- Oct 30, 2000
- 14,667
- 440
- 126
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.
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.