Jump to content


Photo

Americans can be forced to decrypt their laptops

tech support politics

  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#21 SchwanzBrewer

SchwanzBrewer

    Grand Duke of Inappropriate Announcements

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 34288 posts
  • LocationKnee deep in business plans

Posted 25 January 2012 - 08:55 AM

If you go this route the ruling needs to be so specific that it doesn't hurt your fifth amendment rights. I doubt the ruling does that now and might set dangerous precedents for other cases.
  • 0

#22 TehFury

TehFury

    No Life

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12160 posts
  • LocationA secret and heavily fortified compound.

Posted 25 January 2012 - 08:59 AM

If you go this route the ruling needs to be so specific that it doesn't hurt your fifth amendment rights. I doubt the ruling does that now and might set dangerous precedents for other cases.

I don't see it that way. If she hadn't encrypted the documents, they'd already have them. The only issue is the encryption technology and whether she can protect herself from prosecution by using it. I'm not even sure it's a 5th Amendment issue as I don't see it as being an issue of "giving testimony"
  • 0

#23 MoreAmmoPlz

MoreAmmoPlz

    Comptroller of Ivory Powers

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2160 posts
  • LocationMI

Posted 25 January 2012 - 09:32 AM

What hidden volume?

Edited by MoreAmmoPlz, 25 January 2012 - 09:33 AM.

  • 0

#24 Stains_not_here_man

Stains_not_here_man

    Phat O'Mic Chef Winner!

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 95556 posts

Posted 25 January 2012 - 09:37 AM

Yes they can cut open your safe, but if their torch isn't good enough can you be compelled to use yours to open it?

Getting back to this -- I would guess (not being a lawyer I can only guess) that the answer here is yes, the court could compel you to produce a torch capable of opening it, if they knew you had one.
  • 0

#25 Kremer

Kremer

    Comptroller of MS Paint Diagrams and other vague unspecified stu

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8857 posts
  • Location38.360502, -85.311022 (Louisville, KY area)

Posted 25 January 2012 - 10:08 AM

Getting back to this -- I would guess (not being a lawyer I can only guess) that the answer here is yes, the court could compel you to produce a torch capable of opening it, if they knew you had one.

I guess I don't understand how that would not be incriminating yourself.
  • 0

#26 Stains_not_here_man

Stains_not_here_man

    Phat O'Mic Chef Winner!

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 95556 posts

Posted 25 January 2012 - 10:19 AM

I guess I don't understand how that would not be incriminating yourself.

The fifth amendment doesn't really say you can't "incriminate yourself." It says you can't be "a witness" against yourself. So I think it really is mostly limited to 'offering testimony.' Not producing evidence that the court has ordered you to produce.
  • 0

#27 Kremer

Kremer

    Comptroller of MS Paint Diagrams and other vague unspecified stu

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8857 posts
  • Location38.360502, -85.311022 (Louisville, KY area)

Posted 25 January 2012 - 10:25 AM

The fifth amendment doesn't really say you can't "incriminate yourself." It says you can't be "a witness" against yourself. So I think it really is mostly limited to 'offering testimony.' Not producing evidence that the court has ordered you to produce.

Maybe. I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one. what I or we understand or interpret based on plain text summaries and the intrinsics of the way the laws are written and interpreted over the course of time in court can be completely different things.
  • 0

#28 Stains_not_here_man

Stains_not_here_man

    Phat O'Mic Chef Winner!

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 95556 posts

Posted 25 January 2012 - 10:27 AM

Maybe. I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one. what I or we understand or interpret based on plain text summaries and the intrinsics of the way the laws are written and interpreted over the course of time in court can be completely different things.

True. I'm just thinking about the example fury offered, where a drug dealer keeps a journal of his transactions. Is introducing that journal as evidence forcing someone to 'incriminate themselves'? What if the journal contains references to another journal, but the police never found that one. Would a court order forcing the person to turn over that journal (which the police know exists, just don't know where) count as forcing them to incriminate themselves? My gut tells me the answer would be no.
  • 0

#29 Kremer

Kremer

    Comptroller of MS Paint Diagrams and other vague unspecified stu

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8857 posts
  • Location38.360502, -85.311022 (Louisville, KY area)

Posted 25 January 2012 - 10:42 AM

Did they ever decrypt Kevin Mitnick's stuff? That was the first time I've really heard this issue tangled with. How to deal with the separation of physical possession and intellectual possession.
  • 0

#30 Kremer

Kremer

    Comptroller of MS Paint Diagrams and other vague unspecified stu

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8857 posts
  • Location38.360502, -85.311022 (Louisville, KY area)

Posted 25 January 2012 - 10:43 AM

Once a memory probing machine exists the first law enforcement use of it will make this all meaningless.
  • 0

#31 Oblomov

Oblomov

    Comptroller of Fax

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 955 posts
  • LocationSan Diego

Posted 25 January 2012 - 01:44 PM

Wrong. They have the vessel that contains the evidence. Once decrypted, they have the evidence that they will present in court. During trial is when they have the burden of proof, not during the collection of evidence in the pre-trial phase.If it were a safe or storage unit, they'd have just cut it open at this point. Due to PGP, they are unable to do that. So again, my question: Should someone have an additional level of protection from prosecution for a crime simply because they have access to better technology?

What if they cut open the safe, only to find that all the documents inside had been encrypted the old fashioned way.Would you say the defendant had an obligation to manually decode all of the documents? I
  • 0

#32 BlackBeerd

BlackBeerd

    Comptroller of Stain's Junk Posting

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 18047 posts
  • LocationA Drunken Stupor

Posted 25 January 2012 - 02:31 PM

I don't see it that way. If she hadn't encrypted the documents, they'd already have them. The only issue is the encryption technology and whether she can protect herself from prosecution by using it. I'm not even sure it's a 5th Amendment issue as I don't see it as being an issue of "giving testimony"

If they can not read those documents, how are they so sure they are pertinent to the case? As in, the search warrant is for xyz, if law enforcement can't see xyz, they can just collect any damn thing they feel like?
  • 0

#33 Stains_not_here_man

Stains_not_here_man

    Phat O'Mic Chef Winner!

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 95556 posts

Posted 25 January 2012 - 02:32 PM

If they can not read those documents, how are they so sure they are pertinent to the case? As in, the search warrant is for xyz, if law enforcement can't see xyz, they can just collect any damn thing they feel like?

The search warrant is for "the contents of the documents" probably. And, they aren't sure if they are relevant or not - that's what search warrants for documents are for. If they aren't pertinent to the case the prosecution won't use them.
  • 0

#34 BlackBeerd

BlackBeerd

    Comptroller of Stain's Junk Posting

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 18047 posts
  • LocationA Drunken Stupor

Posted 25 January 2012 - 02:35 PM

True. I'm just thinking about the example fury offered, where a drug dealer keeps a journal of his transactions. Is introducing that journal as evidence forcing someone to 'incriminate themselves'? What if the journal contains references to another journal, but the police never found that one. Would a court order forcing the person to turn over that journal (which the police know exists, just don't know where) count as forcing them to incriminate themselves? My gut tells me the answer would be no.

They don't "know" it exists. They "think" it exists. And that's only based on the writings of someone that they feel is untrustworthy because they have broken the law.
  • 0

#35 *_Guest_BigBossMan_*

*_Guest_BigBossMan_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 January 2012 - 02:40 PM

How long can a judge hold someone on contempt of court charges?
  • 0

#36 zymot

zymot

    Comptroller of Small Amounts of Money

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23308 posts
  • LocationMortville

Posted 25 January 2012 - 02:52 PM

I thought the NSA requires that decoding via backdoor methods be available.I understand cable companies have the ability to encrypt their signals such that no jimmy card will work on any set top boxes.The NSA restricts that cable companies from doing that, because the NSA itself would not be able to decrypt and "read" the cable signal.
  • 0

#37 japh

japh

    Winner!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11414 posts
  • LocationOregon

Posted 25 January 2012 - 03:14 PM

They went through a court order to get them decrypted. It's not like a copy saying "you're under arrest, what's your password." They went through the process.
  • 0

#38 SKubrick

SKubrick

    Comptroller of Pissing Matches

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 405 posts
  • LocationThe Great State of Idaho

Posted 25 January 2012 - 03:22 PM

I forget my passwords all the time.

Yep."I'm sorry, your honor, I forgot that password."Their turn.
  • 0

#39 Darterboy

Darterboy

    Frequent Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1883 posts
  • LocationVestavia Hills, Alabama

Posted 25 January 2012 - 07:07 PM

Yep."I'm sorry, your honor, I forgot that password."Their turn.

Why not this? Seems to handle things pretty neatly.

Edited by Darterboy, 25 January 2012 - 07:07 PM.

  • 0

#40 thool

thool

    Comptroller of Great Pendulous Videos

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3657 posts
  • LocationRochester, NY

Posted 25 January 2012 - 07:12 PM

So if the prosecutor has a case that labels you as a suspect, you have to decrypt files to show them you're innocent?
  • 0



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: tech support, politics

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users