dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
4
share rss forum feed


Name Game
Premium
join:2002-07-07
Grand Rapids, MI
kudos:7
reply to NetFixer

Re: Is it possible to quit Google?

Guess she did not sue her hubby on that one..wonder why he let the cat out of the bag ? Must have been a good plea bargain agreement.

»www.eff.org/cases/us-v-fricosu

good video

»mashable.com/2012/01/24/fifth-am···ryption/


KodiacZiller
Premium
join:2008-09-04
73368
kudos:2

1 recommendation

said by Name Game:

Guess she did not sue her hubby on that one..wonder why he let the cat out of the bag ? Must have been a good plea bargain agreement.

»www.eff.org/cases/us-v-fricosu

good video

»mashable.com/2012/01/24/fifth-am···ryption/

There have been various cases around the country involving encryption and the courts trying to force the defendant to decrypt his files or drive. In some cases the judge has ruled he must decrypt or face contempt. In others, the judge has ruled that encryption keys are protected by the 5th.

Ultimately it is going to take a Supreme Court ruling to settle this once and for all. Until then it is up to the discretion of the judge in the particular case (or the appeals courts).
--
Getting people to stop using windows is more or less the same as trying to get people to stop smoking tobacco products. They dont want to change; they are happy with slowly dying inside. -- munky99999


Dona Kirklan

@reserver.ru
reply to Name Game
Actually all of the 5th encryption cases that made it to the appellate courts, ruled in favor of the rights of folks to keep their encryption passwords private due to the 5th. So it will hold up, as it's been vindicated. In fact, the appellate courts actually started something remarkable.. That by encrypting, the govt. cannot actually prove there is anything incriminating on there in the first place! It affirms that encryption is a remarkable technique to use because it doesn't imply guilt, and without a way to have probable cause, they cannot compel someone to decrypt it - or to substantiate guilt.

»www.extremetech.com/computing/11···d-drives
The applicability of the Fifth Amendment rests on the question of what the government knew and how it knew it. Federal prosecutors admitted at trial that while the amount of storage encrypted exceeded 5TB, there was no way to determine what data was on the hard drive — indeed, if there was any data whatsoever. Plaintiffs were reduced to holding up numerical printouts of encryption code that they said “represented” the data they wanted, but were forced to admit that there was no way to differentiate what might be illegal material vs. legal.

“The Government has not shown, however, that the drives actually contain any files, nor has it shown which of the estimated twenty million files the drives are capable of holding may prove useful… we are not persuaded by the suggestion that simply because the devices were encrypted necessarily means that Doe was trying to hide something. Just as a vault is capable of storing mountains of incriminating documents, that alone does not mean that it contains incriminating documents, or anything at all.”


Name Game
Premium
join:2002-07-07
Grand Rapids, MI
kudos:7

1 edit
reply to KodiacZiller
Are there any cases where hard drive data not encrypted is protected under the 5th..or is it always those you encrypt that claim the 5th protects them?

People might be protected under the 5th..but a "computer" being protected ???? please that is really pushing the limit of common sense.

»technorati.com/technology/articl···endment/


Name Game
Premium
join:2002-07-07
Grand Rapids, MI
kudos:7
reply to Dona Kirklan
Nice try .... I still say computers are not people and the 5th does not apply...

People also post titles like this on the net and give an opinion...
Judge Rules Refusing to Decrypt Hard Drive is Covered by Fifth Amendment

»www.geekosystem.com/fifth-amendm···ryption/

But as one comment put it...

"There a few half-truths in this article.

For one, the Fifth Amendment DOES have your back if you're talking about a combination-lock safe. The courts have distinguished between safes that lock with a physical key - which you can be forced to turn over - and safes that lock with combinations, because that requires you to turn over information. Telling the combo or entering it yourself is protected by the 5th as it's considered a "testimonial" act.

Also, neither of the previous two cases were legal precedent. To have precedential weight, a case must have been decided by a superior court, and the precedent applies only to the courts underneath the deciding body.

The Colorado case has no precedential weight, because it was decided by a trial court, and the appeals hasn't happened yet.

The Vermont case WAS decided by the appellate court, so its decision would be binding precedent only for the Vermont courts in that circuit, BUT, that case has been mis-stated.

The appellate court there did not rule on the encryption issue. They ruled that the decrypted contents of the hard drive were admissable because some of them had already been seen by law enforcement.

The issue wasn't that part of the drive was encrypted and part wasn't; he used whole-disk encryption. But as he crossed the border, his laptop was ON and officers were able to find the illicit content. Once he was arrested and it shut off, officers were unable to get it to power on again without the encryption key.

So the court ruled that the entirety of the contents were admissible under "inevitable discovery."

[Also, he voluntarily de-crypted the drives and then just challenged the admissibility.]

All things said, 5th Amendment protections for encryption keys is probably proper, despite the power imbalance between law enforcement and criminals. "
--
Gladiator Security Forum
»www.gladiator-antivirus.com/