Judge says defendant must decrypt files, Fifth Amendment not at issue

[lehnerus2000]

Summary: A federal case that may have helped define constitutional law in the digital age turns not on the defendant’s rights in regard to her encryption password, but on the fact that evidence clearly showed she owned a laptop in question and had access to its contents.

ZDNet
Judge says defendant must decrypt files, Fifth Amendment not at issue | ZDNet

Earlier story - Passwords tangled in Fifth Amendment
Passwords tangled in Fifth Amendment | ZDNet

I wonder if this will apply to business?

 

[HammerHead]

Question

That brings the question, What is the use to encrypt? I mean Joe Blow might not be able to read it. But if big brother wants to you have to provide the info. Sheesh!

 

[pincushion]

That brings the question, What is the use to encrypt? I mean Joe Blow might not be able to read it. But if big brother wants to you have to provide the info. Sheesh!

I think there is a big difference between hiding your personal information from 'the-rest-of-the-world' and the law enforcement authorities. Perhaps, since it seems that about 25% of the users in many countries are downloading illegally (filesharing unpaid-for content that is), they have something to hide but the LEA's are not really interested in them. The USA seems to be going the way of the UK and many other European countries in regard to encrypted devices in demanding the unencrypted data although many commenters seem to think this will be overturned on appeal. Presumably people will come up with other methods to conceal their data from prying eyes - solutions always do seem to appear when problems occur.

 

[lehnerus2000]

Update

Summary: A woman who argued that providing a password to authorities was a violation of her Fifth Amendment rights has filed an appeal in her case and is now also citing the Fourth Amendment.

ZDNet
Woman who pleaded Fifth in password case now citing Fourth | ZDNet

 

[Phone Man]

Judge Blackburn ruled the 5th Amendment (self incrimination) did not apply to her case for this one reason.

Blackburn also noted that the defendant had been granted immunity and that federal prosecutors would not use her act of producing the laptop’s contents in the case against her.

I think that was the key to his ruling.

Jim

 

[A Guy]

Constitutional showdown voided: Feds decrypt laptop without defendant’s help

Colorado federal authorities have decrypted a laptop seized from a bank-fraud defendant, mooting a judge’s order that the defendant unlock the hard drive so the government could use its contents as evidence against her.

The development ends a contentious legal showdown over whether forcing a defendant to decrypt a laptop is a breach of the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self incrimination.

Source

A Guy

 

[IMAyNeed]

Judge Blackburn ruled the 5th Amendment (self incrimination) did not apply to her case for this one reason.

Blackburn also noted that the defendant had been granted immunity and that federal prosecutors would not use her act of producing the laptop’s contents in the case against her.

I think that was the key to his ruling.

Jim

What if they choose to use the information to convict a loved one?
Do they have the right?
(Just a question to create a question mark, no answer needed)

 

[BarnabasSackett]

Password? I don't remember any passwords. The stress has made me forget it.

 

[seekermeister]

I'm not certain about the analogy in the article, comparing it to forcing a person to unlock a safe, because I don't know how the law stands on it. It would seem to me that a person could not be "forced" to unlock either, except in terms of being given jail time. Therefore, it would come down to whether the amount of time for contempt of court is greater or lesser than the time likely to be given, if found guilty of fraud. And from a criminal perspective if the content of the laptop contains info that could track the money involved, allowing it to be recovered, that would also enter the equation. One way or another, a criminal must pay for their crime.

 

[chris1neji]

The way i view this is, once you start taking away freedoms or rights to the bad guys, you can de damn sure your freedoms and rights are pretty much also out the window.

 

[IMAyNeed]

I'm not certain about the analogy in the article, comparing it to forcing a person to unlock a safe, because I don't know how the law stands on it. It would seem to me that a person could not be "forced" to unlock either, except in terms of being given jail time. Therefore, it would come down to whether the amount of time for contempt of court is greater or lesser than the time likely to be given, if found guilty of fraud. And from a criminal perspective if the content of the laptop contains info that could track the money involved, allowing it to be recovered, that would also enter the equation. One way or another, a criminal must pay for their crime.

Then we don't have the right to have any property against the government since government can seize it anytime it wants.
In our justice system; if you have the money, you can stay out of jail, if you don't, you can't. It means; if you are a minimum wage worker, you will be staying in the jail, but if you are a criminal who made money illlegally, you would stay out of jail with the money you made illegally.
Therefore, in our justice system; being convicted of a crime does not mean that you are guilty or committed a crime since 95% of the cases are being dealt with deals instead of investigations or trials.
So, a minimum wage worker is most likely to take a deal to stay out of jail (probation, etc.) to bring bread to his family than the rich criminals.
Since we can say that our justice system is protecting criminals more than the hard-workers, it is not for us to say that who is a criminal.
In this case or most of the cases, the government can easily be the criminal also (The Amish who was forced to stop distributing milk, search was made out of business hours illegally, the decision was made saying that 'fda has control over private property even if it is not for commerce').
Yes, a criminal must pay for their crime, but who is the criminal?
People with no money, or people with money, or the government itself?

 

[seekermeister]

No person is guaranteed justice in this or any other government on Earth, what the US system offers is a shot at justice. Obviously, there are inequities, and there shall be regardless of how the law may be structured. Once a person is convicted of a crime, they have forfeited certain rights. If that were not so, then it would be impossible to punish anyone of any crime.

If a person accepts a "deal", then they have also accepted all of the penalties involved. If they are not guilty, then they should never accept such a deal. But, to keep in focus, this case doesn't involve a person already convicted of a crime, but one that is charged. Therefore, they are innocent until proven otherwise.

When anyone is being investigated for a crime, the government does have the right to confiscate and analyze any evidence that they may obtain, it doesn't matter where it is, or how it might be secured. For instance, it is possible to obtain resources from a Swiss account. There are some places where a person can place money, where this is not true, but it is not because the person's rights have changed, but because of whether the country where the money is kept has a treaty with the US to cooperate.

When it comes right down to it, a person doesn't have any rights to any property, even if not guilty of a crime, otherwise no one could be forced to pay taxes, such as property tax, which is essentially the same as the government renting a person their property.

I agree that the system has a lot of imperfections, but as bad as it is, it is the best available at this time. And will be, so long as this Earth age remains.

EDIT: The thing that puzzles me, is why they are requiring a password, because I'm sure that the government has the ability to crack any encryption themselves.

 

[marsmimar]

I'm not certain about the analogy in the article, comparing it to forcing a person to unlock a safe, because I don't know how the law stands on it. It would seem to me that a person could not be "forced" to unlock either, except in terms of being given jail time. Therefore, it would come down to whether the amount of time for contempt of court is greater or lesser than the time likely to be given, if found guilty of fraud. And from a criminal perspective if the content of the laptop contains info that could track the money involved, allowing it to be recovered, that would also enter the equation. One way or another, a criminal must pay for their crime.

Agreed. But just because someone is accused of a crime doesn't make that person a criminal unless found guilty. Every defendant is supposed to be afforded due process in a criminal case. Due process is the legal requirement that the state (the prosecution) must respect all of the legal rights that are granted to a person; whether they agree with those rights or not is not supposed to be an issue. Many cases have been overturned on appeal when the prosecution (the government) violated the rights of the accused. There's also the old courtroom adage that it's better to set 99 guilty people free rather than wrongfully convict one innocent person.

If the government doesn't have enough legally obtained evidence to prosecute a case, they need to step back and start all over again. Anything less and our country might as well tear up the Constitution and follow the examples set forth by Fidel Castro, Adolf Hitler, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, et al.

 

[Qdos]

In the United Kingdom the law demands you decrypt any data the authorities so demand you to. If you fail to comply then you can face a custodial sentence exceeding that of whichever crime the data is suspected to be in relation to.

The answer is therefore an encryption program which offers plausible deniability (eg; two levels of encryption, two passwords, so that password one reveals only relatively harmless data and you can deny that there ever was a secondary password...)

So much for M$' BitLocker...

 

[IMAyNeed]

So as it was on piratebay; downloading/uploading a Michael Jackson song will be punished by 5 years, but killing Michael Jackson will be punished by 4 years (According to California laws, he will not even go to prison and he will do a maximum of 2 years in jail, which he can get out under a year depending on the sheriff); and this will all be because government(s) says so.

 

[BarnabasSackett]

I'm not a lawyer but as I understand it, a subpoena is a legal demand for you to produce something, usually documents, but they have to be able to demonstrate that those documents exist or existed but it is not authority to seize them. A warrant, on the other hand, gives them the authority to search for and seize enumerated items in enumerated places. If there is a safe, you do not have to open it but they are permitted to destroy the safe to find out what is inside.

Since they have no idea what is on the hard drive, they cannot demand that you produce unspecified information. If they have a warrant, you are not obliged to cooperate, you just cannot actively block their efforts.

In any case, I'd stick with the "what password?" story.

 

[pincushion]

No person is guaranteed justice in this or any other government on Earth, what the US system offers is a shot at justice. Obviously, there are inequities, and there shall be regardless of how the law may be structured. Once a person is convicted of a crime, they have forfeited certain rights. If that were not so, then it would be impossible to punish anyone of any crime.

If a person accepts a "deal", then they have also accepted all of the penalties involved. If they are not guilty, then they should never accept such a deal. But, to keep in focus, this case doesn't involve a person already convicted of a crime, but one that is charged. Therefore, they are innocent until proven otherwise.

When anyone is being investigated for a crime, the government does have the right to confiscate and analyze any evidence that they may obtain, it doesn't matter where it is, or how it might be secured. For instance, it is possible to obtain resources from a Swiss account. There are some places where a person can place money, where this is not true, but it is not because the person's rights have changed, but because of whether the country where the money is kept has a treaty with the US to cooperate.

When it comes right down to it, a person doesn't have any rights to any property, even if not guilty of a crime, otherwise no one could be forced to pay taxes, such as property tax, which is essentially the same as the government renting a person their property.

I agree that the system has a lot of imperfections, but as bad as it is, it is the best available at this time. And will be, so long as this Earth age remains.

EDIT: The thing that puzzles me, is why they are requiring a password, because I'm sure that the government has the ability to crack any encryption themselves.

In theory they have nowhere near the ability to crack current encryption but perhaps they have found methods or are planning them -

The NSA Is Building the Country's Biggest Spy Center (Watch What You Say) | Threat Level | Wired.com

Bit worrying about the Big Brother aspect though.

 

[pincushion]

NSA Chief Denies, Denies, Denies Wired's Domestic Spying Story | Threat Level | Wired.com

That is comforting then.

 

[Bertison]

" ... a woman arrested in a mortgage scam must give authorities access to her encrypted hard drive".

I am giving some thought and sympathy to the people financially affected by the alleged activities of this woman and her alleged co-defendant in jail.

Just as in the UK now, more efforts made on behalf of the alleged wrongdoers, than to their victims.

I am no right winger, but I see this happening all the time. This woman should receive proper justice, but what if the information on this hard drive is actual proof of her guilt, and the only certain, undeniable proof available to the prosecution?

Having said that, why did she not take the opportunity at some point to destroy the drive? (Large hammer, welding torch, etc.)

 

[Richardc269]

" ... a woman arrested in a mortgage scam must give authorities access to her encrypted hard drive".

I am giving some thought and sympathy to the people financially affected by the alleged activities of this woman and her alleged co-defendant in jail.

Just as in the UK now, more efforts made on behalf of the alleged wrongdoers, than to their victims.

I am no right winger, but I see this happening all the time. This woman should receive proper justice, but what if the information on this hard drive is actual proof of her guilt, and the only certain, undeniable proof available to the prosecution?

Having said that, why did she not take the opportunity at some point to destroy the drive? (Large hammer, welding torch, etc.)

She either couldn't due to it being seized by cops or whatever. Or simply didn't think of it.