Slightly older news: Judge trying to force woman to decrypt her hard drive

[HumblePie]

So I can't believe this hasn't been brought up on these forums yet so I will.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-5...icans-can-be-forced-to-decrypt-their-laptops/

Colorado Judge is trying to force a woman to decrypt her hard drive. Potential evidence needed to convict the woman is on her hard drive. Despite all the stupid shows like NCIS and crap, the government is not full of super forensic hackers capable of decrypting anything for evidence. So the case against her is weaker than if they had access to her records she may have kept on her computer for some bank fraud she is accused of.

She is pleading the fifth and stating that decrypting that hard drive is tantamount to providing possible evidence against herself. Which is exactly what the 5th amendment is there to stop. Judge is trying to cite that her being force to decrypt the drive is like the government forcing telephone companies to place wiretaps on their customers. Two completely difference situations for which is trying to claim precedence.

Personally if I was her I would sit down, shut up, and play completely mute and stupid until the case is over. If that gets her a contempt of court charge, so be it. I would take a contempt charge over whatever they may be trying to bring against her.

Not that I believe she should get away with criminal charges if she is guilty of them. But it is the responsibility of the government to bring evidence to bear against an individual. Innocent until proven guilty prevents more abuses of government power that could potentially be way worse than a woman committing bank fraud. I'd rather see one criminal get away than our rights as individuals striped away by our government just to persecute one woman.

 

[airdata]

That's absurd... I'd think they'd appeal it.

It sounds like they have no evidence and aren't capable of getting any potential evidence...

How can they possibly force them to decrypt it? I don't understand how they could possibly do that aside from the judge likely being old and out of touch with reality.

 

[waggy]

hmm is the penalty for not decrypting it worse then what she will get if she does? that is a hard choice.

but im torn on this. on one hand they have a warrant to search it. but it seems like a fishing expedition. they have no clue what is on the drive but think it might have something on it that will nail her. I would think then that if she does it for them she is breaking her Fifth Amendment rights.

this needs to go before the SC.

 

[senseamp]

Maybe while its on appeals, she'll forget the password.
I am sure there are technological solutions to this already. The military or CIA wouldn't send people with encrypted computers in the field if these passwords could be extracted by torture. Now that the judge has put people on notice that simple encryption isn't enough, those who want to protect against his will figure out a way.

 

[Blackjack200]

So I can't believe this hasn't been brought up on these forums yet so I will.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-5...icans-can-be-forced-to-decrypt-their-laptops/
Personally if I was her I would sit down, shut up, and play completely mute and stupid until the case is over. If that gets her a contempt of court charge, so be it. I would take a contempt charge over whatever they may be trying to bring against her.

hmm is the penalty for not decrypting it worse then what she will get if she does? that is a hard choice.

If the judge is allowed to find her in contempt he can throw her in jail until she decrypts the HDD.

 

[Genx87]

Sounds to me given the conflicting judgements regarding encryption the Supreme Court should be taking a case around this in the future. Personally I think this is the same as incrmininating yourself and thus a 5th amendment violation.

 

[Jaskalas]

Only evidence we have is that the Judge is an amoral !@#$.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

This one is a tough call. If they can legally compel you to open a safe I don't see why they can't force you to give a password.

 

[monovillage]

I agree that this is a 5th Amendment case. I hope she continues the fight.

 

[ShawnD1]

If the judge is allowed to find her in contempt he can throw her in jail until she decrypts the HDD.

I wonder what race the defendant is. As Dave Chappelle pointed out, the law wildly fluctuates depending on what color you are. He had a sketch about what it would look like if white and black people switched around. Corporate white guy is raided by the police, his dog killed for no reason, wife groped, and he's harshly interrogated by police. Black drug dealer (tron?) is politely called and asked to turn himself in. He agrees, but he shows up late and is treated like a king when he arrives. In court, he pleads the fifth to everything, even basic questions.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CzocBkrWpA

 

[SandEagle]

the judge is not fit to judge

 

[peonyu]

I wonder what race the defendant is. As Dave Chappelle pointed out, the law wildly fluctuates depending on what color you are. He had a sketch about what it would look like if white and black people switched around. Corporate white guy is raided by the police, his dog killed for no reason, wife groped, and he's harshly interrogated by police. Black drug dealer (tron?) is politely called and asked to turn himself in. He agrees, but he shows up late and is treated like a king when he arrives. In court, he pleads the fifth to everything, even basic questions.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CzocBkrWpA

As much as I like Chappelle, his skit is outdated and it was outdated when he first made it. People are [for the most part] not treated like dirt for their color but due to their social status, hell look at OJ Simpson and how he was treated...If he was some poor bum who was accused of murdering two people his car would have been shot to pieces as he tried to flee. OJ was babied from the get go. Thats money for you, and not color working its magic.

And does anyone think a famous and rich black man like Michael Jordan would be treated like shit if he were accused of a crime ? Hell no, he would likely get off even if he did do it. People worship the rich these days, and most corporate people are rich.


That skit overall just cries "im a victim still wahh cuz im black". Yet what if it was a White guy being arrested by all Black police officers, are we supposed to believe that black people are in no way possible of being racist when the situation is the other way around ?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Gotta love threads like this, protecting those who victimized homeowners and financial institutions.


http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_16391564

A federal grand jury in Denver has issued three separate indictments in alleged mortgage- fraud schemes that victimized homeowners and financial institutions.

 

[BoberFett]

That's one of the most hilarious Chapelle skits ever.

F! I! F! Fiiiiiif!!!!

 

[piasabird]

All she has to say is I dont recall the password. When Hillary Clinton was questined in court she said she couldnt remember and there was nothing the court could do. The court probably does not want to pay to send it to a computer forensic lab. The way I would look at this is the only reason to encrypt a Hard Drive is to hide what you are doing. The big question is whether people have a right to privacy or not. It is not guaranteed by the constitution.

I think this kind of software should have 2 secret pass phrases. One should unlock the drive and one should immediately erase the partition and start writing 101010101010 to the entire drive at the low formatting level in the background.

 

[Jaskalas]

Gotta love threads like this, protecting those who victimized homeowners and financial institutions.

Protecting people from crusading zealots who don't care if they lack evidence to lock people up.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Protecting people from crusading zealots who don't care if they lack evidence to lock people up.

I'd bet you would singing a different tune if they fraudulently took over the mortgage and possession of your house.

 

[senseamp]

Gotta love threads like this, protecting those who victimized homeowners and financial institutions.


http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_16391564

Allegedly victimized. The govt has to prove it first, and the fifth amendment applies.

 

[HumblePie]

Allegedly victimized. The govt has to prove it first, and the fifth amendment applies.

Yep, the hard drive could just have only evidence of her cheating on her husband or something else embarrassing like a fetish for eating poop that she doesn't want to get out. There are a number of reasons why people would want to hide information on a hard drive that has nothing to do with criminal activities.

The fifth amendment is there to protect people from providing possible evidence against themselves that may or may not be related to the case.

 

[ShawnD1]

I'd bet you would singing a different tune if they fraudulently took over the mortgage and possession of your house.

Indeed. After seeing what a problem illegal immigration is, I think we should also do away with the 4th amendment. Probable cause my ass. Stop and search every car from Mexico. We should probably do away with the first amendment as well. People always hide behind the first amendment when they do crazy or illegal shit .

 

[Juddog]

I think a lot of people are misinterpreting the 4th amendment in the context of this case.

The problem here is that they already have her on tape stating that there is evidence on the laptop. If she had never confessed to such, she would have never had to give out the password.

 

[JS80]

Is it impressive that a mortgage scamming chick could encrypt her HD that it can't be hacked or is that pretty easy to do?

 

[cybrsage]

If they have a warrant for the hard drive, she must decrypt it since she is not allowed to prevent access to the items covered by the warrant. If not, she does not have to do so.

That is the dividing line here.

 

[BoberFett]

If they have a warrant for the hard drive, she must decrypt it since she is not allowed to prevent access to the items covered by the warrant. If not, she does not have to do so.

That is the dividing line here.

They have a warrant for a hard drive. They have the hard drive. They have what the warrant was for. If they can't use it, that's their problem.

They're asking for what's in her head. The fifth amendment is in place to prevent a person from being coerced into providing what's in her head.

Do you believe that somebody should be compelled by a warrant to incriminate themselves? If so, law enforcement just got easier. Knowledge of a crime is no different than knowledge of a password, they're both contained in the mind of the accused. Have a judge sign a warrant for a confession. Either they confess and go to prison, or sit in jail for contempt until they confess. Voila! No more need for silly things like trials!

 

[ShawnD1]

The problem here is that they already have her on tape stating that there is evidence on the laptop. If she had never confessed to such, she would have never had to give out the password.

The fif is a very simple amendment: you cannot be forced to screw yourself. (I wish I could post that pic where a guy has his penis looped around into his own ass, loopback.jpg)
Collecting evidence for prosecution is not the job of the defendant. What if she said she knew the location of a dead body? Are they supposed to hold her indefinitely and maybe torture her until she leads them to it? Maybe she's a crazy loon and she says random shit the way crazy people do, and she doesn't actually know the location of a dead body.