggested he had something to do with it. And we can read into the fact that a magistrate looked at the evidence and issued a warrant on that basis. Just because it's a lower standard does not mean that it's no standard, or an unreasonable standard. The guidelines for warrants are very specific


I never said it was an unreasonable fear. I said the victim (and it would be a victim, it is illegal) has recourse to legal action. There have been instances of police brutality in cells, should you resist arrest so?


Have you a source for the starting of internal investigations? I've seen reports saying that the initial handling of the incidents prompted investigations but nothing about investigations into the 'leaks'. In Sargeant's case alone, dozen's of people would have had the opportunity for leaking the letter, before it even got to the Gardaí.

Trevor Sargent citation:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1006/sargentt.html

The DPP does not give reasons for deciding not to prosecute but his decision marks the end of the inquiry set up by the Garda Commissioner after the Minister for Justice was accused of being the source of the leak.

The only source I have is the national broadcaster reporting that the Garda Commissioner ordered an investigation.
Yes, it apparently was against the law, but no prosecution will be brought, and we don't know the reasons why.

Sheehan leak:
http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/report-into-leaking-of-sheehan-file-2347420.html

Garda Commissioner Fachtna Murphy has demanded a report into the leaking of a file on a TD who was allegedly prevented from drink-driving away from the Dail.

This is presumably on-going.
I'm not even sure it was bad to leak that, if there was anything that should be leaked, its evidence of a sitting TD trying to lean on someone for preventing them committing a crime, but thats another discussion.

28064212 wrote: »

And if the Gardaí had started an internal investigation, wouldn't that tell you that a leak would be illegal?

I'm not saying its legal.
I'm saying it happens.
I'm saying that something being illegal isn't the same as something never happening, and I'm saying that you are naive to think otherwise.

These are just two high profile political events that came off the top of my head. I'm sure there are many more, but I kind of consider this point closed - stuff does get leaked by the police, whether its legal or not.

28064212 wrote: »

That entire paragraph is based on your suppositions. You're deriving a whole lot of specific assumptions based on one phrase that is a catch-all.

Out of curiosity, what does the garda gain from leaking that a person was "known to the gardaí"?

But the people who leak it are breaking the law.

They might be, thats quite a subtle point - but thats beside the point. They dont seem to get prosecuted for it. And anyway, I'm just arguing that it happens, not whether or not its legal.

28064212 wrote: »

And so are the journalists who publish it

Eh, no.
Journalists that publish leaked documents have a completely different set of laws and rules to the people that originally leak them, especially if they can argue its in the public interest.

In many jurisdictions journalists even get special legal protection for this that means they can't be compelled to reveal where they got information from.
I'm not going to go into it, as I'm absolutely no expert in this, but if you look up 'journalistic privilege' and similar terms you'll find lots of info.
Journalists are frequently immune from having to reveal their sources, and typically don't get prosecuted for publishing information they obtained from individuals that had a burden of confidentiality.

28064212 wrote: »

I thought it was implied: yes, people should have that right


Why not? They can sit him down at a (copy of) his hard-drive and get him to insert the passphrase. I already gave the analogy of a locked door, a suspect doesn't have to give the police the keys to give them access.

Ah, come on.
You aren't going to enter your passphrase into a computer someone else provides you with, or has physical access to. Compelling someone to do that would be the same as compelling them to reveal their passphase.

28064212 wrote: »

In most progressive countries we recognise that someone has a right not to be compelled to act against their own interests in criminal proceedings.
Its hard to administer a just justice system without it.

And if it's in there own interests to destroy evidence, that's ok? If they lie on the stand, they won't get done for perjury?

Do you not see the difference between telling a lie on the stand, and saying nothing on the stand?
The difference between destroying evidence, and failing to say something that could provide evidence?

28064212 wrote: »

Then I fully disagree with you. What if their whole house is an impregnable bunker? A magistrate issues a warrant for a search, and the suspect locks the door and hides the key. Should he not be required to provide access? And should he not go to jail if he doesn't?

I think that if the police think the suspect has hidden the key, and ask the suspect where the key is, the suspect should not have to say anything.


I mean, I don't think this is the best thing in each local single situation.
It'll be possible to construct examples where I think the best thing to do would be force the suspect to yield the key.
But I think that overall, you have to have a 'right to silence' to run a justice system fairly.

If this is too subtle of a point, imagine that the policeman (lets call him Harry) is convinced that Fred is a murderer. But there is no evidence. Why not just lock up Fred on Harry's word? Why not just let Harry, the policeman, shoot Fred, and be done with it? Thats the way 'justice' works in some places.
And the answer to the question is that while requiring evidence might sometimes let a bad thing happen (a guilty person go unpunished), requiring evidence also stops other bad things happening (a completely innocent person getting locked up).

And so it is with the right to silence.
Its a cornerstone of any just legal system. We can't just throw it out because "ah well, we reckon hes guilty and just wont tell us".

28064212 wrote: »

If the police can show that he should reasonably be able to remember it (e.g. access dates, common usage), then yes, he should be jailed. Equally, if he deliberately mangled the keyboard so he couldn't remember it, he should be charged with destruction of evidence.


It was brought in to help counter terrorism, not solely for the purpose of it. If it was brought in solely for that, it would say it in the legislation e.g. "If a suspect is suspected of terrorism...". There are examples of this already in the law. Legislation is legislation, not what people think it should be used for, or what it was originally brought in to tackle.


I don't presume his guilt of the initial crime, and certainly don't think he should be jailed for it. But he wasn't. And won't be til he's found guilty of it. He is guilty of a variation of obstruction of justice/withholding evidence

He is guilty with violation the RIP act. That is clear. I am not arguing otherwise.
I am arguing that such an act is incompatible with a right to silence, which is necessary for a just justice system, and indeed a democracy.

Thankfully, in this country, for our other legislative faults, we don't have equivalent legislation to the RIP (afaik; Damn it Jim, I'm a computer scientist, not a lawyer); hopefully it stays that way.

When I read this first, I immediately thought of a case a few years ago where a child/young teenager had been taking photos and videos of himself and selling them online. Given this persons age and when he was arrested, its not outside the realm of possibility.

To me, this would make more sense as to why he has such high security on his computer.

Or he could just be paranoid. How many people use Tor for browsing online?

As an aside, how do they know his 50 characters long?

It'd be interesting to see if that would be a defence but I suspect not otherwise that would just be the default answer whenever the password is demanded.

snyper wrote: »

I didnt read the whole thread so forgive me if this has been said before but i smell BS off this.

The authorities dont need your password, im pretty sure they can pretty easily hack the passcode if they needed to. Maybe im wrong

Yes, you are wrong.
Feel free to read the thread for more information.

Reloc8 wrote: »

Can't really do that. Charge him with possession/distributing images say, and presume you don't de-encrypt and have no other evidence = acquittal for him without he having to say a word.

And just because you had a credit card number from a dodgy site or an email sent to him or his ISP number coming up somewhere it shouldn't would not constitute evidence sufficient to convict.

Not to convict him of a child porn offence. But it would be sufficient for a warrant to be issued requiring access to the laptop. He is in jail for not providing access, not on any other charge

28064212 wrote: »

The DPP doesn't reveal why prosecutions don't go ahead for any cases. That's not specific to this case. You don't find it hypocritical that you're assuming Garda guilt even though she was released without charge?

Well - I'm not assuming any specific person was guilty of anything.

I just gave that specific example, because you seemed to be arguing that the police don't leak stuff, because leaking stuff is illegal.

In the context of the standard of evidence we should require for an online discussion :cool: I think we have established that leaks occurr.

I'm not saying that we should consider any person guilty of a leak without them being found guilty in a court, though.

28064212 wrote: »

Again, I never said that it never happens. Can I refuse to be arrested on the basis that there have been cases of illegal Gardaí brutality?

I agree with you that rare cases of illegal Gardai brutality does not give someone a right to refuse arrest.

But, if you look back on the thread, I wasn't saying the individual was legally justified in not giving up the password, because the police might leak something.
I was instead saying that the individual in question could be paranoid. Or that the individual in question might have something on their hard drive that they don't want anyone to know about, but that is not illegal, and that they are afraid of the information getting out.

I'm not saying this is rational, but there are probably a few people that have secrets they don't want to get out, and will do jail time to prevent. Perhaps someone has had a (perfectly legal) affair, or is in the closet about some aspect of their (perfectly legal) sexuality.

I'm not justifying the action legally (though I think the law is a bad one, because I believe it interferes with the right to silence) - I was just trying to say that there are alternate hypotheses to the one that he is guilty of the offenses they were investigating, and that his unwillingness to provide the password should not be considered proof of guilt. (And indeed, even scant evidence of it).

28064212 wrote: »

Lots of people have gotten away with lots of things. Just because enforcement isn't sufficient doesn't make the law wrong, it makes the system wrong. Also, you haven't provided any examples of a gardaí leaking information and getting away with it, just cases where you think it might have happened. The penalty for a garda disclosing confidential information is €50,000 and/or up to 5 years in jail.

Lol - this is pretty funny if you think about it.
You are telling me here that I can't say that the gardai leak information, unless they've been convicted of it, and simultaneously asking for examples of where they've gotten away with it :-P
Are you asking me for an example of when they've both been convicted and gotten away with it? Because I can't provide that!

I'd like to stress I've a lot of respect for the Gardai and the difficult job they do, for little thanks, and the difficult balances they have to strike. I think if ever there was a case for leaking things, its the drink driving TD case I mentioned.

I'm just also saying that the system under which evidence is gathered isn't perfectly secret, and that there may be people who have secrets which, while legal, they are willing to do jail time to protect.

We should try and avoid jailing such people - the right to silence helps.

28064212 wrote: »

I phrased that badly, I was thinking more along the lines of a journalist that was found guilty of illegally obtaining information. It's an irrelevant point though, shouldn't have mentioned it


Then give them the passphrase and change it afterwards. He has to give them access. Although again, if the Gardaí were to do anything outside the remit of their investigation with the passphrase (e.g. send a competitor business information), that would be illegal

Failing to say something is not the same as actively refusing to provide evidence which you have been instructed to by law.

Well, it sort of is. Its certainly a very fine line between the two.
For example, would you recognise the right of someone not to say where they were on the night of the murder?
Would you force the suspect to answer 'where have you hid the bodies'?
How about:
'Where is the murder weapon'?
'Where is the computer you bought a computer to plan the murder on?'
'What is the password to the computer you bought to plan the murder on?'

Do you think the suspect should have the right not to answer some of those questions, but not others?
If so, where do you draw the line, and why?

28064212 wrote: »

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).


That's an absurd, irrelevant analogy. No-one is being locked up for a crime they may or may not have done. No-one is being locked up on someone's word. No-one is suggesting that anything should be done without evidence. No-one is even suggesting that we should lock up Fred because he won't answer the question "where is the evidence?". We don't even know if the evidence exists, and we don't know where it is. That's nothing like this case, it's not even close.

The analogy was purely to show that sometimes we should have a law that sometimes results in people getting away with things they shouldn't, to life in a just society.
The right to silence is one such rule.

We might have to accept that occasionally this means criminals escape prosecution for having dodgy stuff on their computer.

28064212 wrote: »

The right to silence does/should not protect one from having to provide access to specific evidence on request.

I believe it should.

In the spirit of AH, as evidence, I will provide this Chieftains' song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBGvO3VhkeA

The Judge said son, what is your alibi,
if you were somewhere else, then you won't have to die.
I spoke not a word, though it meant my life,
for i'd been in the arms of my best friends wife.

Whats interesting here is they can't crack it so they have no evidence so they have no conviction nor can they prove his guilt. But, they can slap him with a custodial sentence for refusing to decrypt the hard drive's contents.

Im curious, what will happen when Drage is released? Can he be asked to unlock the drive again and be returned to incarceration for another 4 months? Does that trip on Double Jeopardy? Could they imprison him indefinitely for repeated failure to comply with the investigation? Whats the limit here?

28064212 wrote: »

There are plenty of people who will commit plenty of much worse crimes to hide things, even legal things, it doesn't make them any less guilty

Can't argue with that.

28064212 wrote: »

At no stage did I say, imply or suggest that he was guilty of the original offence because he refused to reveal the password, I said he was guilty of the offence of not giving up the password.

Yes, didn't mean you imply you said that, I was referring to some of my earlier posts where I was discussing what other posters had said, sorry about the confusion.

28064212 wrote: »

No, I'm asking you for an example of where a garda (or the gardaí in general) has been shown to leak information and gotten away it. They don't have to be convicted, but show that the source of the information was (beyond reasonable doubt) the gardaí. You're accusing someone on the back of an arrest, and that's all the evidence you have

Well, I'm not accusing any specific person of anything.
On the 'its not crazy to believe police leak stuff' issue, in this discussion, I'm not trying for 'beyond reasonable doubt' in any one case here, I'm just going for a rough 'balance of probability' that it does happen, in an online discussion. I reckon the couple of 'alleged leaks' from the gardai recently show that, you may beg to differ, and thats fair enough.

28064212 wrote: »

Yes, if they're not obstructing the justice system.

• Would you recognise the right of someone not to say where they were on the night of the murder? - Yes: no-one can say for sure that their position is material evidence
• Would you force the suspect to answer 'where have you hid the bodies'? - No: no-one can say whether there are bodies, or whether the suspect knows where they are
• 'Where is the murder weapon'? - No, unless the murder weapon is known and is shown to belong to the suspect e.g. a car runs down someone, it's registered to the suspect, the suspect should be required to tell the police where it is
• 'Where is the computer you bought a computer to plan the murder on?' - If it's known that the suspect planned the murder on it then yes
• 'What is the password to the computer you bought to plan the murder on?' - Yes (obviously) they should be forced

I would point out that its not known that the suspect committed a crime on his computer.

But, overall, I think that in all those examples the suspect should have a right to silence.
If the police ask all of those questions, I think the suspect should be allowed say nothing, and that the burden of proof should still rest with the police and the prosecution.

Clearly, the RIP law changes that by specifically requiring a password. I think that change is wrong.

28064212 wrote: »

Where is the line? If the physical evidence is known to be materially relevant to the case, and the suspect is known to have knowledge of its whereabouts, he should be required to reveal it

Fair enough, I see your position.
I think the right to silence should be much stronger than that.
I think the suspect should certainly be asked, but I don't think the suspect should have to say anything. Even if the police, or even a judge or jury, know they did the crime.
By all means they should convict the suspect of what they know to be true, but beyond that, they shouldnt be allowed convict for saying nothing.

I suspect that after this point we'll probably agree to differ - I appreciate you taking the time to outline your points clearly though, its interesting.

28064212 wrote: »

The law in a just society hinges on evidence. The analogy you used would be relevant if he would have been convicted of murder except for a loophole in the law. While he shouldn't be convicted, the law should definitely be changed

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.

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.

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.