Also, they can put you on grand jury and give you obstruction of justice for refusing to talk.<br><br>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 5/14/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Eric H. Jung</b> <<a href="mailto:eric.jung@yahoo.com">eric.jung@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Mike,<br><br>I don't have the time to respond to all the points of your email except<br>the first/<br><br>
Federal Contempt of Court<br><a href="http://www.bafirm.com/articles/federalcontempt.html">http://www.bafirm.com/articles/federalcontempt.html</a><br><br>"Although there is no statutory maximum limit regulating the amount of
<br>time a contemnor can be ordered to spend in confinement (United States<br>v. Carpenter, 91 F.3d 1282, 1283 (9th Cir. 1996)), the requirement that<br>a jury trial be granted in criminal contempt cases involving sentences
<br>over six months in jail acts as a check on this power." 67-79<br><br><br><br>--- Mike Perry <<a href="mailto:mikepery@fscked.org">mikepery@fscked.org</a>> wrote:<br><br>> Thus spake Eric H. Jung (<a href="mailto:eric.jung@yahoo.com">
eric.jung@yahoo.com</a>):<br>><br>> > > Tony's point was that you could arrange not to have the<br>> > authentication<br>> > > tokens anymore. You better hope they believe you when you say you<br>
> > > don't have it, though.<br>> ><br>> > >Not having the authentication tokens counts as refusing to<br>> surrender<br>> > >them.<br>> ><br>> > Per US law, if a judge subpoenas you to hand them over and you
<br>> refuse<br>> > and/or remain silent, it means indefinite jail time (until you hand<br>> > over the tokens) and/or fines.<br>><br>> Where is your source on this? As I understand it, there are a few
<br>> fundamental principles of the US legal system that should render this<br>> statement completely false. One is Habeas Corpus.. You can't just<br>> throw someone in jail indefinitely without a criminal charge and a
<br>> trial. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_habeas_corpus">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_habeas_corpus</a><br>><br>> Though it seems Bush&Co are violating it with "enemy combatant"
<br>> charges, I do not think they have the political power (at least<br>> anymore) to name an anonymity provider as an "enemy combatant"<br>> (especially if they are a natural born US citizen). The same applies
<br>> to the 72 hour warrant deal, at least as far as I can tell from<br>> <a href="http://www.fff.org/comment/com0601c.asp">http://www.fff.org/comment/com0601c.asp</a><br>><br>> Second, if it is a criminal charge, you are not under any obligation
<br>> to testify against yourself in a criminal court of law (5th<br>> ammendment). There are various exceptions to this, main one being if<br>> you are not the person charged of the crime (though I think you can
<br>> still claim that such testimony may incriminate you for unrelated<br>> matters). I suppose it could also be argued that the passphrase does<br>> not count as testimony, but it sure seems like it is.<br>>
<br>> Finally, some googling on subpoena compliance seems to indicate that<br>> punishment for subpoena non-compliance is 'contempt of court' charge<br>> and fines.<br>><br>> <a href="http://www.rcfp.org/cgi-local/privilege/item.cgi?i=questions">
http://www.rcfp.org/cgi-local/privilege/item.cgi?i=questions</a><br>><br>> That page advises you not to answer any subpoenas without challenging<br>> them first, among other things (ie one state's court cannot usually
<br>> subpoena someone from another state). Contempt of court charges for<br>> non-compliance may be repeated, but any contempt law I can find on<br>> the web has some form of maximum limit. The longest I've seen so far
<br>> is North Carolina, which is a max of 1yr in 90 day increments:<br>> <a href="http://www.rosen.com/ppf/cat/statco/laws.asp">http://www.rosen.com/ppf/cat/statco/laws.asp</a><br>><br>><br>> Also, dunno how accurate it is, but Wikipedia seems to claim that the
<br>> key disclosure provisions of the RIPA (Part III) are not yet in force<br>> in the UK:<br>><br>><br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000
</a><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> We seriously have to watch our paranoia on this one. This is one of<br>> those situations that if we believe we have no rights, it will be<br>> very<br>> easy to knock us over, simply by playing off our fears and demanding
<br>> keys without any legitimate basis to do so.<br>><br>> If any Tor operator is arrested/detained in the US, they would do<br>> well<br>> to refuse to surrender any passphrase until they are actually in<br>
> court<br>> and ordered to do so by a Judge (and then only after voicing protest,<br>> to allow for clear appeal to a higher court). Cops will probably just<br>> lie to you and try to convince you that you are required on the spot.
<br>> Ask for a lawyer immediately.<br>><br>> This is not just to protect the Tor network either. With computer<br>> laws<br>> as crazy as they are, and with the IPPA coming down the road, soon<br>> simply having something like an Open Source DVD player or archiver on
<br>> your machine will be enough to land you in jail for a while, if it's<br>> not already...<br>><br>> --<br>> Mike Perry<br>> Mad Computer Scientist<br>> <a href="http://fscked.org">fscked.org</a> evil labs
<br>><br><br></blockquote></div><br>