The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: thundley4 on February 27, 2009, 10:55:40 AM
-
A federal judge has ordered a criminal defendant to decrypt his hard drive by typing in his PGP passphrase so prosecutors can view the unencrypted files, a ruling that raises serious concerns about self-incrimination in an electronic age.
In an abrupt reversal, U.S. District Judge William Sessions in Vermont ruled that Sebastien Boucher, who a border guard claims had child porn on his Alienware laptop, does not have a Fifth Amendment right to keep the files encrypted.
"Boucher is directed to provide an unencrypted version of the Z drive viewed by the ICE agent," Sessions wrote in an opinion last week, referring to Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement bureau. Police claim to have viewed illegal images on the laptop at the border, but say they couldn't access the Z: drive when they tried again nine days after Boucher was arrested.
Boucher's attorney, Jim Budreau, already has filed an appeal to the Second Circuit. That makes it likely to turn into a precedent-setting case that creates new ground rules for electronic privacy, especially since Homeland Security claims the right to seize laptops at the border for an indefinite period. Budreau was out of the office on Thursday and could not immediately be reached for comment.
CNET (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10172866-38.html)
Hm, I don't know, giving the password does seem to violate the 5th amendment, and then why did they wait 9 days to arrest him?
-
9 days AFTER he was arrested.
-
I would hope that the idiot cleansed the drive and filled it with copies of the US Constitution. OTOH, I hope they get him some other way if he did have child porn on there.
-
Seems to be a 4th Amendment analysis to me, the PGP keyword is not itself incriminating...this is analogous to compelling a defendant to give a writing sample or DNA for comparison, which is a search-and-seizure issue, not a self-incrimination issue.
-
Seems to be a 4th Amendment analysis to me, the PGP keyword is not itself incriminating...this is analogous to compelling a defendant to give a writing sample or DNA for comparison, which is a search-and-seizure issue, not a self-incrimination issue.
Ditto
All a criminal would have to do would be to install a PW protected lock on their domicile door to abrogate the search warrant provision of the constitution. If an affadavit is duly sworn and a search warrant legally obtained the suspect is obligated to obey. If the authorities are wrong the suspect has civil recourse.
-
Ditto
All a criminal would have to do would be to install a PW protected lock on their domicile door to abrogate the search warrant provision of the constitution. If an affadavit is duly sworn and a search warrant legally obtained the suspect is obligated to obey. If the authorities are wrong the suspect has civil recourse.
The password lock on the house is much different, since the warrants usually provide allowances for breaking down a door for admittance. There is nothing to prevent them for breaking the encryption on the drive. Besides, the guy could just claim he forgot the password. Lord knows I've forgotten mine for many websites.
-
The password lock on the house is much different, since the warrants usually provide allowances for breaking down a door for admittance. There is nothing to prevent them for breaking the encryption on the drive. Besides, the guy could just claim he forgot the password. Lord knows I've forgotten mine for many websites.
When the cops knock on your door to serve a warrant you are legally obligated to open the door, even if you genuinely believe they have the wrong address. Breaking the door is merely a consequence of failing to obey a lawful court and police order; and there is no constitutional right to refuse to refuse a lawful warrant...which is the central point of this thread.
The judge cannot order the suspect to admit he has child porn but he can order him to make available his personal property for investigation as per the parameters of the 4th amendment.
-
And what exactly is the judge going to do if the defendent continues to refuse to decrypt his laptop? Contempt of court? :rotf: :fuelfire:
The judge can ORDER until he's blue in the face. I order my son to do a whole pisspot full of things. It does not logicly follow that what the judge has ORDERED the defendent to do, is going to get done now, just because the judge ordered it.
-
And what exactly is the judge going to do if the defendent continues to refuse to decrypt his laptop? Contempt of court? :rotf: :fuelfire:
And possibly obstruction. Both are lessor charges than kiddie porn IIRC.
-
When the cops knock on your door to serve a warrant you are legally obligated to open the door, even if you genuinely believe they have the wrong address. Breaking the door is merely a consequence of failing to obey a lawful court and police order; and there is no constitutional right to refuse to refuse a lawful warrant...which is the central point of this thread.
The judge cannot order the suspect to admit he has child porn but he can order him to make available his personal property for investigation as per the parameters of the 4th amendment.
As noted below, the penalty for failing to comply with the order to give up the password is far less than the one for child porn. I still think giving the password is a form of incrimination, different from allowing entry into ones house.
-
If and when the time comes ...
Maybe a seperate thread about no-knock warrants would be in order.
-
I've used PGP in the past. Its main purpose is e-mail verification. And yes, there is a violation of the 4th Amendment.
-
I split out the No Knock warrants discussion and merged them into the no knock warrant thread.