Blog Comments

Before using any online service, it's essential to read papers owl reviews to get a sense of what others have experienced. These reviews can provide valuable insights into the quality of service and customer satisfaction.

:D
[img]http://184.173.194.236/~worm64/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/statistRoadsZombies.jpg[/img]

But the roads peeg

MAH ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOADS

:D
hai shion asl?
Sorry Pike. i was too busy posting about Raw Paw :(

and man-bear-pig multimarriages with adoption
so backwards, america

I've been telling people this for years PG

ur 2 slo
cmon step it up

Hi peeg

:D
I took a look at multivariable calculus and cried.

sounds good to me

let's asian

:D
I ran into an update where the requirement to either unlock the hard drive or to provide the key was stayed. So this is still ongoing.

Regardless, I think it's important, if you appreciate this sort of thing, to make it as difficult for police to incriminate you as possible. You can encrypt your smart phones (requires a more complex password though) and your hard drives can be encrypted using built-in software. Depending on how paranoid you are (really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking.), this might be good things to look into.

It still compels information from a defendant to aid in the case against him. It doesn't matter what the government "already knew"; the Fifth Amendment does not care what the police or prosecutor already "knows" exists. If the police had already seen pictures, but the defendant had subsequently hid them in a rented storage unit, the defendant could not be compelled to offer the information where the storage unit is. I recognize that the analogy is not directly on-point, but I couldn't think of a better one.

Besides, what would be the punishment for failing to comply? Contempt and jail time? How ludicrous would it be if the government could force you to give over information to help put you in prison, or else it will put you in prison?

I think the best analogue is in John Doe, Petitioner v. United States 487 U.S. 201. In the dissent, Justice Stevens said you can compel a defendant to turn over a key, but you can't force him to reveal a combination to a safe, because that would be testimony (the expression of the contents of one's mind). The majority actually agreed with this concept, but distinguished the case at issue. So while it's not concrete precedent, there is some Supreme Court reasoning that one could draw on.

I'm not sure if that helps Boucher, particularly because I read the lower court already used a similar argument in its reasoning. The password itself is not incriminating unless it led to the uncovering of incriminating evidence. However, that ship has sailed. The police already knew which files contained CP, where they were located on the drive, and the defendant already admitted to ownership of the computer. The furnishing of a password wouldn't help the government discover more incriminating evidence (a judge could restrict them from using itfor that purpose), it would only allow them to process already-discovered evidence through procedure. Furthermore, they weren't asking for the password, but to have Boucher enter it himself in front of a grand jury. I'm not sure if the act itself could be testimony; it doesn't prove anything except ownership, which he had already admitted to.

I heard about this case a long time ago, and IIRC there is a Circuit split on the issue. I think the Fifth Amendment clearly protects a person from being forced by the government to offer information. A password or other encryption key is obviously information.

Again, from what I recall, the government tried to draw analogies to tangible objects, such as fingerprints, blood samples, and property, all of which you can be required to hand over under certain circumstances (such as with a court order). I think those analogies fail, because none of them are purely information, as in all of them reside in the physical world outside of one's mind. Requiring someone to give over a password in a criminal case against them is far more akin to forcing them to give incriminating statements or actively assist with the government's investigation, all of which is categorically excluded under the Fifth Amendment. I wish he would have fought it longer, because I think the current Supreme Court would have probably sided with him.

There's a reason why this judge has been relegated to a Fox News contributor.

now that i know the real story behind thanksgiving.. i dont like thanksgiving.. im glad we dont celebrate it in europe

The China-men built the railroad
The Indians saved the Pilgrim
And in return the Pilgrim killed em
They call it it Thanksgiving, I call your holiday hellday
Cause I'm from poverty, neglected by the wealthy
Me and my niggas share gifts every day like Christmas

- Nas

well... happy thanksgiving lol
thats a kind of ironic story :P

:D
Yes.

:D

that's not an argument and this isn't facebook. why don't you go to the government and get pg banned?

What I'm doing here is reminding our dear citizens that the government they elected bailed out the upper ups in exhange for eternal indebtedness of society's children. You are mistaken and simply not reading if you think double dipping the debt is okay.

Iceland threw the bankers on the street and wiped out the debt of most of the country. That's a good thing