http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57...their-laptops/
Summary: Judge is forcing a woman who is facing fraud charges to decrypt her laptop which she originally refused to do.
Isn't she essentially being forced to provide evidence against herself?
Discuss.
Ianal, but "provide evidence" != "testify". You can be forced to provide dna, for example. The question here is, does providing a crypto secret amount to testimony?
But the real bottom line: don't expect crypto to keep stuff out of a trial.
The answer, it seems to me, is wrath. The mind cannot foresee its own advance. --FA Hayek Specialization is for insects.
DNA isn't a bad argument. But at least they're doing the work to get the DNA.
In this case they're forcing her to provide them with plain text evidence against herself. I guess if they just defeated the encryption themselves I'd be okay with it?
Interesting...
If I tell my wife a secret, it cannot generally be subpoenaed.
What if the hard drive belonged to my wife (he asks half-seriously)?
or be ready to sit in jail on contempt charges.Originally Posted by mariodsantana
I don't see how it's any different than forcing you to turn in correspondence or other hard copy documents. It's physical evidence. If it's damning of you, then I guess it served its purpose of evidence......
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
This will go to SCOTUS, for sure. I cannot see how it can withstand the 4th and 5th Amendment. How can providing a password not be construed as testimony? Be interesting to see and this can have far reaching implications.
that article said they are asking her to decrypt her computer without giving up the password. Another article i read said the woman must give up her password. does it make a difference in how the information is being demanded?
http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news...-to-hard-driveProsecutors in this case have stressed that they don't actually require the passphrase itself, and today's order appears to permit Fricosu to type it in and unlock the files without anyone looking over her shoulder. They say they want only the decrypted data and are not demanding "the password to the drive, either orally or in written form."
A federal judge has ruled that a Colorado woman, charged in a mortgage scam case, must turn over the password needed to decrypt her hard drive so that police can view the files on it.
Not much of a difference to me whether she has to give up the password or not. If they force her to provide the files, then it's all the same.
I'm not sure what giving them the password would gain them if they already have all the stuff they want decrypted.
If the police have a warrant for a hard drive, then should the woman be able to withhold the hard drive by destroying or hiding it? How is encrypting the hard drive when the police are knocking on your door any different than other forms of evidence tampering? The court is not coercing the woman to admit guilt, it is coercing the production of already existing evidence. Shielding preexisting evidence does nothing to accomplish the 5th amendment's goals because the evidence was not created under a coercive influence.
Reply With Quote