Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 10

• 0%

  gamahuche8 months, 1 week ago

  FTA

  As you probably know from watching too much TV, the Fifth Amendment "protects a person ...

  against being incriminated by his own compelled testimonial communications." Prosecutors already admitted that if Boucher were to disclose the key to the grand jury the disclosure would be testimonial.

  *

  If he was a terrorism suspect they could always ship him off to Guantanamo. How long before they start on suspected perverts?

  He may already be having an "unofficial" hard time if he's being held but presumably the authorities wouldn't be able to use any coerced evidence. Then again the computer could "magically" reveal its ugly secrets.

  Reply
• 0%

  MyCampingMall8 months, 1 week ago

  I don't see any difference in forcing him to reveal the key to his computer and forcing a drunk person to give blood to attest to his drunkenness.

  Reply

  2 Replies

  • 0%

    browntiger8 months, 1 week ago

    On another side one can not be compelled to testify against himself.

    Plus opposite ruling set's a bad president of allowing government to request keys to anything they want. They should be able to prove they case w/o that evidence.

    Reply
  • 0%

    earthlingerer8 months, 1 week ago

    I don't see any difference in just arrestng people for various crimes and forcing them to prove themselves innocent, despite the fact that we are "innocent until proven guilty."

    Reply
• 0%

  agentX8 months, 1 week ago

  I think the giving of blood prior to trial is a little different than providing a password while on trial.

  Anyway, I think the judge has a valid point, even though it may end up helping a child porno fan. The state will have to prove its allegations using a more substantial basis.

  Niow

  Reply
• 0%

  agentX8 months, 1 week ago

  I think the giving of blood prior to trial is a little different than providing a password while on trial.

  Anyway, I think the judge has a valid point, even though it may end up helping a child porno fan. The state will have to prove its allegations using a more substantial basis.

  Now

  Reply
• 0%

  agentX8 months, 1 week ago

  I think the giving of blood prior to trial is a little different than providing a password while on trial.

  Anyway, I think the judge has a valid point, even though it may end up helping a child porno fan. The state will have to prove its allegations using a more substantial basis.

  Now the sites tripping

  Reply
• 0%

  kctrixter8 months, 1 week ago

  There is no reason to plead the 5th or get a Judge to rule on this, when asked, you say "I don't recall" no matter how ridiculous the idea that you could forget something like this is. Has this guy learned nothing in the last 7 years.

  Reply
• 0%

  SFCGuyW8 months, 1 week ago

  Despite the Judge's view about the 5th Ammendment the prossecuters will win when they appeal his ruling to a higher court. The US Supreme court and numerous lessor courts have ruled that the information on a person's computer does not violate the protection from self incrimination. For that fact, neither does what he/she writes in a personal diary constitute protected under the 5th Ammd. A higher court, even if it must go to the Supreme Court, will order him to give the decryption password/code to the prosecuters. Throughout the prosecutions of child pornographers with computers the information found on the computers are admissable in court as evidence against the accused. If he still refuses to give the password he will be held in contempt of court, imprisoned for that and probably be ordered never to own or use or even view another person using a computer for the rest of his life - and rightly so.

  Reply
• 0%

  clarklyons6 months, 1 week ago

  I keep on promising that I'll update it as soon as I find the time. http://emotator.info/internet-pets.phtml

  Reply