Who's rights are more important (Sebastien Boucher)

[ells9824]

http://tinyurl.com/2ltmna (partial article)

When Sebastien Boucher stopped at the U.S.-Canadian border, agents who inspected his laptop said they found files containing child pornography.

But when they tried to examine the images after his arrest, authorities were stymied by a password-protected encryption program.

Now Boucher is caught in a cyber-age quandary: The government wants him to give up the password, but doing so could violate his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by revealing the contents of the files.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This article goes on to say,when he sees that he has downloaded child porn he deletes it. BUT....there are encrypted files with very leading names (i.e. 2 year old diaper change, pre teen bondage) that would cause one to believe they are indeed files of a child that could possibly still be in the hands of their abuser (i.e. "Disney girl" detailed here http://tinyurl.com/2qwx78 and http://tinyurl.com/2ne83y a transcript,skip down to highlighted RUSSIA,starts there)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A judge has since ruled, but these were the options as I see them.

Can (should?) he be compelled to incriminate himself in order to POSSIBLY remove children from being sexually abused?

Should they drop the charges in exchange for the password?

Give him immunity on the files that the password opens?

[gprime]

He has a right to not incriminate himself. Therefore, he need not give away the password. With that, it would be hard to punish him. Therefore, there is no need for a deal of any sort to be made.

[I am Legend]

seriously?

any answer other than:

beat his ass unmercifully until he gives up the password

just flat out wont get it done. and after he should be set afire but put out after a few and dragged across shards of broken glass covered in bacteria-ridden feces taken from the gutters of Port-au-Prince, Haiti.




















unless of course he is innocent. (which he isnt or else he would just say "sure, i have nothing to hide", so fuck him.)



EDIT: as an aside, i also think all pedos should be put to death. there is only one cure for that shit.

[gprime]

I sincerely hope that you meant that latter part about how if he were innocent he would share the password with them. Believe it or not, some people do want to defend their legal rights, even if in doing so, they incur risk. Sometimes it is a question of principle. He could very well be guilty of nothing, and is just trying to prevent the authorities from riding roughshod over that which is set for in the Constitution.

If he is guilty, which may well be the case, his 5th Amendment rights remain. At the end of the day, it better to let off a guilty man than put the legitimacy of the entire judicial process at risk. Moreover, while his actions may be criminal and perhaps even reprehensable, he is not the problem. The people exploiting these children, taking the pictures and the videos, and selling/sharing them online are. They are the twisted scumbags that need to be tortured without mercy. The guy who gets off to those pictures, sick as he may be, should face minimal legal consequences if anything at all. And even then, this can only occur if the evidence against him is obtained through legitimate means.

[ells9824]

Thats why I'd give him queen for a day and see the if the kids are able to be identified. Because seriously, if you're downloading porn, and see that you ACCIDENTALLY downloaded something called 2 year old raped during diaper change-then you either can't read or did it on purpose. Most people would shudder at that, not download it.

[ThreeOnAMeathook]

This is one of those times that Constitutional rights work against the greater good, but I believe the Fifth should be upheld. If it isn't, what's next? Suspension of the first amendment?

They're slowly encroaching on our rights if they don't respect his decision to plead the fifth. He's a scumbag, but even scumbags have rights.

[gprime]

Thats why I'd give him queen for a day and see the if the kids are able to be identified. Because seriously, if you're downloading porn, and see that you ACCIDENTALLY downloaded something called 2 year old raped during diaper change-then you either can't read or did it on purpose. Most people would shudder at that, not download it.

While you are most likely right, there are definitely ways he could have missed it. For example, he could've downloaded a large p2p (gnutella, Ked, eDonkey, ect), torrent, or usenet file titled "Porn" or "Sex Clips" or anything like that. Most people don't/can't check the full file list to see everything they're getting. And it would be an easy way to deliver a nasty surprise like that.

[TXChris]

Let me add here, just because the images are there, who is to say that it was him that downloaded them or even looked at them? Sure, the odds are that it was him, but what if it was a friend, or any slew of other people? How is it good that this guy is prosecuted for something that he did not do? Of course I am sitting on the extreme with this example, but it absolutely has to be considered.

It has been my perception that people are, generally, okay with laws that infringe upon another individual's rights. The minute these laws invade their rights, however, they become upset and want nothing to do with it. Unfortunately, the only way to protect one's own rights are to make sure one stands up for the rights of his neighbor. How can one expect the Constitution to protect them if they do not first force the government to observe the Constitution in relation to another?

[swivel]

There are other rights in question here, not just the laptop-owner. There are the rights of kids who are abused to satisfy the demands of sickos. There are the rights of the parents of the same kids. There are the rights of other downloaders who may have been accessing these very pics off of this laptop via P2P software.

I think this case is an abuse of the 5th amendment. Extreme-rights libertarians and the ACLU too often blindly read the Constitution as literal truth, instead of using a bit of reason. There are still those who think that yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is protected. Or using racial slurs. Or owning handguns.

The 5th amendment does not say what these idiots pretend that it says. It merely states that a person can not be a witness against themselves in a criminal case. This isn't a case, it is an investigation. There is nothing unconstitutional about coercing or demanding the password from the kid. The phrase "self-incrimination" is not in the Constitution. The drafters were specifically referring to the physical act of taking the stand in one's own case.

[gprime]

I think this case is an abuse of the 5th amendment. Extreme-rights libertarians and the ACLU too often blindly read the Constitution as literal truth, instead of using a bit of reason. There are still those who think that yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is protected. Or using racial slurs. Or owning handguns.

You seriously believe that racial slurs and handgun ownership aren't legally protected? Swivel, I thought you were more reasonable than that.

[swivel]

You seriously believe that racial slurs and handgun ownership aren't legally protected? Swivel, I thought you were more reasonable than that.

Guess not. If by "reasonable" you mean immoral and/or anarchic.

People that hide their racial slurs behind the Constitution are usually just closet racists, anyway. The founding fathers would frown on abusing the rights that they worked so hard to sculpt in a manner designed to do nothing but cause harm in another man's heart.

Do you really think that our great forefathers would tolerate such behavior towards one another? You think they would let some stranger talk that way to a man they paid very good money for?

I don't think so.

[TXChris]

I happen to be of the belief that the Founding Fathers would realize that speech does not equate to crime. Words don't hurt anyone. Do I personally believe that racism is ridiculous. Hell yeah. It's couterproductive to business. However, if someone wants to believe they are better than someone else because of religion, race, or gender then let them. They're just words. People need to learn to grow a backbone already and stop crying because their feelings were hurt. People are created equal, but that does not guarantee they will be treated as such everywhere they go.

[gprime]

Guess not. If by "reasonable" you mean immoral and/or anarchic.

People that hide their racial slurs behind the Constitution are usually just closet racists, anyway. The founding fathers would frown on abusing the rights that they worked so hard to sculpt in a manner designed to do nothing but cause harm in another man's heart.

Do you really think that our great forefathers would tolerate such behavior towards one another? You think they would let some stranger talk that way to a man they paid very good money for?

I don't think so.

Like it or not, racism exists and is legal. The mere expression of it is protected. The 1st Amendment doesn't say "political speech", but rather speech. The reason for this is to protect and all forms of unpopular speech, which includes racist rhetoric.

Also, you're not in a good position to be playing the founding father card. After all, they owned slaves, who they legally recognized as being 3/5th of a person. So I somehow doubt the majority of them would take issue with racism. Even if they did, that doesn't make the protection of it any less enshrined in the specific language of the Bill of Rights.

As for guns, "no law infringing" is pretty damn clear. Hand guns are a legitimate means of self-defense, and a tool that helps to safeguard private property. It has its place, and is undoubtedly protected by the Second Amendment.