|
|
|
|
|
by manfredo
2316 days ago
|
|
> The rule makes more sense if you think about it in terms of financial crimes; it'd be hard to ever prosecute someone for fraud if they didn't have to give up their books. I don't think these two situations are the same. When you run a business there are legal requirements to retain data, and provide that data when audited. The police telling you to tell them were you placed a notebook doesn't seem like an equivalent situation. And how can the police prove you wrong if you say you forgot where you placed it? In fact this is what the defendant alleges: > A judge ordered Rawls to decrypt the hard drives. In its recent ruling, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals described what happened next. Rawls "stated that he could not remember the passwords necessary to decrypt the hard drives and entered several incorrect passwords during the forensic examination." https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/man-who-refused-... |
|
By producing other evidence that suggests that you’re lying (eg. metadata or witnesses suggesting that you recently entered the correct password). In this case the judge had to reject Rawls’ claim of lost memory in order to find him in contempt. Maybe the judge’s finding of fact was wrong, but that’s not what the case is about now.