DOJ might be able to force you to decrypt your HDD

vbimport

#1

DOJ might be able to force you to decrypt your HDD.

[newsimage]http://static.rankone.nl/images_posts/2011/07/1l8Gn3.jpg[/newsimage]A major precedent could be set by U.S. federal courts in the near future.  The Obama administration is petitioning federal judges to order defendant Ramona Fricosu, to give up the encryption password to the laptop found in her Colorado home.  If Fricosu is forced to decrypt the laptop by judge order it would mark the first time this issue has been ruled on.


Read the full article here: [http://www.myce.com/news/doj-might-be-able-to-force-you-to-decrypt-your-hdd-48212/](http://www.myce.com/news/doj-might-be-able-to-force-you-to-decrypt-your-hdd-48212/)


Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

#2

Shouldn’t there be a source posted for this news item?

Anyhow, it’s an absurd demand by prosecutors, all the defendant has to say is that he/she can’t remember the password. And are we to believe that the FBI doesn’t have the resources to break the decryption? I smell a rat, what they really want isn’t the password, they want the court ruling as a precedent.


#3

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or DO!!! can and WILL!!! be held against you in a court of law.


#4

[QUOTE=CDan;2595905] …And are we to believe that the FBI doesn’t have the resources to break the decryption? [/QUOTE]

Evidently they don’t.


#5

[QUOTE=CDan;2595905]Shouldn’t there be a source posted for this news item?[/QUOTE]
It was inadvertantly left out. I’ve added it in, thanks!


#6

Why is this any different than the police having a search warrant to seach a house as part of a criminal investigation? If this person was using a computer to commit the crimes, the government would need to have access to the computer to gather any evidence it would contain.


#7

[QUOTE=BradWright;2596096]Why is this any different than the police having a search warrant to seach a house as part of a criminal investigation? If this person was using a computer to commit the crimes, the government would need to have access to the computer to gather any evidence it would contain.[/QUOTE]

Self-incrimination
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects witnesses from being FORCED to incriminate themselves.


#8

Translation -
“Public interests [the prosecution] will be harmed [lose] absent requiring defendants to make available unencrypted contents [break the 5th amendment] in circumstances like these [evidence hard to retrieve]. Failing to compel Ms. Fricosu amounts to a concession to her and potential criminals [every U.S. citizen]

I am 100% for jailing this lady a loong time, really. But, the “diary” argument holds - you can’t force someone to incriminate themselves (that’s right, right?). Yes, it makes enforcement harder, but they can crack the HD encryption since they have the physical computer - they have the TPM (usually).

Here is how to do it -

If the computer was shut off and she used a pre-boot pin as well as an HD pin then things get harder, but this is the U.S Government guys. Unleash the best and brightest at the NSA (those guys are amazing) - no need to weaken the Constitution.


#9

[QUOTE=CDan;2595905] I smell a rat, what they really want isn’t the password, they want the court ruling as a precedent.[/QUOTE]
I agree with that .

[QUOTE=BradWright;2596096]Why is this any different than the police having a search warrant to search a house as part of a criminal investigation? If this person was using a computer to commit the crimes, the government would need to have access to the computer to gather any evidence it would contain.[/QUOTE]
I know this technology isn’t possible yet. A little too Star Trek .
Let’s say you could cloak all the contents of your house.
The police could enter with a search warrant . They wouldn’t have the right to force you to decloak so they could see the contents if doing so would incriminate you. If you invoked your fifth amendment rights .
A computer is the same. They can take possession of the computer but decrypting any information on it is up to the prosecution . With no help from a defendant.

There is a self incrimination that law enforcement has been getting by with for several years now. That is using a warrant to get DNA from a person. If getting the DNA requires forcing a sample either with blood or mouth swab. IMO if fifth amendment is invoked they should not be allowed to get a defendants DNA this way.


#10

I still say that all a defendant has to do is say they can’t remember the password.


#11

[QUOTE=CDan;2596131]I still say that all a defendant has to do is say they can’t remember the password.[/QUOTE] Contempt of court could be used to imprison the defendant indefinitely in such a case, I believe.

It really is a wonderful tool for a police state, to make it mandatory for citizens to incriminate themselves. :cop:

(I.A.N.A.L.)


#12

[QUOTE=DrageMester;2596140]

It really is a wonderful tool for a police state, to make it mandatory for citizens to incriminate themselves. :cop:

(I.A.N.A.L.)[/QUOTE]

Like videotaping the police being a crime; A lady just got booted off a jet for taking a picture of an abusive ticket agent; A guy is shot while in handcuffs on the ground. While there are circumstances behind each of these, they just don’t sound right, do they.

What’s tragic is I’ve been a pro-law republican my entire life - and if these events scare me, I can’t imagine how more liberal people would feel. (but I’d bet none too happy). And I don’t mean to bring blue-red politics into it, just the opposite is my point.

If this keeps up, I might have to donate to the ACLU as well as the FSF. I tend to feel like the gov., police, RIAA, etc. can do anything. Inside your house or not. That’s just not the America I was in love with growing up.


#13

I’m not a huge fan of some of Obama’s suggested changes . . .