[newsimage]http://static.rankone.nl/images_posts/2012/03/bZ7Bfl.jpg[/newsimage]It seems that whether or not the Government can force a defendant to decrypt their hard drive for the purposes of an investigation has become a moot issue. In the case against a Colorado woman accused of mortgage fraud, Federal agents have managed to decrypt the suspect's hard drive without her assistance. Read the full article here: [http://www.myce.com/news/feds-decrypt-suspects-hard-drive-avoiding-more-appeals-59605/](http://www.myce.com/news/feds-decrypt-suspects-hard-drive-avoiding-more-appeals-59605/) Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.
Scott Whatcott, is also accused in the case and Dubois thinks he was the one who provided the password to authorities so that they could decrypt the drive
So what are the legal implications for him since he now provided the password can he be prosecuted that without the consent or approval of the other parties consent he violated their right to self incrimination as well or their privacy? Maybe someone with more know how on this could enlighten me on this ???
I believe what he did was completely legal as far as criminal law is concerned.
He most likely was offered a deal by the prosecution for this information .
He gets either a lesser charge or maybe none at all .
IMO the prosecution shouldn’t be able to make deals like this As it circumvents due process . Further it is unfair to the defense . Can you imagine a judges response to the defense attorney that ask to give a witness immunity for their testimony ? One that would favor the defense side.
We all know that the prosecution makes this kind of deal on a daily basis . That is why there are as many innocent people convicted.
A person can legally give any information they have to law enforcement . There are a few exceptions but this case is not one of those.
The concept in law is if you want to keep information about yourself private don’t give anyone else the information . Once you do they can do with it what they want to.
The exception is contract but that is civil law. If he signed a non-disclosure agreement he could be sued .
The exception is contract but that is civil law. If he signed a non-disclosure agreement he could be sued .[/QUOTE]
I think the defense if the other party was smart about their business model most likely had them signed such forms. If they could post the contract what might help us as well but then again the is private info only to the party and their lawyers.
a Confidentiality agreement is essentially unenforceable if what is being “protected” by that agreement is criminal acts.
Oh sure they can sue you for breaching the agreement but good luck winning in court and not being forced by that court to pay the costs for
both sides of the civil case.
particularly if the plantiff in the case has previously been convicted of the criminal activity revealed by said breech.
good encryption, 72-bits AES and above, is not possible to break. distributed.net states any password over 12 characters, using lower+upper+numbers+symbols is not possible to crack.
Symbol count Entropy per symbol
Case sensitive alphanumeric (a-z, A-Z, 0â€“9) 62 6bits
All ASCII printable characters 95 6.57bits
All extended ASCII printable characters 218 7.7bits
95^14 = 181,543,632 years
62^15 = 24.7m years
Charset Size: 95
Charset Size: 26