Decrypt your drives or go to jail indefinitely!

reply to post by ownbestenemy


That came from the posted idea of just getting 'a techie to decrypt it'.

But as you point out the level should not matter. But without good encryption it is sort of a non issue. Much like holding a hard dive in you hand and then having a officer plug it into a computer. Just being a disconnected drive doesn't provide any privacy now from a warrant.

reply to post by smyleegrl

If they had a search warrant for pictures, say, and came across a locked file cabinet...could they open the file cabinet under the assumption that the pics might be there?

That is bloody brilliant!

On the other hand, however, if someone has written up the designs for the 'next big thing' and doesn't want to share it with the world yet, then this person only has to be accused of illegal activity and there goes his secret. With just an accusation competing companies can force each other into revealing their written strategies. I know my examples are a bit lame, but the fifth amendment must be protected at all costs.

Thinking more on this, the authorities had to have probable cause. Without it, they shouldn't even have the right to decrypt the files on their own. WITH probable cause, I dunno, maybe that opens up a new can of worms.

Originally posted by jiggerj
Thinking more on this, the authorities had to have probable cause. Without it, they shouldn't even have the right to decrypt the files on their own. WITH probable cause, I dunno, maybe that opens up a new can of worms.

Probable cause to seize the private property was met. Probable cause to view it was met. What isn't met, is the person to provide access to that property to self-incriminate.

They have the cause to view the files, but cannot because they don't have the technology or the key to do so.

I tend to think this is along the lines of 'them finding it'.

If a person has evidence of a crime in their house, a warrant can be used for a search but the person need not tell where to look. It is found or it is not.

Inability to decrypt, in my eyes, is them not finding it.

reply to post by Sankari


I flew in and out of An Arizona airport in 2011, and was "randomly" pulled out of line for an extra check out of my bags. I took 3 trips and was "randomly" pulled 2 out of three times. And this was just a few weeks before 9/11.
They were swabbing the zippers on my bags, and putting the swabs into an expansive machine that went..."BING!".

I think it was an explosives check? Anyone with knowledge about this type of bag check

A little more on topic...MY home was search warranted, based on the testimony of some criminal scumbag that knew my brother. After using a battering-ram to open my door. (I would have answered had they knocked). 12 dudes dressing black clothes and facemasks, threw my brother and myself to the ground. My chin hit the fireplace brick. They handcuffed me, and put a shotgun to the back of my neck. While they searched my house.
After it was obvious we were no threat, and had none of the things they thought they were looking for. They did ask for me to open some things that were in locked areas. (by then I was no longer fearing death by an itchy trigger finger, I was on my feet, and the cuffs were moved to the front.)
They said I had a choice, but would find a way to open them, if I said no. So I guess that implies self incrimination law? I opened them anyway.

BTW we were charged with something. Because they found money in a little safe upstairs. It was my brother's rent money, due in a couple of days. And downstairs, in the kitchen, they found sandwich bags.
They put both items in one evidence bag, and on paper made a connection between those two items.

SO we learned that you should eat stale sandwiches, and that you should leave cash lying around the house in an open area

reply to post by spacedoubt

and that you should leave cash lying around the house in an open area

If money locked up for safe keeping is a crime then please arrest all bankers.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by jiggerj
Thinking more on this, the authorities had to have probable cause. Without it, they shouldn't even have the right to decrypt the files on their own. WITH probable cause, I dunno, maybe that opens up a new can of worms.

Probable cause to seize the private property was met. Probable cause to view it was met. What isn't met, is the person to provide access to that property to self-incriminate.

They have the cause to view the files, but cannot because they don't have the technology or the key to do so.

Yeah, I strayed off topic. Sorry. Bottom line, no, he can't be made to incriminate himself.

Another facet to explore is, what is an acceptable amount of time to allow a 'search' for evidence before the accused is free? I mean should you rot in jail for a year or two while the prosecutor finds the right professional to decrypt your drive? When is enough enough?

When you allow them to try, should they provide you with a time frame on the warrant?
I can see some judge allowing you to sit in jail until such a time that the prosecution deems the evidence irretrievable just because you wont play ball.

There are not a lot of encryption experts in this thread. That surprises me.

To all those that think the Police should 'hire experts' to decrypt the files, well, there aren't any!

It is so easy to watch your favorite show where anything is decrypted in a matter of hours and think this is how easy it is. It is not easy as Wiki-leaks has shown.

This SUSPECT, and many forget that that is what he is, is innocent so far and the Police allege this and that. Police also allege lots of things that are proven wrong. I do not trust them but because they mention child porn, suddenly they are the good guys. These are the guys shooting and bashing suspects!

For those of you that do not know much about encryption, the user guide to TrueCrypt is a real eye opener.

TrueCrypt uses hidden partitions and it is impossible to show they exist. You can open the files and see whatever the owner wishes you to find. Police chasing encryption is a mugs game. Every time the Law tries to control it, the encryption programs morph to something new.

THEY hate encryption because it cannot be broken into. If this suspect did it properly, he will eventually give up the keys and the Police will find nothing at all.

P

Coercive detention? This would be used in a case of immediate suspicion by the German police to force the suspect to deliver the password.

Not very often used, as most lawyers might be able to crack that in a couple of days - and if you had child pornography on your computer, you might consider some days as a suspect compared to 2 years in prison while being considered as the lowest scum on earth even by your inmates..

I am just wondering if a suspected murderer wrote a journal in code and the police confiscated it could a judge order him to decrypt it.

This is interesting case but I think they may equate it like that.

reply to post by WP4YT

I don't get it. If they already found some illegal things on his other drive, why don't they just charge him on what they found rather than drag it out?

Look very closely at the terminology used:

"some of “which constitute child pornography,”"

The word "constitute" is the key word there, and it basically means they found perfectly legal pictures of children which could be considered distasteful by some people. In other words they don't have diddly squat on him.

And by the way smyleegrl, what is a search warrant going to do if they don't have the password to access the files? A warrant can't make him magically divulge the password.

In the words of Tim Allen from the movie "Galaxy Quest"

Never Decrypt!
Never Surrender!

or something like that.

reply to post by pheonix358

It is so easy to watch your favorite show where anything is decrypted in a matter of hours and think this is how easy it is. It is not easy as Wiki-leaks has shown.

+1. I could encrypt a file right now and post it to the internet and have no one crack it for at least 5 years minimum. Probably much much longer. If this guy used a long enough encryption key the police have a near 0 chance of decrypting his files.

It's pretty obvious they picked this specific case to challenge the this part of the constitution. If it were simply a case of someone stealing credit card information no one is going to say, "Dear god man we must know what's in those files, someone's credit card information could be at stake!"

They chose this case carefully, and under the suspicion there are going to be a number of people that are going to say, "The hell with his rights!" ...But that's the problem.

They do it today for illegal porn, tomorrow it's for something not even close to that.

The constitution has to be protected.

Which might be unfortunate in this case, but it's imperative in the big picture.

If he has child-porn its best he does not decrypt, they can only hold him in jail for so long.
but if he give up the decrypt codes and he is convicted its a life long sentence when he gets put on the sex offender list

The biggest problem in the US is the state laws very so much as what is child porn. what you have in calif may be legal photos but in Texas may get you 20 years.

What they found on the guys hard drive may just be bath photos or nudist camp photos that would be legal in calif.

I always disbelieve prosecutor when they leak things to the media. in many cases its only to play games and tant the jury.

Originally posted by littled16
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

I re-read the 5th amendment just to be sure, but I don't think it is legal for them to force him to unencrypt his files if by doing so he would incriminate himself. As much as child pornography makes me sick to my stomach I believe he should be covered by the amendment. The police should have to hire a professional to get into the files even if it costs many man hours and lots of taxpayer money. It sucks, but it is what is right.

They already know this person has child porn so he can't plead the fifth. In In re Boucher (2009), the US District Court of Vermont ruled that the Fifth Amendment might protect a defendant from having to reveal an encryption password, or even the existence of one, if the production of that password could be deemed a self-incriminating "act" under the Fifth Amendment. In Boucher, production of the unencrypted drive was deemed not to be a self-incriminating act, as the government already had sufficient evidence to tie the encrypted data to the defendant. It is his hard drive that has been proven so he can't hide behind the fifth.

reply to post by boncho

It's pretty obvious they picked this specific case to challenge the this part of the constitution. If it were simply a case of someone stealing credit card information no one is going to say, "Dear god man we must know what's in those files, someone's credit card information could be at stake!"

I think you're exactly on target with that. They do seem to take the most obscene and vile cases to set precedent with, for much much wider scope and impact in the long term.

"It's for the children" has been the tag line to justify more systematic abuse of rights and liberty than any other single reason cited, in my opinion.

If the Nazis could have their hate parade in Skokie, this guy can have his dirty pictures. Not because those hateful bastards deserved their parade against a town's wishes ..or this (likely) pervert has any business with his kiddie porn ...but because the methods required to do otherwise will serve to violate the rights of a whole nation by precedent of action by the end of it all. Principle must come above the individual or principle has no meaning, eh?

I think this is a clear 5th amendment issue. The guy has a right to remain silent.

And real life is not like in CSI, well encrypted data simply cannot be decrypted without a key. Even a supercomputer would need longer than the age of the universe.

At least US has some lenient laws... i mean Canada is all out strict on any pr0n that looks suspicious.. even animation, cartoon and personal drawings... its messed up.

So if the drawn naked girls looks "young".... you are screwed.

Since cartoon pr0n is legal in US, and Canada is right in the network... its common on the internet and it is not blocked... so if Canadian goes into any of them, he is fudged.