said by DevilDog3 :

I guess next they're going to request that only they get to speak at the trial also. The defendant can't say anything.

What are they afraid of with having an independent third party check out the hard drives? Maybe that someone will actually prove they have no idea what they're doing?

said by technick :

Remember folks, use TrueCrypt for everything!!!

said by karlmarx :

because when the jack booted republican neo-con right wing christian conservatives

said by ctceo :

It only takes the right professional a few moments (sometimes days) to discover the proper key(s).

said by karlmarx :

Not exactly true. If you use TrueCrypt, you can give them a fake key, which won't really decrypt the drive, but will mount the volume. The prosecutor will have no proof you didn't give the real key, however.

said by karlmarx :

Encryption is always your best friend. Learn it, Use it, because when the jack booted republican neo-con right wing christian conservatives decide that YOU can't have porn on your computer, it will be your ass you save by having encrypted your data.

said by Pirate515 :

So how exactly does it work? If you enter the wrong key, the drive just shows up empty? If that's the case, then anyone with some common sense would suspect foul play right away.

said by karlmarx :

Encryption is always your best friend. Learn it, Use it, because when the jack booted republican neo-con right wing christian conservatives decide that YOU can't have porn on your computer, it will be your ass you save by having encrypted your data.

said by NormanS :

Also, when those jack-booted democrat neo-lib left wing atheist liberals decide that YOU can't have scripture depicting certain "protected activities" as immoral on your computer, as well.

said by Pirate515 :

Great idea, but when you get dragged to court and the examiner finds out that your hard drive is encrypted, you'll be asked to provide a key to access it, and if you refuse, you'll be charged with obstruction of justice for withholding evidence.

said by dispatcher21 :

Giving the key to decrypt the drive is not considered giving evidence to incriminate yourself. The actual evidence is on the hard drive and the questions of ownership is what you can decline to answer on 5th amendment rights. Its like the whole ID thing. If you have a warrant and a cop asks you for ID, you can not refuse to give it just because you would be incriminating yourself, the Supreme court just ruled you have to provide ID. To me, the same logic for a decrypt key. The key is not the evidence to incriminate you, whats on the hard drive is.

said by dispatcher21 :

Please move to China, Cuba, N Korea, Iran, take a pick.

said by dispatcher21 :

Giving the key to decrypt the drive is not considered giving evidence to incriminate yourself. The actual evidence is on the hard drive and the questions of ownership is what you can decline to answer on 5th amendment rights. Its like the whole ID thing. If you have a warrant and a cop asks you for ID, you can not refuse to give it just because you would be incriminating yourself, the Supreme court just ruled you have to provide ID. To me, the same logic for a decrypt key. The key is not the evidence to incriminate you, whats on the hard drive is.

said by hpguru :

Turning over any pass phrase could indeed be self incriminating if the pass phrase in question is a confession to a crime one has committed.

said by NormanS :

So could turning over the keys to your safe deposit box, or letting the cops into your house to search for evidence.

said by toadlife :

dispatcher21 above is correct. People have made the fifth amendment argument regarding the law, but I don't know if anyone has actually tried to challenge it in court.

said by NormanS :

Bits on disks are about the same as characters on paper, though; and properly covered under the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

said by hpguru :

Indeed they are but your passphrase is (or should be) stored in your gray matter which is not covered under the forth ammendment.

Update: In the comments, lawyer Ray Beckerman, who pointed out this original decision, lets us know that the earlier case where the judge let the woman pick her own expert and bill the RIAA was later overturned so that the RIAA did get to bring in their own expert.

If the older case you're referring to is the Tanya Andersen case, it should be pointed out that the original April 2006 order (PDF) providing for examination by a neutral expert was superseded by a July order (PDF) giving the RIAA essentially what it wanted in this case.

said by GOLFnSUN :

As usual, it isn't over until the fat lady sings.

said by phxmark :

She is not allowed to sing anymore. The RIAA charged her for singing copyrighted songs.

said by Jehu :

I see this on Law and Order every day....

said by Asmodeus :

that can changed using lvllords tcpip.sys script and remove the 10 connection limit on an xp sp2 machine.

said by guitarzan :

I had the impression, after installing SP2 on Windows Xp. The connection limit was limited to 10, due to closing "raw sockets" or whatever the hell that is, GRC feared. IMO, it would be impossible to connect to hundreds, yet alone millions of people at the same time.