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

[Darwin333]

DO you seriously think she "forgot" the password to the drive she routinely used?

Seriously?

I seriously think that you have committed various crimes and that you should be held in jail until you admit to them.

 

[airdata]

So we can't be protecting ALL of our rights in general? Instead we must obviously be protecting the criminal....

The article says allegedly. Since I live in the united states of america and we have a justice system by which to try people for crimes, I'm assuming the people are innocent until they're proven guilty in a court of law.

Now, if the government doesn't have sufficient evidence to prove their guild... the person is innocent.

So your post is actually hypocritical. You sound like you're all for the law, but then you don't want the system to work.

 

[Griffinhart]

Cybersage, you are an idiot. Not everything can be decrypted within a reasonable timeframe. If using a ridiculous set of encryption algorithms with large amounts of entropy it could take thousands of years to find the right combination to decrypt the item in question.


As for the safe precedent, no they STILL can't compel a person to open a safe. They can ask, and you can refuse. They just slap a contempt of court charge and open the safe through other physical means because safes can be opened without the key since they are basically physical boxes that can be physically broken into. Your charges in the end will not be any worse if you refuse to give them the easy method of opening a safe.

Doesn't this kind of lend support to the idea that it's not a 5th ammendment issue?
If one pleads the 5th, they can't slap a contempt of court charge, can they? In the encryption scenario, they can refuse to do so as well. They just wouldn't be protected by the 5th amendment the way a safe owner isn't in the same situation and get slapped with contempt of court charges.

 

[airdata]

She is actively preventing them from obtaining the evidence they have a warrant to obtain. She was told if she refuses to obey the order of the court, she will be held in contempt until she chooses to obey the order of the court.

She's not preventing anything. They seized her computer. She's not obligated to help their forensics department to get access to her data. The laws they're trying to use to " force " her were written before computer were around and therefore have nothing to do with such a situation.

Maybe their IT guy needs to get fired.

 

[cybrsage]

She's not preventing anything. They seized her computer. She's not obligated to help their forensics department to get access to her data. The laws they're trying to use to " force " her were written before computer were around and therefore have nothing to do with such a situation.

Maybe their IT guy needs to get fired.

She is not legally allowed to prevent them from obtaining the information the warrant says they can obtain. She is doing such a thing.

If the laws need updating, then they should be updated. The laws, as they currently are written, are what needs to be followed. Many laws do need updating to the modern era in which we live, I fully agree on that.

 

[cybrsage]

I seriously think that you have committed various crimes and that you should be held in jail until you admit to them.

Get a warrant for it then.

 

[Ninjahedge]

She is obstructing justice.

That in and of itself is a charge unrelated to the main charge. She has the means to access the information requested by the prosecution, she should supply it.

Not doing so is the same as hiding records, claiming that you forgot where they were, or that you don't have them/can't get them.

The inability to produce them is not a proof of guilt, but it is an obstruction of justice. She cannot be seen as more guilty because she is unwilling to provide materials, but she can't just do what she wants in a case like this w/o paying the legal price.

This is not 4th or 5th amendment in any other but an obtuse application that does not fit into the context of the situation.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Another article.

Link to the judge's opinion. It's actually an interesting read.

Some points:
* She's been granted immunity from having any evidence on the laptop being used against her.
* She doesn't have to reveal her password (contents of her mind), but rather provide an unencrypted version of the HDD's contents, likely by entering the password herself, with no one watching.

 

[Slew Foot]

Yes sir judge, I will decrypt my hard drive with this gigantic magnet.

 

[LurkerPrime]

She is obstructing justice.

That in and of itself is a charge unrelated to the main charge. She has the means to access the information requested by the prosecution, she should supply it.

Not doing so is the same as hiding records, claiming that you forgot where they were, or that you don't have them/can't get them.

The inability to produce them is not a proof of guilt, but it is an obstruction of justice. She cannot be seen as more guilty because she is unwilling to provide materials, but she can't just do what she wants in a case like this w/o paying the legal price.

This is not 4th or 5th amendment in any other but an obtuse application that does not fit into the context of the situation.

If someone else knew the password besides the defendant and they didn't produce it when asked, then that would be considered obstruction of justice. Asking for her password is the same as asking for a confesion. They have the HDD, they have the ability to search it, its not her fault the data on the drive is in a useless format for them to use.

This is akin to them searching your house and finding a bunch of parts/pieces of scrap metal/electronics and stuff in your garage. Then asking you to show them how you would make a bomb out of all that stuff. Since of course they heard you talking to your friend (maybe jokingly) that you might make a bomb in your garage. You of course don't really know how to make a bomb, and tell them so. They of course don't believe you and decide to throw you in jail on contemp of court. Do you really think the justice system should work like that?

 

[WHAMPOM]

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.

You are such a silly duck. This is the same as giving up the combination for a safe in compliance with a search warrant. Fifth Amendment just does not come into it.

 

[Munky]

You are such a silly duck. This is the same as giving up the combination for a safe in compliance with a search warrant. Fifth Amendment just does not come into it.

I disagree. The warrant was for the contents of the hard drive, which they have full access to, unlike a locked safe. That they can't find what they want from those contents, it's their own damn problem.

 

[ShawnD1]

I disagree. The warrant was for the contents of the hard drive, which they have full access to, unlike a locked safe. That they can't find what they want from those contents, it's their own damn problem.

"We found this note in your safe. It's written in French and none of us can read French. WE DEMAND YOU TRANSLATE IT FOR US!!!"

 

[WHAMPOM]

If someone else knew the password besides the defendant and they didn't produce it when asked, then that would be considered obstruction of justice. Asking for her password is the same as asking for a confesion. They have the HDD, they have the ability to search it, its not her fault the data on the drive is in a useless format for them to use.

This is akin to them searching your house and finding a bunch of parts/pieces of scrap metal/electronics and stuff in your garage. Then asking you to show them how you would make a bomb out of all that stuff. Since of course they heard you talking to your friend (maybe jokingly) that you might make a bomb in your garage. You of course don't really know how to make a bomb, and tell them so. They of course don't believe you and decide to throw you in jail on contemp of court. Do you really think the justice system should work like that?

No, pleading the fifth is the same as a confession. When you are required to provide documents by the Court, you provide them whole and not run through a paper shredder.

 

[WHAMPOM]

I disagree. The warrant was for the contents of the hard drive, which they have full access to, unlike a locked safe. That they can't find what they want from those contents, it's their own damn problem.

Encryption is not the same as locked? Lot of Security Professionals will be surprised to hear that. WOW! Wonder what that pad-lock on the bottom of my internet page means?? Hmmm? Must be a symbol for something?

 

[dainthomas]

If she has immunity from having any of the evidence used against her, then what is her problem?

 

[Munky]

Encryption is not the same as locked? Lot of Security Professionals will be surprised to hear that. WOW! Wonder what that pad-lock on the bottom of my internet page means?? Hmmm? Must be a symbol for something?

It is a symbol... a symbol so that the average dummy can easily determine that the connection is encrypted. Encryption does not prevent physical access to the data stored on disk.

 

[ShawnD1]

If she has immunity from having any of the evidence used against her, then what is her problem?

It implicates the Russian mafia. She'll mysteriously go missing after they start to investigate the mob :ninja:

 

[PingSpike]

This whole case might be a bad example if she confessed to having information on an encrypted disk instead of saying nothing and doing a Reagan.

Everyone keeps talking about the safe, but that isn't really the same thing. A safe's contents are readable by anyone if the lock is defeated which can generally be done by physical means with only moderate difficulty. The contents of the disk are readable by anyone and aren't really locked at all...they just don't mean anything unless you know how to read them. People say the law didn't take computers into account but I don't see how computers have to enter into it. I can think of an example that has nothing to do with computers that seems pretty much the same.

The information is there, it is written in a code that only she can read because she knows how to decipher the code. So this is like two criminals discussing criminal activity using letters with a secret code. Is there some sort of legal way to compel them to reveal the code so that you can read the letters? What if I had a secret language with code names? Can they compel you to reveal what the code names actually mean?

 

[Ninjahedge]

I say she is just kept in holding until they decrypt it.

You want to make sure she is proven innocent by all the evidence provided. It would just not be fair if they tried her without the information from the HD!!!

 

[Broheim]

She's not preventing anything. They seized her computer. She's not obligated to help their forensics department to get access to her data. The laws they're trying to use to " force " her were written before computer were around and therefore have nothing to do with such a situation.

Maybe their IT guy needs to get fired.

you just invalidated the entire US constitution...

 

[cybrsage]

This whole case might be a bad example if she confessed to having information on an encrypted disk instead of saying nothing and doing a Reagan.

In Reagan's defense, he had begining stage alzheimers...he very well might NOT have remembered it.

 

[OutHouse]

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

umm no thats what the 5th is all about. you can not punish somebody for invoking their rights.

 

[OutHouse]

You are such a silly duck. This is the same as giving up the combination for a safe in compliance with a search warrant. Fifth Amendment just does not come into it.

fail.

 

[Double Trouble]

If you follow this ruling to it's logical conclusion, then the 5th means nothing anymore.

For example, you killed someone, put the body in a car and made the car vanish. The cops know you put the body in the car, they have a warrant to search the car, but can't find the car. Based on this ruling, you can be compelled to tell them how to get to the car since they have a warrant to search it.

To me that's just flawed logic. If they need you do provide any information that's in your head to convict you of something, then forcing you to provide that information goes directly against the 5th.