You are a certified retard.
Let's all be nice now...
well we are!
SecretSoftware wrote:In law, the police tells you "You have the right to remain silent". This comes from the law that says "No one should be compelled to testify against themselves".
That's absolutely true. I might point out you also don't have to testify against your spouse under the same legislation.
This means the police cannot force you to say where you were on Tuesday at 8pm when the victim was killed, but the jury (in a criminal case) might come to the conclusion that silence is indication of guilt. Note that law says that the person is guilty
if "a jury of ordinary persons ... of good standing in the community find their peer to be guilty
beyond reasonable doubt", so failure to answer can and often does
act against you.
The jury has to abide by the law. If they think that someone's silence makes him/her guilty, then they violate the laws and their spirits. A person in the light of the law, is considered innocent until the prosecutor shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that they
are guilty and demonstrate that to the judge and jury.
So your arguement does not hold water in a court of law, and under the light of the Law.
The same thing in the Computer "Brain". You should not be compelled to decrypt thoughts in electronic form. Your computer has the right to remain silent, and not display what ever thoughts you have, saved in an encrypted form.
This seems an illformed thought; The police have every right to sieze your data and to look through it, and your failing to give RSA keys to decrypt the information might suggest to a reasonable jury that you have something to hide. The police can also obtain
a warrant from a judge which neccesitates you to give up your RSA key, at which point failure to do so is contempt of court.
No the police does not have ANY right to randomly select any individual and sift through their computer files, or any types of files, unless they first detect something that is not bound by a resonable expectation of privacy, and use that to convince a judge
to issue a warrant to find further evidence to support a legal case.
How are you going to obtain a warrant, if there is nothing to suspect in the first place?
I mean a police can get a warrant, to search your car, if they smell drugs comming out of the car. But if they smell nothing, they have no right to search your car under the constitution.
SecretSoftware wrote:Many can argue that the brain is complex, and its thought patterns are encrypted and decrypted using the tongue of the person.
They can and they might, but that wouldn't hold up in court.
Actually , we are in some form , an organic based computer.
SecretSoftware wrote:If the brain has the right to not be compelled to reveal "witness testimony" that could be incriminating, then the computer should be given the benefit of the doubt.
Computers are things, not people. The law does not consider them to be a witness, but rather to be evidence.
see above. Computers belong to people. ANd the laws that protect people's rights to privacy, include, by definition, their belongings.
As the law stands, if the police had a warrant to do so then yes. I'm not saying it
should be like that, merely that it is.
but how does the police get a warrant in the first place? They have to suspect something in the first place to get a warrant after convincing the judge.
This is officially will end the meaning of privacy that we ought to enjoy in democratic systems.
And yet you don't object to terrorist legislation? This precedent is mild compared to Guantanamo bay.
Well, many can argue that Patriot act is illegal if one challenges it against the 10 amendment rights.
The only reason its active, is for reasons of national security, which the government claims. That is why it has to be renewed, because its fundamentally antithetical to democratic value systems,and is outright illegal when measured against the 10-Amendment
SecretSoftware wrote:Common man, you don't have to be that dense.
But you have to remember the theorem of universal stupidity: Everyone is stupid.
Consequence 1: Even you.
Consequence 2: Even me.
Consequence 3: By 1, even when you take this law into account, they are still stupider than you thought they would be.
Well, that may be true, but there are levels to stupidity. Not every one shares the same level of stupidity.