On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Henry Paul <[email protected]> wrote:
> > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10172866-38.html The article states: "Boucher was read his Miranda rights, waived them, and allegedly told the customs agents that he may have downloaded child pornography." Did the defendant's waiver of his Miranda rights give the judge a legal basis on which to compel the subsequent decryption? I can't help but wonder if the judge would have reached the same decision (to compel decryption) if the defendant had not already waived Miranda and admitted to criminal behavior during the initial discovery/inspection. Compelling decryption after the fact still seems fishy to me on 5th amendment grounds. I guess I better get used to the lengths to which governments will go when trampling basic civil liberties. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
