SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
LaminatorX
on Wednesday August 26 2015, @09:48PM
from the mental-image-from-headline-far-more-salacious-than-actual-situation dept.
from the mental-image-from-headline-far-more-salacious-than-actual-situation dept.
He's a bloodhound for the digital age. Much the way other dogs can pick up the scent of a fugitive or a cache of cocaine, Bear the labrador can smell the components of electronic media, even a micro-card as small as a fingernail that a suspect could easily hide.
From the article:
The 2-year-old rescue pooch nosed out a thumb drive that humans had failed to find during a search of Fogle's Indiana house in July, several weeks before he agreed to plead guilty to having X-rated images of minors and paying to have sex with teenage girls.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Porn-Sniffing Dog Helped Bring Down Subway Star Jared Fogle
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 92 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
TAPPING? You POLITICIANS! Don't you realize that the END of the "Wash
Cycle" is a TREASURED MOMENT for most people?!
(Score: 1) by terrab0t on Thursday August 27 2015, @02:44AM
I'm sure I've seen this discussed in full before, but in this case the police had a warrant to completely search his home and personal records. If they found a storage medium with encrypted data on it, he would be compelled by the court to decrypt it for them –possibly with a second court order, but if the police obtained the warrant they would get that too.
Some people suggest pretending you have lost the ability to decrypt the data. I don't know if that's ever been tested in court. It might work in this case though. It was a USB thumb drive hidden away somewhere. He could say he hasn't used it in an long time and has long since forgotten how to decrypt what's on it.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'd imagine there is no way to prove a suspect is capable of decrypting a drive unless it can be proven that he used it recently, ie. a witness recently saw him use it or it's the OS drive for what is clearly his main PC.
(Score: 3, Informative) by tathra on Thursday August 27 2015, @02:54AM
except for that whole fifth amendment thing. in the US, its unconstitutional to order a person to hand over evidence that incriminates them, which includes passwords and encryption keys. as we all know though, the constitution is merely a relic of the past that gets ignored wholesale these days.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday August 27 2015, @05:19AM
as we all know though, the constitution is merely a relic of the past that gets ignored wholesale these days.
Indeed. Courts too often 'interpret' (modify, really) the constitution in the way that is most convenient for the government. Furthermore, the government wants people to be ignorant of the concept of jury nullification and will often try to eliminate jurors who are aware. They want to completely strip us of all of our means of stopping government overreach.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Thursday August 27 2015, @02:38PM
Thank you for bringing the 5th Amendment issue up. IMHO it is a very interesting legal question. Courts are leaning toward saying the 5th Amendment protects against forced decryption, but there is a split. The split is between a federal circuit court and a state supreme court.
(Score: 2) by http on Thursday August 27 2015, @04:00AM
It's long been the standard in USA law that you can't tell a defendant to do the work of the prosecution - this being the origin of their 5th amendment. IIRC, the Fricosu case tried an end-run around this to get the defedant to provide a password, but was smacked down by the 11th circuit panel.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 27 2015, @05:29AM
IIRC, the Fricosu case tried an end-run around this to get the defedant to provide a password, but was smacked down by the 11th circuit panel.
Huh? [wikipedia.org] Looks to me like they ruled otherwise, even if it never went to the highest court. So, it appears as though they simply ignored the constitution.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Thursday August 27 2015, @02:42PM
The original poster cited the wrong case. The correct reference is US v. Doe, which by itself doesn't help much since Doe is a pseudonym. It was, however, the 11th Circuit which ruled on this.