Fed Judge: Forcing de-cryption does not violate 5th ammendment

Dan O. said:
And I am saying: Who uses such encryption products and what are they trying to hide?
Click to expand...

Encryption is fairly common as a business practice. And in digital transmission it is very common. It is a standard feature of Windows NTFS since NTFS 3.0. And many products exist that have been developed.
 
You guys are too honest!

The first rule of cyber-crime is, "Keep your computer clean". Boot off a live distro (one that doesn't leave file droppings all over your hard drive) and keep all your data files on a portable medium that is nowhere near the computer when the thought police come-a-knocking.
 
SkepticScott said:
Let me rephrase your statement.

In this case, the location of the body is in the defendant's mind. The body is not in the defendant's mind. It is somewhere in the world. These details have been established by independent evidence. The defendant has been ordered to mark a map showing where the body is (an automated process involving a system known to both the defendant and the government), not to reveal that which is in her mind that enables her to do so.

It still seems unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
under that interpretation if the lock on your house is a keypad lock with a PIN instead of a normal lock with a key, it would be unconstitutional for police to serve a warrant on your house and order you to open the door (since the "key" to your house is not a physical object, but something that resides in your mind)
 
defaultdotxbe said:
under that interpretation if the lock on your house is a keypad lock with a PIN instead of a normal lock with a key, it would be unconstitutional for police to serve a warrant on your house and order you to open the door (since the "key" to your house is not a physical object, but something that resides in your mind)
Click to expand...

If they had a warrant, they would just kick down the door and leave you to pay the repair bill. Similarly, if they could break the encryption without your help, that would be legal as long as they had a warrant to search the files on the computer.
 
Freddy said:
Similarly, if they could break the encryption without your help, that would be legal as long as they had a warrant to search the files on the computer.
Click to expand...


Which is what they basically ended up doing.
 
Ferguson said:
Also as you can see in that case, it doesn't matter if they can't _prove_ you don't remember your password. It's whether the judge _thinks_ you remember your password.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the judge has very broad discretion when it comes to contempt, and review is very deferential.
 
Freddy said:
If they had a warrant, they would just kick down the door and leave you to pay the repair bill. Similarly, if they could break the encryption without your help, that would be legal as long as they had a warrant to search the files on the computer.
Click to expand...
exactly. i just dont see what the big deal is

police (with warrant) order you to open your door, you refuse, they break the door open

judge (with warrant/subpoena) orders you to decrypt your hard drive, you refuse, they break the encryption

and both refusals probably net you an obstruction of justice charge
 
The difference is that they can't necessarily break the encryption. If a strong password is used it will be pretty much impossible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom