On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 14:36:40 -0400, 4s00th <4s00th@hushmail.com>
wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 00:54:39 GMT, smarkbenner@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>why is there a PW for perfectly harmless photos
>
>Are you aware that some Internet providers are now forbidding certain
>types of pictures that may be considered harmless; I'm not saying that
>this one applies here, but I happen to know that some providers will
>cancel your account if you post ANY picture of a minor without being
>able to provide a legal consent to release.
>
>And if you think they are harmless, the Internet provider in question
>turned over information to local authorities who apparently considered
>this sufficient evidence to secure a search warrant. (I don't believe
>this was the US, but I'm not absolutely sure; laws in the UK and
>Canada are much more restrictive than those in the US.) And having
>searched the person's hard drive, it turns out that he had material on
>said hard drive that was illegal in his locality.
>
>BTW, current precedent in the US says that file encryption does not
>help you. Apparently, the password is NOT protected by the 5th
>Amendment right to not provide incriminating evidence against
>yourself. In short, not providing the password results in you going to
>jail for contempt of court.
>
>Sincerely,
>-- 4s00th@hushmail.com
>
>My email is always available for those looking for and willing to supply support in the effort to remain boy-lovers and not become child-molesters de jure if not de facto.
You might be correct, that a password is not covered by 5th amendment,
however, communications with your lawyer are. Tell your lawyer your
password and it becomes protected speech...
Use the law to your advantage
Nite
|
|