digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Judge: Americans can't be forced to divulge crypto passwords

news.com — A federal judge in Vermont has ruled that prosecutors can't force a criminal defendant accused of having illegal images on his hard drive to divulge his PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) passphrase. U.S. Magistrate Judge Jerome Niedermeier ruled that a man charged with transporting child pornography on his laptop

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • scrumpy, on 12/16/2007, -1/+67Well mines 12345. You know just in case.
    • latrosicarius, on 12/16/2007, -2/+58sounds like the kinda thing an idiot would have on his luggage
      • modad, on 12/16/2007, -1/+661 2 3 4 5? That's amazing! I've got the same combination on my luggage!
        • TheKrillr, on 12/16/2007, -2/+30dugg for how strong the schwartz is with you all
        • thespudmall, on 12/16/2007, -2/+19Prepare Spaceball 1 for immediate departure. And change the combination on my luggage.
    • crichton101, on 12/16/2007, -19/+17Thats incredible, thats the same combination to my luggage.
    • latrosicarius, on 12/16/2007, -2/+24Prepare for immediate departure. And change the combination on my luggage
    • Dantetheinferno, on 12/16/2007, -1/+3Can't they still try and crack it? As in, trying 12345 and still use it in a court of law?
      • PhilLesh69, on 12/16/2007, -0/+5Sure. They just can't force him to incriminate himself by handing them the passphrase.

        Nothing in the law says they can't try to decrypt it, though.
        • skulljar, on 12/16/2007, -1/+5Can they threaten to give back your old nose? Is that in the law?
        • PhilLesh69, on 12/16/2007, -6/+2What in the hell do you mean? My old nose? Are you nuts, or do you have some reality that the rest of us are not privileged to understand???
        • PhilLesh69, on 12/16/2007, -5/+1I'm still baffled by "give back your old nose".

          what the hell do you mean??

          They can break his encryption. They just cannot force him to give away the key.

          old nose, new nose, none of that makes any sense.
          • mightydavefish, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1Ha! You're not cool. Nyah nyah.
        • aigulf, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1Watch spaceballs...it'll start to make sense about half-way through.
  • Napoleone, on 12/16/2007, -4/+123You've gotta love the Bill of Rights. This is a huge victory for privacy. It will hold up on appeal, unless it meets a Bushie.

    I remember that the government wanted to make it illegal to encrypt files, with the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act II. It's a good thing that didn't come to pass.
    • sonnybobiche, on 12/16/2007, -34/+6Also a huge victory for child pornographers, apparently.
      • petrodollar, on 12/16/2007, -15/+2Doubtful. If this ruling is based on the 5th Amendmend protection against self-incrimination, the judge can probably instruct the jury to assume that the encrypted files contain incriminating evidence.
        • sonnybobiche, on 12/16/2007, -17/+4Self-incrimination means forcing the defendant to say "i'm guilty" not forcing the defendant to provide access to evidence of their own guilt. A defendant can't keep the key to a safe containing incriminating documents.
          • dinorama1234, on 12/16/2007, -0/+18Nope. ANY evidence can and will be used against the defendent. Therefore, he or she can't be compelled to provide a statement or testify. The 5th extends past compelling someone to confess.
          • petrodollar, on 12/16/2007, -12/+2That doesn't change the fact that the ruling is not necessarily a victory for child pornographers. The judge can still tell the jury to assume that the files contained pictures of little kids getting diddled by old men. That's because if the information isn't self-incriminating to begin with, the 5th Amendment doesn't apply.
          • sonnybobiche, on 12/16/2007, -1/+3dinorama you are, of course, correct. I was trying to make the distinction between verbal testimony (which can be easily fabricated) and physical evidence. The password is not verbal testimony as it does not make an accusation (implicit or explicit) of guilt. It is a means to access a cache of evidence of guilt (in the same way a key or combination to a safe is).
        • TheSwashbuckler, on 12/16/2007, -0/+4Afraid not.
      • noots, on 12/16/2007, -2/+10just crack the encryption with a PDA via sattelite!!!! damn it cloe.
        • xister, on 12/16/2007, -1/+2Seriously! They do that kind of stuff on TV all the time...
      • technoredneck, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2For child pornographers, allowing children to merely exist has got to be the biggest victory of all, so let's kill all of them. After all, everything that's immoral or unethical is always acceptable if it stops the child pornographers just a little.
    • SLockhart, on 12/16/2007, -43/+3Privacy is over rated. If you've got nothing to hide then why worry.
      • bloodqc, on 12/16/2007, -0/+19'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy
        http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id ...
        • SLockhart, on 12/16/2007, -17/+0Oh, please not again. I've read that and i'm in contact with the author.
      • personfromhell, on 12/16/2007, -0/+5i hope you just forgot the /sarcasm
      • init100, on 12/16/2007, -0/+10Everyone has something to hide.
      • tgc1, on 12/16/2007, -0/+5I wonder how many times per day you unknowingly break the law. I think you'd be a little less quick to pass that phrase, if you were getting automated tickets for minor infractions in the mail.
      • petrodollar, on 12/16/2007, -2/+3Because governments tends to use their surveillance powers recklessly. For example, in the USSR it was quite common for innocent people to be accused of working against the state while real enemies of the state went free. That's because government bureaucrats aren't very good at distinguishing signal from noise. So unless you think the decision costs outweigh the error costs, you're probably better off with less government intrustion into your privacy rather than more.

        Ironically, I say this despite my belief that the constitution establishes no affirmative right to privacy.
      • PopcornDave, on 12/16/2007, -0/+5If you've got nothing to hide, why not post your personal data including social security number, bank account numbers, pin numbers for all your accounts, etc...
        Thought not.
        • SLockhart, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1736 150 957

          357240

          7626
          • SLockhart, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1Obviously those numbers are fake. I was in a mood yesterday and obviously I took my point way too far. I'm an idiot, of course there are things everyone wants to keep private.
      • jdaniel284, on 12/16/2007, -0/+4Could someone explain how to block someone? I've looked in my settings and can't seem to find it. It must be something simple I am overlooking. I would like to never see comments from this jackass again.

        Thanks for the help.
    • InfamousAtheist, on 12/16/2007, -2/+31Sacrificing constitutional rights in the name of is never worth it, even if the guy is a disgusting pedophile.

      We've been busting people for all sorts of crimes without (well OK, sometimes) violating their constitutional rights for over 200 years now. If this guy's guilty of a crime, he's left some other evidence somewhere. I'd rather see our rights remain protected and this guy go free *in this particular instance* than sacrifice those rights for everyone so we can catch one perv.

      Besides, can't the cops use the testimony of the agent who supposedly saw the illegal material to get a warrant to search his home, monitor his internet communication, phone calls... oh wait... they don't even need that under Bush....
      • noahhoward, on 12/16/2007, -9/+4So by the same logic, the White House is under no obligation to provide any documents they've password protected? They'll love this then.
        • TheSwashbuckler, on 12/16/2007, -0/+11Not for a criminal inquiry.

          Of course, if they plead the fifth that could be used as grounds for impeachment, not that this piece of ***** Dem Congress would actually impeach Bush.
        • Napoleone, on 12/16/2007, -0/+12The Constitution makes it clear that the Congress is entitled to the information of the Executive. That branch and its members would not be covered. They know that going in, though.
        • PhilLesh69, on 12/16/2007, -0/+4There's a huge difference between private communications and public information. Maybe they wouldn't be required to disclose the encryption keys under the 5th amendment, but I'm sure it would be illegal to encrypt that information under the freedom of information act.
      • PopcornDave, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1The charges apparently stem from animated depictions of child/adult sexual contact, which I believe is illegal in Canada, but not necessarily in the US as I believe it's a protected first amendment issue. I'm guessing that animated means cartoon and not video here.
        I still don't get why he's being prosecuted in Vermont for something that Canadian police discovered which isn't illegal in the US.
        • microchp, on 12/16/2007, -1/+2It is legal in both places, but they are working really hard to change that.
    • AdamGeld, on 12/16/2007, -1/+6Yes, it is. But if they have evidence a crime was committed, they should be allowed to search for more evidence to prove his guilt. If they do not have adequate evidence to warrant a search, then they shouldn't be allowed access.
      • Qeveren, on 12/16/2007, -0/+14They -can- search. However, forcing him to divulge the passkey (information 'stored in his head') would be a violation of his right not to self-incriminate, according to the judge.

        I guess it's akin to not having to answer when the police ask where you've hidden the drugs in your house/car/whatever.
      • Elliuotatar, on 12/16/2007, -0/+3Even if they could force him to divulge it, what's to prevent him from refusing to do so? What would the penalty be? It would probably be a lot less than whatever time he might be facing on pedophillia charges, so there would be no incentive at all for him to provide the information. They can't hold him forever if he refuses.
    • petrodollar, on 12/16/2007, -10/+2Too bad the Bill of Rights doesn't establish a right to privacy.
      • sonnybobiche, on 12/16/2007, -6/+1What you've said is true, but everybody has heard the phrase "right to privacy" so much that they believe it's actually in the constitution. Someone, please find this for me! My eyes fail me!
        • petrodollar, on 12/16/2007, -7/+1IMHO the only good reason for recognizing a constitutional right to privacy is that Americans have a reasonable expectation that one exists. Otherwise no, there is absolutely nothing in the constitution that expressly establishes such a right.
          • GreyICE, on 12/16/2007, -0/+3And as many people have pointed out, it was impossible for one to have been stuck in the Bill of Rights. Y'see, in 1786 all you did to get some privacy was go over to someone's house. Or took a walk down a path. Or met in a field. There were no cameras, no recordings, no tracking chips, nothing to violate your right to privacy. The concept that privacy could truly be stripped from you was as foreign as the concept of a computer, and expecting them to legislate for it would be as rational as expecting them to regulate the internet.
        • JacksonBlack, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1See: Amendment X
      • Napoleone, on 12/16/2007, -2/+8You're kidding, right? What do you think the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments are about? Please enlighten us.
        • petrodollar, on 12/16/2007, -13/+1First, Fourth and Ninth Amendments != the Bill of Rights. They also contain no express right to privacy. Do you think the framers meant to establish one but just forgot to mention it?
          • Napoleone, on 12/16/2007, -1/+7I think you need things explicitly spelled out for you, as your comprehension ability seems to be rather low.

            See what I did there? Although I didn't spell it out, I just called you stupid.
          • petrodollar, on 12/16/2007, -7/+2Well you also inadvertently called a whole slew of legal scholars "stupid" without offering the slightest bit of logical reasoning to justify that characterization, so pardon me for dismissing you as an intellectual lightweight when it comes to matters of constitutional interpretation.
          • PhilLesh69, on 12/16/2007, -0/+6The first fourth and ninth amendments are NOT the bill of rights?

            That's strange, because this is what they used to teach in High School civics and government classes. It is also what the National Archives claims: "The Bill of Rights, constitutes the first 10 amendments of the US Constitution."

            http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experien ...
    • microchp, on 12/16/2007, -1/+8I have a theory that this was done on purpose so that another judge could overturn it for what will be the final "landmark" case to set in stone that we must turn over passphrases. I like to think of it as "Good Cop / Bad Cop"; or in this case, Judge. The final case will likely be in about a year in the supreme court. Our rights are a perception more so than a reality, but I could be wrong.

      Regardless of what a person does or does not have on their laptop, there is no excuse to not be using full disk encryption. It is cheap, easy to install for even the most non-technical and some even make it look like you do not have an OS installed. One of my favorites is Jetico bestcrypt Volume Encryption because when the machine boots up, you see "Non OS disk or disk error". If you get the passphrase correct, the OS boots. If it is not correct, nothing happens. I have a few more tips about this here: https://www.microchp.org/privacy/

      No matter what you have on your laptop, even if it is a fresh install of your favorite OS, you should never turn over keys even if you have a gun to your head. Even if you have nothing to incriminate yourself, they can simply put things on your laptop to make you guilty. It would be your word against theirs and if all they need is a scapegoat, then you are screwed. They mention that it is like evidence in a safe. The difference is, that a safe is easy to bust open. If you data is on an encrypted volume and has other virtual encrypted drives inside using different types of encryption and different random number generators, then all they have is useless random noise. There have already been dozens of cases dismissed for a lack of solid evidence. You can not be punished for something you don't have.

      In reference to denial of the keys; instead one should deny knowledge of data in the first place. If we learned nothing else from Roberto Gonzales, it should be that we have no recollection of anything being on the laptop and that we planned to have a friend help us install an OS they wanted to show us once we arrived at our destination. We heard about a cool desktop called Beryl that does nifty 3D stuff... If they asked how you were surfing the web in the airport terminal earlier, tell them to boot off the Knoppix DVD that you have in the drive.

      Anyway, my view of this is that we are being set up for a game and the results are already known.
      • Qeveren, on 12/16/2007, -1/+7"Even if you have nothing to incriminate yourself, they can simply put things on your laptop to make you guilty."

        That doesn't really hold up as an argument (not that I'm disagreeing that it's a good idea to use disk encryption), since if they're willing to go as far as fabricating evidence, why wouldn't they just replace your encrypted drive with one full of unencrypted, damning evidence?
        • psufleish23, on 12/16/2007, -0/+5I think it'd be easier to prove that an entire hard drive and all it's contents are not yours than a couple of files. Hard drive serial numbers is a good place to start. I guess they could just re-format your hard drive and plant evidence with that one, but then they lose all the actual evidence should a method be developed to break the encryption (quantum computing?).
        • microchp, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2I would agree if you were already going to be in prison for several days; though I see a few obstacles they would be facing. They will have to re-image your harddrive with an OS and make it look like you have been using it, otherwise a lawyer and a forensics engineer is going to prove they planted evidence. That is going to take them a while and they will have to put a good deal of effort into this to avoid getting caught. The penalty they would face for planting evidence would be much more harsh than any music or pr0n you might have. On the other hand, if they are in bed with the local DA and judges, then perhaps they would just get a slap on the wrist.

          Ya, you are probably right though. I suppose this would also be a good reason to pay cash for a laptop so that you can say that you have no recollection of ever owning a laptop like that one and simply walk away. I buy all my gear used and usually pay cash, but then again, I don't need the latest and greatest stuff.
    • CoheednCambria, on 12/16/2007, -2/+2What would they do if it had passed in the PATRIOT Act II, waterboard him?

      /probably /sarcasm
    • theblt, on 12/16/2007, -14/+2Why the ***** is this such a big deal? If you have nothing to hide, let them see your hard drive. This isn't a big step for privacy, it's a huge leap for child pornographers. Way to go Diggers.
      • demonsnake69, on 12/16/2007, -1/+9You better not have any curtains on your windows unless you have something to hide!
      • PhilLesh69, on 12/16/2007, -0/+8Nobody likes the kiddy porn peddlers, but that is no reason to abandon your privacy.

        This is how they always do it. Pick out the most undesirable elements of society and use them as the reason to take away rights and privacy and freedoms.

        We have to take our shoes off at the airport because of terrorists. They're scary, so nobody questions it. We can be stopped in a roadblock because of drunk drivers. Drunk driving is bad, so most people don't view it as an inconvenience to be stopped on a cold and rainy night when all they want is to just get home.

        If you have nothing to hide, you have no reason to disclose anything. If you have nothing to hide, you SHOULD have nothing to worry about, meaning you should be left alone.
        • theblt, on 12/16/2007, -8/+1"We have to take our shoes off at the airport because of terrorists. They're scary, so nobody questions it. We can be stopped in a roadblock because of drunk drivers. Drunk driving is bad, so most people don't view it as an inconvenience to be stopped on a cold and rainy night when all they want is to just get home."

          Does getting your shoes checked in airports significantly affect your life other than taking away 5-10 minutes of your time?? Do road blocks harm more than they do good?? Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Why don't all kids abandon their parents for placing certain restriction upon them due to the actions of an older sibling?? It's just a fact of life that there are certain precautions we need to allow to put these ***** away. Why do we need police if they only exist because of previous crimes?? Do you see how your argument makes no sense?

          Now if the government was requiring all hard drive activity to be filtered through a system they set up, that would be a privacy issue. That data could get in the hands of the wrong person and used for in the wrong way. But in this case, it's one guy with a hard drive full of kiddy porn, and with a sufficient warrant, he should have to give up the passphrase to the hard drive. Defending this guy is just sick.
          • olsonea, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1I hide my PGP passphrase in my shoes!
        • microchp, on 12/16/2007, -0/+6@theblt - Taking shoes off hasn't protected anyone. In fact, the TSA has failed every security test that they were not warned of ahead of time (including what the inspectors would look like and in some cases having received pictures of the inspectors). So far, numerous test bombs have made it onto planes, whereas they have been really good at taking away baby bottles full of milk, taking away peoples prescription medicine, tasing people (leading to a few deaths already), pinning people to the ground (killing at least one person) and abusing anyone they feel like abusing.

          Defending kiddy porn viewers? No, I believe that using the kiddy porn card is a cop-out used to invade privacy. The percentage of people you will nail for kiddy porn will be so small it isn't worth it. Perhaps a better solution regarding that would be to go after the people that produce and distribute the kiddy porn. They don't do that using laptops at airports. They do that over the Internet and that is already being monitored, logged, tagged and sorted.
        • PhilLesh69, on 12/16/2007, -0/+5My point is proven by your very own argument.

          Maybe you can't see it, but others have figured it out.

          You attempt to justify intrusions of your freedom, and if you are weak enough to abandon your freedom for a sense of security, you might believe that it is okay. But the rest of us are smart enough to see how bad that is. We won't allow the intrusion of our privacy or freedom.
    • Elliuotatar, on 12/16/2007, -0/+9Do you even understand WHY we have a right to privacy in the constitution? Our founding fathers didn't put it in there because they didn't want people to know about their medical history or their credit score. Do you think they won their freedom by following the rules? The right to privacy compliments our other rights. The right to privacy protects the identity of the newspaper writer who is excercising his right to free expression by writing articles which are critical of the government. Kill the right to privacy just so that you can catch some pedophiles and the whole house of cards will come tumbling down.
      • microchp, on 12/16/2007, -2/+2Unfortunately the few references to privacy in the constitution (they dont use the word privacy but it is inferred) are regarding you in your home. That is why anything to do with the internet or anything outside of your home should be encrypted several times over. Sure, I believe there should be laws to protect everyones privacy as it pertains to their personal belongings and internet usage, but there are so many loopholes that they can use it is like swiss cheese. I would rather use the logic that "A man will do, what a man can do". This applies to both citizens and government. If we create and manage our own privacy, then there is nothing left for them to take away. In a perfect world, this would not be needed.
        • Napoleone, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2Not accurate. The fourth Amendment is not exclusive to one's home. The home is simply one of the aspects of one's privacy that need to be left alone. Read the text.

          "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

          Internet usage would fall under papers, as that was the medium of the day, and now this is the medium.
          • microchp, on 12/16/2007, -1/+1I totally agree with your logic and interpretation. Still, unfortunately no cases that I am aware of have seen it that way. Why haven't any cases of wiretapping, searching through computers without prior evidence been dismissed yet? One would think that the ACLU would jump on that big time, unless of course they are part of the agenda.

            I do not believe that a single judge has accepted data as papers to date, but I could be wrong.
      • PhilLesh69, on 12/16/2007, -0/+5What you wrote is absolutely true. However, you confuse the sheep, and they cannot comprehend these basic truths.

        Most people are confined to a reality defined by some agenda.
  • Vasto, on 12/16/2007, -25/+14Alienware, the #1 choice of perverts.
    • latrosicarius, on 12/16/2007, -1/+17what does that have to do with anything...
    • AdamGeld, on 12/16/2007, -1/+6Alienware isn't a very good company either.
  • Stiffler, on 12/16/2007, -3/+85They could never force you to reveal it before this anyways. All you have to do is say that you forgot it. They can't prove that you still remember your password...
    • nicktx, on 12/16/2007, -4/+49That'll probably help until they waterboard you and get it out of you.. /sigh
      • freff, on 12/16/2007, -0/+6Waterboarding (and other forms of torture) are horrible ways of getting information out of a person determined not to give it up. And even worse, it's a great way to get a bunch of non-actionable, misleading information out of someone whether that person originally had anything to give up or not in the first place.

        So, while they might be able to waterboard you (and worse) to get your pgp password, if you have something to hide, you could send your interrogates on one wild goose chase after another when asked specific questions until any info you had is no longer dangerous to those your covering for. Or if you knew nothing at all, you'd eventually probably give up a bunch of fake info and name just to get them to stop.

        Waterboarding is garbage, and it's dangerous garbage for us to even be considering using as intelligence on the most basic of levels.

        /rant
      • microchp, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1So set up your boot passphrase so that if you get it wrong once, it wipes the drive. After all, you make backups right? The chances of being water boarded to get a passphrase to a laptop that they don't know for sure what is on it are slim. Unless you are a high profile suspect, the more likely case would be them holding you for up to 48 hours, perhaps longer now that they don't have to follow any rules. They will likely try to scare you. They are trained to make you want to "work out a deal" which is the biggest mistake people fall for all the time.
        • buckrogers1965, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1Or give them the password that wipes the drive.
    • noahhoward, on 12/16/2007, -9/+2So I'm assuming you stand behind the White Houses deletion of emails that were requested as evidence? They were just exercising their rights to misplace evidence that could incriminate them.
      • thebellmaster1x, on 12/16/2007, -1/+6Purposeful deletion != Accidentally forgetting
        Deletion is not simply "misplacing." Once it's gone, it's gone.
        • dinostabOMG, on 12/16/2007, -1/+5Which probably already violates the law. @noah: you sure are keen in these here comments about making sure the white house gets away with that. What's your deal?
          • noahhoward, on 12/16/2007, -3/+2What? Where have I said that? They are a good example of how this can be abused.
      • burrgrinder, on 12/16/2007, -0/+5Public officers using publicly owned computers sending mail to other public officers is not even remotely close to a comparison here. The government does not deserve privacy as it's paid for by the people, just the same as you don't expect privacy when using computers at work.
      • petrodollar, on 12/16/2007, -0/+3I believe the white house has an affirmative duty under the law to preserve those emails.
      • PhilLesh69, on 12/16/2007, -0/+4There is a huge difference between private communications and public information, using publicly paid-for resources and acting in an official capacity.

        Sarbanes-Oxley puts requirements on businesses to preserve communications. Freedom Of Information Act puts requirements on public officials to preserve communications. Acting as a private citizen, you are free to do what ever you want with your communications.
      • microchp, on 12/16/2007, -0/+3That evidence was much harder to get rid of. Lets see...

        1) Backups of the mail servers that they are required by numerous laws to have..
        2) The off-site backups of #1 that they are required to have.
        3) Numerous laptops having copies of the emails.
        4) Numerous mail servers with copies of the mail still in the queues.
        5) Copies of the emails on the .PST files, external drives and personal computers... I could keep going. We are talking millions of emails that were received by numerous people.

        This is much harder to deny knowledge of and certainly much harder to say you don't have.
    • Napoleone, on 12/16/2007, -0/+16Except that if a Judge doesn't believe the person, they can be charged with contempt of court.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 12/16/2007, -2/+6Which probably has a weaker sentence than child porn.
      • microchp, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2I know several corporate execs that are not in prison because they had no recollection of documents, financial transactions and many other things that were witnessed by numerous people and involved lots of money.

        I think we all remember an attorney that "had no recollection" of decisions to fire some judges and what... he is now being recommended as "The lawyer of the year" is it? Sure, he has connections but he also has just as many people in high places that wanted to bury his ass and it didn't happen.

        It doesn't even matter if you don't have kiddy porn to hide. Perhaps a friend sent you a few mp3's that you forgot you saved and they have copyrights and you forgot you still had them on your laptop. Doh! Or perhaps you have cookies on your computer from websites that they deem to be anti-iraq-war. Ever been to digg.com? Anything can make you look like a criminal if spun the right way. Having random bits on your hard drive is not a criminal activity. Even a crappy lawyer could get you out of the comtempt charge.
    • TheColonel, on 12/16/2007, -2/+4Doesn't the UK have a law to the rough effect that if you wont turn over a password you can be charged to the full effect of what they assume are in there?

      So for example if you have an encrypted store they know are images, and they suspect they are child porn, but you wont reveal the key to them, they can charge you with possession of child porn even tho they never saw it.
      • latrosicarius, on 12/16/2007, -0/+5scary
      • saifatlast, on 12/16/2007, -1/+1Aren't people still innocent until proven guilty in the UK though? Just because they can charge you of something doesn't mean they can prove it. f the only evidence they have is that they think it's there, how are they going to get a conviction?
      • PhilLesh69, on 12/16/2007, -0/+3If that is the case, then anyone in the UK is at risk of being wrongly convicted of something simply because the prosecutor doesn't like you and chose to accuse you of that crime.

        That seems a tad like a catch-all to be used against people they can't otherwise convict of something.
      • microchp, on 12/16/2007, -0/+3Never deny them the keys. Disavow all knowledge of anything encrypted. To deny them is just asking for trouble. When they start using brain scanning tools or truth serum to get something out of the general public, that is when there will be a revolution.
      • rot13ubercrypto, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1Yes, it's called RIPA -- the regulation of investigatory powers act (seriously.)
      • surfrdawg, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1that's why in the US Court system you are innocent until proven guilty
        • PhilLesh69, on 12/17/2007, -0/+3I can't believe you got dug down for reminding people of a basic strength of our legal system, as set forth in the constitution.

          Do people really find it offensive that you are innocent until proven guilty???
    • Marijuana, on 12/16/2007, -0/+4"I do not recall."-Alberto Gonzales
      P.S, his annoying face: http://tinyurl.com/24olqw
      • Dmitrik, on 12/16/2007, -1/+1man, don't use tinyurl...
        but the link is legitimate
    • surfrdawg, on 12/16/2007, -0/+0....lie detector test?
      • microchp, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1...have already been proven to not work and you can not be forced to take one. Your only benefit to volunteering to take one would be to help prove that you don't believe that you are lieing about something.

        They are primarily used in screening people that go for high level security clearence and even then, it is only a small part of the psych tests. To perform a poly correctly requires resources that they will not likely spend on a little case like this. Slightly more accurate is truth serum, but most of those only have a percentage of accuracy in gathering data.

        The best results come from leaving a person in a cell for a really long time and waiting for them to divulge information to other inmates or by gaining trust from a guard.
  • BobTrips, on 12/16/2007, -3/+44We can waterboard him, can't we George?


    • AdamGeld, on 12/16/2007, -7/+2Of course not, that is torture. The important thing here is, if they have evidence that he committed a crime that violated someone else's rights, they should be allowed to search his hard drive for material to support prosecuting him in court. They do the same thing with your home, and have for years. If they can show with reasonable doubt that he could be hiding something important, they need to have access to it. There's nothing wrong with that.
      • Napoleone, on 12/16/2007, -0/+6No one is stopping them from searching, they just can't compel him to aid them in their search.
        • sonnybobiche, on 12/16/2007, -6/+1Actually, they can. And if he doesn't, it's obstruction of justice.
        • freff, on 12/16/2007, -0/+4Sonnybobiche, you are seriously misinformed about what obstruction of justice is. A person lying to a prosecutor can be obstruction of justice. A person found to have destroyed evidence can be charged with obstruction. A person cannot be compelled to give information that may incriminate him. This is a violation of their 5th Amendment Constitutional rights.

          Sometimes, I swear people depress me.
        • petrodollar, on 12/16/2007, -3/+1@ freff There's a legitimate question as to whether an encryption password is, ipso facto, "information that may incriminate him." What's incriminating is not the password but the contents of the password protected files. Reasonable minds can differ as to whether that's a distinction without a difference. For reasons I don't want to get into here, I'm willing to give Orin Kerr the benefit of the doubt on these matters, and he agrees with sonnybioche.
      • BobTrips, on 12/16/2007, -1/+2It is not torture.

        My President told me so.
    • tas08, on 12/16/2007, -1/+2No, we can't, he's an American citizen, not a foreign combatant.
      • MadN, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1Pastor Martin Niemölle had something to say about that.....
  • sonnybobiche, on 12/16/2007, -18/+6I think the analogy of a password as a key to a safe or lockbox is a strong one. If defendants are required by law to produce those keys, they should be required to produce that password, when given a subpoena. This judge was dead wrong.
    • Z_Man, on 12/16/2007, -10/+3I see where you're coming from, but in another way I don't. Either way this is disturbing to me that someone can get away with one of the most disgusting crimes... that is, in my opinion.
      • PhilLesh69, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2But is it better to preserve our rule of law, or to catch that one abhorrent criminal? Processes and procedures make up our rule of law. if it violates the 5th amendment, it doesn't matter how despicable the criminal is, that is the law.

        I don't like these kiddy porn freaks any more than the rest of you. But to say "gosh, it's so bad I don't care what they do" is a cop out and only leads to the same attitudes eventually being applied to yet another type of crime, until eventually we all just accept that we have no privacy because someone might be hiding something and we can't allow the criminal to get away with something just because we have processes and procedures we need to follow.
      • microchp, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2Anime/Manga, the most disgusting crime you know of? I can think of worse. ACTUALLY mollesting the children, or murder, or drunk driving that leads to someones death, beating your children, lima beans....
    • Uranium118, on 12/16/2007, -0/+4And what if the safe uses voice recognition to open it?
      • sonnybobiche, on 12/16/2007, -3/+2It's still a "key." It's a means to access evidence. It's not verbal testimony of guilt.
        • GhostToon, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1It may be a "key" but the only way to get that "key" is through the accused persons head.
      • GhostToon, on 12/16/2007, -0/+3Just like they can get a warrant to get your fingerprints they can get a warrant for a voice recording. They way that would apply here is if you have to say a certain phrase to open the safe then you could plead the fifth.
        • B1663r, on 12/16/2007, -0/+3Wow you could really seriously screw with them on this if your verbal password was "I am invoking my fifth amendment rights"
      • microchp, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1Sorry your honor, you see, under duress I am unable to say my passphrase exactly right. It just won't open no matter how hard I try. Those big scary giys in suits with guns scared me so bad that I just can't perform under the pressure. I will need several years vacation on a nice island to clear my mind of those memories.
    • dinorama1234, on 12/16/2007, -1/+8Yeah, but encrypted data isn't in a "lockbox", and the key isn't a physical key. the key resides in the defendant's mind, so compelling him to reveal it would be tantamount to compelling him to testify, or provide a statement.
      • sonnybobiche, on 12/16/2007, -2/+1He could have just typed the password in...
    • petrodollar, on 12/16/2007, -1/+1On second thought I think you're right. It's a good analogy and I agree that the judge got it wrong.
      • sonnybobiche, on 12/16/2007, -1/+2It's like they say... If you can reach just one person, then it's all worth it.
    • latrosicarius, on 12/16/2007, -1/+8No. because it's not a physical key. It's the contents of his mind, which is protected from being forced.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 12/16/2007, -1/+5Exactly. There is a distinction between producing physical evidence (giving a physical key to a safe) and providing testimony (telling your password). That is what will have to be settled by the Supreme Court.
    • ShugNinx21, on 12/16/2007, -2/+1One difference with a physical safe is, if you do not provide the means to open it and the cops have a warrant for it's contents, they can break into it. It seems the problem with it's electronic counterpart is that they must be having trouble breaking it open. So I can see why they can't compel him to give up the password.
      • Onyxblaze, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2Well, then I guess it is a very well designed safe.
      • PhilLesh69, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1They are still free to crack the encryption.

        And I'm pretty sure that isn't all that impossible. I think they cracked 128-bit encryption back in 2000 using parallel computing.
        • JacksonBlack, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2You know, that is actually an interesting argument. It's a bit like asking, where did you hide the body? The cops can search everywhere until they find it, even if you don't tell them anything. If they look in the wrong places then then won't, but whose fault is that?
    • microchp, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1To deny a safe exists is difficult and it can be brute forced much easier than an encrypted volume with encrypted virtual drives inside that use different encryption and random number generators, with individually encrypted files inside that contain steganogrophy.

      One may simply state that they have no recollection of any data existing on the computer. You can almost do that with the safe, except that they can break it open much easier and might find something that is tied to you inside it.

      Even if they can break the encryption, or force open a safe, that does not make you guilty either, it just means you need a better lawyer.
  • latrosicarius, on 12/16/2007, -3/+39It's the fifth amendment-- the right not to self incriminate.

    Also, this applies to illegal search & seizures too. If they don't have probably cause, they shouldn't be able to just snoop around and try to crack your pass
    • minoss, on 12/16/2007, -0/+6If you actually read the article, they most certainly had probably cause because the officers saw the images when they were unencrypted when they first received the notebook (most likely because the pass phrase was already entered). However, later, the drive got re-encrypted.
      • petrodollar, on 12/16/2007, -3/+4They also had a subpoena, so the issue of probable cause is irrelevant.
        • latrosicarius, on 12/16/2007, -0/+4His laptop was searched on Dec 17. They didn't get the subpoena until dec 19 (this all happened in 2006) Illegal search?
          • yojiffyskippy, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1He gave them the laptop (per the article) and consent (I'm assuming) at the time.
        • petrodollar, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2I should have read the article before posting. In any case, it was a border search, so no it probably wasn't illegal. Pretty much anything goes under those circumstances. The cops don't even need reasonable suspicion, let alone probable cause when you're crossing the border. It's in the case law somewhere.
        • latrosicarius, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2@ petrodollar, well, you might be right in that i have no idea if customs agents have more authority than normal cops in terms of searching through peoples things. i think they actually do have more authority.
      • latrosicarius, on 12/16/2007, -2/+6Yeah, I actually did read it, and that point I made about illegal searches was directed at the customs agents who searched through his computer the first time. What right did they have to even turn on his laptop in the first place?
        • sonnybobiche, on 12/16/2007, -1/+6Read up on laws regarding entering or exiting the country. The border agent can search you high and dry.
        • latrosicarius, on 12/16/2007, -1/+7@ sonnybobiche, yeah you're probably right... but i still think its unconstitutional and would be considered an "illegal" search if the forefathers had anything to say about it.
        • boflaade, on 12/16/2007, -0/+3They weren't searching him nor his vehicle. They could have physically opened the computer case to look for contraband but what would be in the computer data, that would interest them? Is the data subject to law enforcements interest, at the border?
          • ShugNinx21, on 12/16/2007, -1/+2I think the data would be subject to law enforcement interest at the border if the data was illegal. If he had an illegal weapon or substance hidden in his bags it would be no different. You're not allowed to cross borders with illegal materials be they physical or electronic.
          • latrosicarius, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2yeah, why would they be interested in what's on his laptop anyway? its not a thread to national security. and even if he was smuggling some terrorist info, there's no way they could find it if he was actually trying to hide it. performing an effective search of every computer that crosses the border is not only unfeasible, but literally impossible, so why would they even take the time to do it?
          • PhilLesh69, on 12/16/2007, -1/+1latrosicarius, there are many applications that you can install on your computer that are subject to export laws. Most encryption software is illegal to take out of the country.

            Granted, anyone can download it, and install it without ever entering the US, but there are still laws preventing us from leaving the country with that software.
        • petrodollar, on 12/16/2007, -1/+1@ boflaade: when you're crossing the border customs agents can search whatever they damn well please for just about any reason.
          • Elliuotatar, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2Why should border agents be allowed to read your private papers? I can understand then being allowed to search for contraband, but reading your documents too? That goes a bit far. When the hell did they get that right and why didn't anyone question it? If they can search your laptop, does that also mean they can read any and all mail entering/leaving the country... even email? Shouldn't my right as an american citizen, to privacy, extend to my communications with people outside the country?
          • SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2@Elliuotatar: I agree with you that it should definitely be illegal. This isn't the first case I've heard of this happening in either. The last one was at least equally sketchy since a border agent not only accessed the laptop, but used forensic analysis software and then arrested the guy for some deleted files he found that were allegedly child porn.

            If nothing else it seems clear to me that a border agent should be looking for more dangerous things then some questionable deleted images on a computer. It's a total waste of resources that this sort of thing goes on when things like drug trafficking and illegal immigration run rampant across the border.
          • buckrogers1965, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1Doesn't mean the search is legal, because they had no probable cause to do a search.
    • AdamGeld, on 12/16/2007, -0/+4That is correct. They need to already have evidence that he committed a crime before they can search his property for more evidence. If they have evidence, they should be allowed to investigate further.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 12/16/2007, -1/+3Actually they don't need to have "evidence" before they can search his property for more evidence.
        • PhilLesh69, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2yeah, that would be a kind of cancelling rule. You have to possess evidence in order to look for evidence.

          They just need to have information that indicates a crime has been committed, then they need to present that to a judge to justify the search.
      • saifatlast, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2Once they have a warrant they can search him, but he doesn't have to aid in the search.

        I think the analog to this would be if you had a safe, could they force you to open the safe?
        • PhilLesh69, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2I think by legal precedent, they can force you to open the safe. Though I don't believe that is right, it is also a form of self incrimination.

          I don't have a problem with them blowing the door off that safe, but I do have a problem with the idea that they can compell you to open it.
    • PhilLesh69, on 12/16/2007, -0/+3General Hayden, when he was head of NSA argued with a reporter that probable cause was not in the 4th amendment, that it only required the search to be "reasonable".

  • Uranium118, on 12/16/2007, -2/+21Wait, customs can open your computer and check whatever they want when you go to the USA? Last time I went to the USA, I didn't even need a passport.
    • sonnybobiche, on 12/16/2007, -3/+4Yes, if you do something stupid when talking to the border agent, they have every right to search your car for as long as they want. (Ostensibly to check for illegal materials, but it might just be because you pissed them off.)
      • dinostabOMG, on 12/16/2007, -0/+3Usually because of the latter. It's pretty much *****; we need much higher standards of accountability for people who claim authority when interacting with citizens, across the board.
        • petrodollar, on 12/16/2007, -1/+2The rule is that once you leave the good ol' USA, the constitution loses its force. Good luck convincing a court that the constitution says otherwise.
      • drakethegreat, on 12/16/2007, -0/+3They did this to me at the canadian border. Searched it for 20 minutes and then got angry when they found nothing. They couldn't believe two college students could possibly be crossing the border totally legally. The whole time we just had to sit and look at Cheney's picture on the wall. ***** incredible really.
    • petrodollar, on 12/16/2007, -5/+2Privacy rights don't apply to border searches. This applies equally to foreigners and US citizens. This was part of the original legal justification offeref for Bush's warrantless wiretaps - if the communications at issues were between Americans and third parties outside the USA, no warrant was needed. The argument was a poor one, but not because warrantless border searches aren't allowed.
      • sonnybobiche, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2argghhh! digg angry! digg bury you!
    • PhilLesh69, on 12/16/2007, -0/+3Not anymore. Anyone entering or leaving the US now needs a passport. Even to just go to Canada, or mexico or the bahamas.
    • buckrogers1965, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1Welcome to the 4th Reich. Papers please.
  • najdorf, on 12/16/2007, -1/+36Also he could say he forgot the password, nobody could prove it's false.
    • rald84, on 12/16/2007, -0/+4better yet, many encryption programs let you set up decoy passwords. entering one of those instead of the real thing accesses a different part of the encrypted partition and shows, say, newspaper clippings. since the whole thing is encrypted, it would be impossible to prove if the password was real or not.

      in this case, even though some agents saw it, the guy could just say they are lying and nobody could prove him wrong.
      • PhilLesh69, on 12/16/2007, -1/+2Or it could shred the files beyond the ability of forensics software to recover.

        Ooops, sorry. I'm not very knowledgeable about all this technology stuff. Sorry guys.
      • microchp, on 12/16/2007, -0/+3Yup, or if you want to make it more fun, have several gigs of Betty Crocker cooking recipies. Then bug them non stop to let you cook something for them and nag them non stop about their bad eating and smoking habbits. Or perhaps a large collection of Hello Kitty animated gifs, sticker sheets and rare collectable Hello Kitty drawings. Then you can easily explain why your drive was encrypted... you didn't want your friends to find out about your hobby of collecting Hello Kitty fan club goodies. They will understand.
    • Dmitrik, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2yes, but then you're stuck with FAT32 and I hate FAT32!
  • Chucara, on 12/16/2007, -3/+12First banning waterboarding, now this? The iron fist is getting awfully loose isn't it, Darth Bush?

    Atleast you could still rig another election - do you have any family members left that you haven't already gotten into office?
    • navycow, on 12/16/2007, -0/+4There's always Jeb Bush
    • m4lomb, on 12/16/2007, -4/+0It is called CIVIL LIBERTIES, not that YOU or COMMUNIST such as yourself who MASK themselves as REPUBLICANS would know anything about it. You are a disgrace to America. Why don't you move to China?
      • PhilLesh69, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2That's odd. He doesn't seem to be speaking very approvingly of Bush, yet you took his comment as being republican?
  • sonnybobiche, on 12/16/2007, -9/+3The right not to self incriminate extends to verbal testimony only. That is, you can't force a defendant to say that they're guilty. It doesn't extend to allowing them to keep EVIDENCE hidden, as that would be obstruction of justice.
    • mechnoch, on 12/16/2007, -1/+12So, to make the 5th amendment argument valid, could you just change your password to "IAmGuiltyOfDownloadingIllegalChildPornography", or somesuch?
    • petrodollar, on 12/16/2007, -1/+2Testimony, including self-incriminating testimony, is a form of evidence.
      • sonnybobiche, on 12/16/2007, -4/+1OK, you don't get it. You can't force someone to say (by uttering words) that they are themselves guilty. That is the only realm into which the fifth amendment extends.
        • petrodollar, on 12/16/2007, -0/+5The 5th amendment covers all kinds of testimony. Like, you can't force me to say where I hid the shotgun after I shot someone, because in doing so I admit that I possessed the shotgun.
        • dinorama1234, on 12/16/2007, -0/+6NO. You also can't force someone to testify against themselves. They wouldn't have to say "I'm guilty", the content of their testimony could be used to incriminate them, and that is against the 5th amendment.
        • buckrogers1965, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1You have the right to remain silent through the entire trial. You never have to say a word to anyone and never have to sign anything.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2True. There is different case law for "physical evidence" (keys to safes) and "testimony" (admitting guilt) and that distinction is kinda gray in this case because the pass phrase is similar to a key but it would require the defendant to provide testimony for them to get the pass phrase out of him. The argument in the article about having the defendant write it down makes it physical evidence without requiring the testimony. Which is a lame argument. If that were the case, they could just have defendants write on a piece of paper "I'm guilty".
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 12/16/2007, -0/+6"The right not to self incriminate extends to verbal testimony only."

      Not quite.

      But in United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605 (1984), the Court distinguished Fisher, upholding lower courts' findings that the act of producing tax records implicates the privilege because it would compel admission that the records exist, that they were in the taxpayer's possession, and that they are authentic. Similarly, a juvenile court's order to produce a child implicates the privilege, because the act of compliance ''would amount to testimony regarding [the subject's] control over and possession of [the child].'' Baltimore Dep't of Social Services v. Bouknight, 493 U.S. 549, 555 (1990).

      http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/am ...

      "It doesn't extend to allowing them to keep EVIDENCE hidden, as that would be obstruction of justice."

      Actually, it does do that. The defense is not obligated to turn over evidence of the defendent's guilt.
      • sonnybobiche, on 12/16/2007, -1/+2The circumstances are different here. They are not asking the defendant to produce the child porn, whereas in your case, the prosecution is aksing the defendant to produce the actual documents. In the child porn case, the prosecution is asking for a key to access what they alledge is a cache of evidence.

        However, you are right. It doesn't extend to verbal testimony only, so I dugg you up.
  • TheRealToma, on 12/16/2007, -10/+3Where is the Hackers team when you need them. Screw the Gibson, start bringing down these kiddie porn monsters >:|
    • Z_Man, on 12/16/2007, -0/+4Encrypted streams are almost unbreakable because of the strong bit encryption these days.
    • AdamGeld, on 12/16/2007, -2/+1Hmm... Well, it's illegal, but I don't have a problem with stopping people like that...
    • ShugNinx21, on 12/16/2007, -0/+5Hack the planet man... Hack the planet...
  • DarkDragon, on 12/16/2007, -1/+52All right:
    People:1 Government:[CLASSIFIED]
    • noahhoward, on 12/16/2007, -12/+2How is this a win for the people, a pedophile will go free and the government now has precedent on their side, next time they need to hid evidence they'll simply encrypt it.
      • petrodollar, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2If you knew the first thing about criminal procedure, you'd know that this guy will probably be found guilty regardless. So quit yer bitchin.
        • noahhoward, on 12/16/2007, -1/+1This guy might, but you can bet your ass anyone else with incriminating data that saw this case is encrypting everything they can now.
      • spyd3rweb, on 12/16/2007, -0/+5Having images is hardly a threat to anyone. Now if he's raping little kids or forcing them to strip naked for those pictures by all means lock him up, but possessing images is quite harmless.
        • PhilLesh69, on 12/16/2007, -0/+3People get blinded by their hatred for horrible and disgusting acts, and all they want is blood and vengeance. They get all worked up and are willing to break from the rule of law in order to see "justice", but they are confusing revenge and justice.
      • microchp, on 12/16/2007, -0/+3So... you want someone to go to prison for having animated works of kids? Anime/Manga collectors would probably have an issue with that.

        Our prisons are already far over-booked as it is. I would release 90+% of the people in prison and instead keep room for the real criminals.

        Prison is there to keep dangerous people physically away from us. People that evade taxes, smoke weed, collect animated CP, commit fraud, etc... are not a physical threat to anyone.
  • AdamGeld, on 12/16/2007, -12/+5If there is evidence that he has illegal material on his hard drive, and said data is protected, he should be forced to allow them access to said data. That's no different than being allowed access to investigate a crime scene. He should probably be allowed to monitor them as they look at it, but they should have access if they have evidence a crime was committed.
    • petrodollar, on 12/16/2007, -2/+1Why should he be allowed to monitor them?
      • AdamGeld, on 12/16/2007, -1/+2To make sure they aren't violating his privacy? If they have a search warrant though, then they should have access to what they need to look at.
        • sonnybobiche, on 12/16/2007, -1/+1They did have a search warrant. He just refused to allow them access anyway.
        • petrodollar, on 12/16/2007, -1/+1Once a judge authorizes the authorities to search your computer, you have no privacy rights left to enforce.
    • sonnybobiche, on 12/16/2007, -3/+2Sorry, you're being to reasonable for Digg minds. You are being dugg down as I type this.
    • Psi57, on 12/16/2007, -3/+5Following that same idea, if a cop walks up to you on the street and it looks like you have done something illegal at some point and he asks you to provide evidence for it, you should immediately comply and tell him, and provide evidence for, everything illegal thing you've ever done (speeding, singing Happy Birthday without expressed written authorization from the copyright holder, etc.).

      Go suck some neocon dick, fascist prick.
      • sonnybobiche, on 12/16/2007, -2/+2Ummm, no. At this point you could invoke the 5th amendment, since he is demanding that you provide testimony against yourself. (Even though it may be inaccurate testimony.)

        P.S. I don't really think sucking dick is my thing...
        Emotional outbursts seem to be yours, though! Calm down and have a reasonable discussion.
        • Psi57, on 12/16/2007, -1/+3Thats precisely what I'm saying. The password is only in his head. You cannot be compelled to reveal anything thats stored in chemical pathways between your ears.

          Unless you are a Muslim these days.
        • sonnybobiche, on 12/16/2007, -1/+1If you're on the stand and a judge says that you HAVE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, then you have to answer. That is just one example of a method whereby the government can DEMAND to know what you know. Of course, it has to be a judge that demands this.

          And that applies to every religion.
        • microchp, on 12/16/2007, -0/+3Could you please explain that to the Enron execs, Alberto Gonzoles, Oliver North.... oh wait a minute... They had no recollection and only one Enron exec got into any serious trouble. Oliver walked away freely. Alberto was just named "Lawyer of the Year".
  • Po0py, on 12/16/2007, -1/+8This makes me jealous because I live in the UK. :-(
    • dinostabOMG, on 12/16/2007, -1/+4Can you elaborate?
      • bitkari, on 12/16/2007, -0/+4Here in the UK there is a law called the "Regulation of Invetigatory Powers Act" (RIP).

        The act gives the police a massive swathe of powers, including one where they can force someone to give up their password for their encrypted data.
  • latrosicarius, on 12/16/2007, -2/+6Just a question here... say this case never happened, and people WERE legally required to hand over their passwords....

    What if they just didn't hand it over? What if they just said "F you"? Would they be guilty of the crime they are charged with, even though nobody could get into the laptop to see if it was true?
    • sonnybobiche, on 12/16/2007, -3/+12No, they would be guilty of obstruction of justice.
      • dinorama1234, on 12/16/2007, -0/+9Then how about, "All this stress of being charged with a federal crime has got me confused. I guess I just forgot the password. Sorry."
        • petrodollar, on 12/16/2007, -1/+3You'll have to convince a finder of fact that you're telling the truth and not just *****.
        • buckrogers1965, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1@ petrodollar

          You never have to prove that you are innocent. They always have to prove beyond any doubt that you are guilty. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor.
    • AdamGeld, on 12/16/2007, -5/+3If there is strong evidence that the suspect is with-holding material that could be used against him or her, then that would be crime in and of itself. There's at least two people involved in a crime, the suspect and the victim. So you have to take both of their rights into consideration.
      • Psi57, on 12/16/2007, -2/+4Ever heard of the fifth amendment you stupid piece of *****? You, me, and everyone else in this country (except Muslims apparently) has the right to avoid self-incrimination. Period. Anything else is simply unconstitutional.
        • petrodollar, on 12/16/2007, -5/+2What he's saying is if there's other evidence of your guilt, you don't need to incriminate yourself to be found guilty. Why does the logic of that statement offend you?
    • microchp, on 12/16/2007, -0/+3A dumb person would say "F* you" to a judge. A semi-intelligent person would have no recollection of any such data, passphrase or other myths. Could they try to hold you for contempt? Perhaps. A crappy lawyer could get you out of that one unless there was other evidence outside of the computer to convict. Even if you go down for contempt, it is probably better than whatever you might be not wishing to disclose.
  • chicoer2001, on 12/16/2007, -13/+6I'm all for privacy, but there was porn on his computer when the Border Police opened it. He's obstructing justice. Plain and simple.
    • sonnybobiche, on 12/16/2007, -5/+3No, you fool! This is DIGG. Reason has no place here.
      • boflaade, on 12/16/2007, -2/+3Unless the child-porn was being used as his wallpaper, how did they know the computer contained porn? What REASON did they have to look through the private data?
        • sonnybobiche, on 12/16/2007, -1/+1Read up on laws regarding entry and exit of the US. Border agents have every right to search your person and property. If you don't agree, call your senator.
          • microchp, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1That is yet another reason you should simply encrypt everything. If you have anything at all that they might not like, just FedEx it to your destination. Less crap to carry, nobody giving you grief. Solved.
    • AdamGeld, on 12/16/2007, -1/+3Well, you're right, unfortunately. I hope they can sort it out without violating anyone's rights.
    • an0nymous, on 12/16/2007, -1/+3No there wasn't.
      The agent is saying there was porn... got any proof? Then how do you know the agent is telling the truth? Maybe he just dowloaded the latest Barely Legal and the agent was mistaken?
      Maybe the agent just suspects there is porn (or something else the government wants to see) and tried this as a means to compel the man to enter his password?
      • sonnybobiche, on 12/16/2007, -2/+1It doesn't matter anymore. The agent's testimony provided probable cause to issue a warrant for the contents of the computer. The warrant has been issued. Now the defendant is obstructing the investigators from accessing the contents by not relinquishing the password.
        • DavidGX, on 12/16/2007, -0/+3But he IS allowing them to access his computer. The computer that has encrypted files on them.
    • charlietuna, on 12/16/2007, -0/+4You say obstructing justice, he says right to remain silent.
  • OEMHumanoid, on 12/16/2007, -11/+2If he had time to encrypt it after it was viewed, why didn't he just destroy the drive and get a new one with no porn on it?
    • sonnybobiche, on 12/16/2007, -0/+8RTFA.
    • latrosicarius, on 12/16/2007, -0/+6The laptop was on when he was crossing the border. He had already typed in the password. At this point, the customs agent checked it. It was then shut off and delivered for evidence. However, the next time they turned it on, they found that it was necessary to re-enter the password in order to view the encrypted data.
    • AdamGeld, on 12/16/2007, -2/+1Because if he does have child porn, he's probably too much of a messed-up idiot to at least get away with it. Which is good, because if he did something wrong he needs to be punished for it.
      • microchp, on 12/16/2007, -0/+3If everyone that had Anime/Manga were arrested, then I bet 3/4ths of Digg members would suddenly vanish. Hrmmm...
  • Qtip42, on 12/16/2007, -1/+10Ya I can't imagine letting anyone touch my laptop going over the border.

    Sounds more like this guy got caught with a porn stash and immediately everyone says kiddie porn.
    • sonnybobiche, on 12/16/2007, -2/+2The law is on the customs agent's side when you're entering the country.
      P.S. You're from [H], right?
      • petrodollar, on 12/16/2007, -3/+4And when you're exiting the country as well.
        • AdamGeld, on 12/16/2007, -1/+4I really wonder why people are voting down this comment. Petro is simply stating the obvious. -very confused-
      • buckrogers1965, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1I missed the part in the constitution that says you have less rights in certain areas.
    • AdamGeld, on 12/16/2007, -5/+2Well, I'm assuming that it was pretty obvious that it was child porn. And since he encrypted it later, that probably means it was.
      • an0nymous, on 12/16/2007, -1/+4Yeah, cause the only people who desire privacy are child pornographers.
        Please stay in view of the camera.
  • mlfoley, on 12/16/2007, -5/+22I hate CP freaks, and I hate the government. God, this is a quandary. :(
    • microchp, on 12/16/2007, -0/+4...and numerous senators and congressmen have been caught with kiddy porn and... having sex with kids... The irony of it all... Some might say hypocrisy, but I say irony.
  • latrosicarius, on 12/16/2007, -1/+45Wait... did anyone see this?

    "thousands of images of adult pornography and animation depicting adult and child pornography."

    These are animations? As in cartoons? As in not even real CP?
    • thebellmaster1x, on 12/16/2007, -1/+30Welcome to the skewed world of the PROTECT Act where drawings of children equate to the sexual abuse of a child.
    • Napoleone, on 12/16/2007, -1/+17Wow, I missed that. How the hell would that even be illegal, right?
    • petrodollar, on 12/16/2007, -0/+17Actually no, possession of simulated child porn is legal. See Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition
      • latrosicarius, on 12/16/2007, -3/+1It seems that the this ruling says that its illegal to have simulated CP of non-fictional (real) people, or simulated CP of any person (even fictional people) if the simulation is so good it can't be distinguished from a real person.
        • petrodollar, on 12/16/2007, -0/+4Are you sure you're not reading the dissent? The ruling doesn't actually make anything legal or illegal - it merely addresses the constitutionality of a law that purports to make CP illegal and says that it violates the 1st amendment because it would also prohibit works with legitimate artistic value. Perhaps its possible to write a law that prohibits possession of simulated CP and does not run afoul of of the court's opinion, but I do not know of any such law. Do you?
          • latrosicarius, on 12/16/2007, -1/+2Well, what is the ruling saying in your opinion?
      • microchp, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2There are laws regarding this that vary from state to state, but as it pertains to federal law, there is not anything currently on the books stating that simulated cp is the same as real cp.
    • sonnybobiche, on 12/16/2007, -1/+3Yeah, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I'm gonna have to read up on the PROTECT Act.

      Unless, of course, the drawings are taken from a real source. (e.g. you snap a kiddie porn pic and then you put it through the photoshop line drawing filter.) I think that would be illegal. Not sure, though.
    • madmccoy, on 12/16/2007, -0/+15Careful,. with lolicon you have to THINK OF THE FAKE CHILDREN.
    • AdamGeld, on 12/16/2007, -4/+2I'm sure they meant movies. But, if there really were cartoons of child porn, I would be even more creeped out... Actually, I'm not sure which would be more screwed up... I don't even want to think about it.
      • latrosicarius, on 12/16/2007, -0/+8you would be more creeped out?? Because cartoon CP is worse than actual CP???
    • Psi57, on 12/16/2007, -0/+14Doesn't that mean that 3/4 of the male population of Japan...

      Kekekeke.
      • pirloui, on 12/16/2007, -0/+3Indeed, and 3/4 of anime and manga..
  • HalfGiraffe, on 12/16/2007, -1/+10Since the government has no right to pry into my thoughts and my thoughts are encrypted on the computer, the government can't force me to give up the key. Sounds pretty logical to me.
    • sonnybobiche, on 12/16/2007, -1/+1Who said the government had no right to pry into your thoughts? If you are asked a question in court (and the judge bars you from using the 5th amendment, which he can do in certain cases), if you don't answer the question, you're held in contempt of court. The government often has the right to demand an answer from you.
      • NCSUCodeMonkey, on 12/16/2007, -0/+3Unless, of course, that answer would incriminate you, in which case you could plead the fifth. I'm not sure which side I agree with in this case, but that is their argument.
        • petrodollar, on 12/16/2007, -3/+1By the time you're in court, the 5th amendment isn't really doing much to protect you. As I mentioned above, you can only invoke it if the testimony would in fact incriminate you. That means that, when you do invoke it, the court is entitled to presume that, had you spoken, you would have incriminated yourself. Therefore you can still be found guilty because your invocation of the 5th amendment implies that you are guilty.

          The real purpose of the 5th amendment, as it has been interpreted by courts, is to protect you from coercive police interrogations (i.e. forced confessions). That might be an issue when you're under interrogation at the police station, but it's not such a concern when you're on the stand since presumably the bailiff isn't going to let the prosecuting attorney beat a confession out of you.
        • Qeveren, on 12/16/2007, -0/+4No, as far as I'm aware, the court -cannot- presume guilt due to a plea to the Fifth. What good would it be otherwise?
        • Napoleone, on 12/16/2007, -1/+4@petro

          "That means that, when you do invoke it, the court is entitled to presume that, had you spoken, you would have incriminated yourself."

          That is so dangerously off the mark. A jury is to make no presumption as to why a person pleads the Fifth. Look into the subject further and stop misinforming people of their rights, and polluting the minds of potential jurors.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 12/16/2007, -1/+5There are no cases where the judge "bars you from using the 5th Amendment". They may force you to testify (or be charged with contempt) but they cannot deny you your 5th amendment rights. If you read/understand the 5th Amendment, there is a difference between bring forced to testify and being forced to incriminate yourself. The 5th Amendment says you don't have to incriminate yourself, it doesn't say you don't have to testify.
        • sonnybobiche, on 12/16/2007, -1/+2You are, of course, right.
        • AnarkeIncarnate, on 12/16/2007, -1/+1Sam Giancana.......
          The Gov't can bar you from using the 5th amendment if they offer you full immunity for the information. If you still do not testify, they can throw your ass in jail.
        • buckrogers1965, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1@ AnarkeIncarnate

          You can decline the immunity because it would tend to incriminate you in other crimes, which you don't have to specify because you are taking the 5th amendment on them.
    • AdamGeld, on 12/16/2007, -0/+4Not if they have evidence to support that a crime was commited. You have to keep in mind that, in a crime, there are at least two sides. You're right about your thoughts being your property, though. If thoughts could be crimes, we would all be in jail.
    • TuxedoMax, on 12/16/2007, -0/+3Just answer the questions really really slowly 'till they get frustrated and leave you alone.
  • rkzda, on 12/16/2007, -11/+4I think there should be an exception when actual child pornography is involved. Honestly, I think child porn, where crimes are being committed against children, not animated stuff, I see as worse then murder. It's just sick, and it is just my opinion. And anyone associated with it should be punished.
    • thebellmaster1x, on 12/16/2007, -0/+10It doesn't matter that child pornography is sick. Law is law. If you apply it unequally, that's discriminatory.
    • latrosicarius, on 12/16/2007, -0/+9The minute you start making "exceptions" to people's constitutional rights, you might as well start living in fascism.

      Also, not quite sure that downloading images is as bad as "murder", but whatever floats your boat...
      • SLockhart, on 12/16/2007, -5/+0You can't live in fascism. Contribution ignored.
      • petrodollar, on 12/16/2007, -3/+0Hmm, so "the freedom of speech" presumably includes the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater? Otherwise we're making an exception, right? And that would make us fascists. Note that the Constitution says "THE freedom of speech." Isn't it fair to ask WHAT freedom of speech it's referring to? The fact that many of the Constitution's authors also passed the Alien Sedition Act should give you a clue as to the answer.
        • PhilLesh69, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2I'm sure you are trying to make sense, but I'm having a hard time making sense of what you are saying. Don't get me wrong, but I can 't figure out what you are trying to say.
    • pathy, on 12/16/2007, -1/+6Child porn is murky. It evokes strong reactions from people, as you're demonstrating now.

      I do not support, in any way whatsoever, the abuse of children. It gets to me too. However, I am strongly opposed to this massive overreaction that simple posession of child pornography creates. The people that are attracted to children in general and have a few pictures of it are not the problem, by far - Paedophilia is something that many people have whether it's liked or not, and those that view images of children shouldn't have to fear harsh punishment if they admit this, or are found out.

      The problem are the rings of people that create the content, the ones that actually are ***** their and others kids, and snapping the pictures. It truly saddens me that people can be so easily emotionaly manipulated to allow things like drawings become illegal.
      • petrodollar, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1Laws against child porn have been upheld ONLY because production of the material in question involves harm to a minor. Otherwise it would be protected under the First Amendment. The case law on this is very clear on this point.
        • spyd3rweb, on 12/16/2007, -1/+1If the children involved are being harmed then all they have to do is file a lawsuit (by their parents), none of this legislation is necessary.
      • PhilLesh69, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1I get what you are saying. It is a horrible act. Kiddy porn peddlers suck, and they have no redeemable human values. They deserve to die.

        But the reaction of many people to say that we need to abandon our privacy or our freedom is stupid.

        Why should we lose because of an *****?
    • sonnybobiche, on 12/16/2007, -1/+1Yeah, exceptions are generally pretty crappy. (Which is what makes the legal system as convoluted as it is.)
    • AdamGeld, on 12/16/2007, -1/+1I agree.
    • yojiffyskippy, on 12/16/2007, -1/+3That's what Amendments to the Constitution are for. If you want to add a Constitutional Amendment that says
      Amendment XXVIII - The right of citizens of the United States shall be suspended when dealing with something that appears to be child pornography.
      then write you Congressmen and get the process started.
      • PhilLesh69, on 12/16/2007, -1/+1I agree. You have it so much the truth.
    • buckrogers1965, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1No exceptions ever. Not one time. Not for any reason.
  • jmskyrocket, on 12/16/2007, -1/+9I have to completely agree with the judge's decision. If they want to convict him, they need to do the work. He played his cards right, regardless of suspected criminal activity, he still has a right to privacy. The fifth amendment would definitely cover supplying personal password information to the authorities. "[no one]... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" - since there is no document in question, the information exists only in the accused's mind, it must be protected.
    • sonnybobiche, on 12/16/2007, -3/+1The fifth amendment extends only so far as verbal testimony that implies guilt on the part of the defendant (e.g. saying that you're guilty, or saying that YES, IN FACT, YOU WERE AT THAT PLACE AT THAT TIME) Only in that case may you invoke the fifth amendment. Telling someone your password does not, in itself, imply guilt or even associate you with a crime.
    • AdamGeld, on 12/16/2007, -2/+2He is not his hard drive, however. The hard drive is an entity of itself. If they have evidence there is something criminal on it, and that a suspect is denying entry to it, then they should be allowed access to search for criminal activity. I don't have a problem with someone having adult porn, but porn of little kids is going too far. If you really are that messed-up, just use your imagination and keep it to yourself. That's how I feel about it.
  • hempydave, on 12/16/2007, -3/+13In Canada child porn must involve a child.
    Drawings and cartoons are protected art.
    Hentai FTW
    • petrodollar, on 12/16/2007, -0/+4In the USA this is true as well.
    • AdamGeld, on 12/16/2007, -7/+1I don't believe graphic artwork depicting child porn should be allowed either. It's just too disgusting. All that needs be said about child porn can be said in words, and all that should ever be said in words about it is how to stop it.
      • an0nymous, on 12/16/2007, -0/+5Whats your position on Nabakov?
      • Elliuotatar, on 12/16/2007, -0/+5You realise lots of ancient artwork depicts children in sexual situations right? Are we to be like the taliban and destroy those works because they offend us?
      • microchp, on 12/16/2007, -0/+4I believe that people who distribute or produce videos of murder should also be punished. Say goodbye CNN, NBC, ABC, FOX.
      • buckrogers1965, on 12/17/2007, -0/+3Why do you hate American's first amendment rights so much?
    • leetdood, on 12/16/2007, -3/+1completely wrong. lolicon is illegal in canada.
    • leetdood, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1My above comment is being dugg down... I would like you all to check this out.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon#Legal_status_ ...
      • hempydave, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1quote wiki = fail.
        That section of the criminal was struck down by the supreme court.
  • SLockhart, on 12/16/2007, -16/+0I'll give up my privacy if it will stop child predators.
    • latrosicarius, on 12/16/2007, -2/+6I'll give up my right to free speech, guns, illegal search & seizure, the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury, and protection against cruel and unusual punishments, as long as the government is my big brother.

      /by the way, sarcasm... and shut your mouth you idiot commie. go vote for Hillary so we can all give up our rights for the "greater good" and live in fascist America.
      • nicktx, on 12/16/2007, -0/+4I think you meant Giuliani.
      • Psi57, on 12/16/2007, -0/+4Both.
      • AdamGeld, on 12/16/2007, -2/+2-sigh- I agree with some of what you say. But, if you don't insult people you disagree with, it would give you a lot more credence. You shouldn't ask anyone to give up their right of free speech.
        • Psi57, on 12/16/2007, -0/+3You are asking everyone to give up their right to not testify against themselves, but you think that no one should lose the right of free speech.

          They aren't in order. One is not more important than another. You probably hold and certainly appeal to a populist, emotional sentiment about pedophiles. What you don't seem to understand is that our rights are meant to be absolute. Say we replace the guy in this case with Adolf Eichmann (were he alive and a citizen of the US): his rights would be the same.

          Grow up, control your passions, and let the smart people run the government and make the laws.
        • latrosicarius, on 12/16/2007, -0/+3I tell him to shut up... you tell me to shut up... we're both the same, are we not?

          By the way, this is digg, not the US legal system. I can "tell" him to shut up ... I'm not "enforcing" it. I'm not going to punish or imprison him for using his free speech
    • Psi57, on 12/16/2007, -1/+6"He who would give up liberty for security deserves neither."
      - Ben Franklin

      Go ***** yourself, fascist.
      • SLockhart, on 12/16/2007, -1/+0Why would I care what Ben Franklin said.

        He who makes his arguments with other peoples quotes is a fool.
        - Steve Lockhart.
        • spyd3rweb, on 12/16/2007, -1/+2Ben Franklin > Steve Lockhart
        • buckrogers1965, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1Franklin was one of the signers of the declaration of independence. He invested his fortune in starting the American Army that won our freedom from tyranny. If we had lost he would have been hanged for his actions. He was one of our founding fathers, and his discussions with the other founders deeply influenced our constitution and the bill of rights. His statement about rights and security was given as a warning to future Citizens of this once great country.
      • latrosicarius, on 12/16/2007, -1/+2"deserves neither"

        And, in the end, will *have* neither too
    • AdamGeld, on 12/16/2007, -0/+4That's a very bad idea, and you should give it more consideration. Child predators are most likely the worst form of humans possible, but giving up all of your rights just so they can be caught easier will also make it very easy for you to be manipulated. It's noble of you to want to help, but you should not be willing to give up everything you have.
      • SLockhart, on 12/16/2007, -1/+0I hear what your saying but I just don't care. I have absolutely nothing to hide. I realize that future governments with evil intentions may persecute me for things I believe or say that today are thought to be good but I say bring it on.
        • PhilLesh69, on 12/17/2007, -0/+2You are a sad and hateful person, then.

          People who just don't care about their rights don't deserve to live in a nation where people have fought and died to preserve your rights.
    • an0nymous, on 12/16/2007, -0/+3Great! Go empty your pockets in the local police station.
      The important thing is: I will not allow you to give up my rights.
      But that's what you really meant, isn't it?
      • PhilLesh69, on 12/17/2007, -0/+2Yep, these are the same people who always say "there ought to be a law" whenever someone does something they dislike.

        They generally want freedom for themselves, but not others.
    • russellnation, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2would you give up your right to have children to prevent CP?
      maybe then we could have our brave new world
  • mrjit, on 12/16/2007, -1/+9Kind of defeats the purpose of pleading the fifth if you have to give up your passphrases.
  • p51d007, on 12/16/2007, -1/+10As much as I don't like child porn, crack dealers, terrorist etc, the government has NO RIGHT to
    my crypto key. When you start diluting the 1st amendment, where does it stop?
    • latrosicarius, on 12/16/2007, -0/+3well... that's the spirit!!... but not sure how you are tying this to the 1st amendment....
      • petrodollar, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2Compelled speech? NAACP v. Alabama? It's a stretch, I admit.
    • AdamGeld, on 12/16/2007, -2/+2As I said elsewhere, if there is evidence of a crime they need to be able to investigate it. If there was reasonable doubt that a suspect was hiding in a house, should cops be allowed access? What if the suspect wasn't answering? It's the same thing with a hard drive.
      • Psi57, on 12/16/2007, -1/+41. If the house is his, there is not a warrant out for his arrest, and there is no active threat from him towards anyone else then the police need a search warrant to enter the premises.

        2. Search laws only apply to places / things (cars, houses, occasionally anuses) you can physically search. You cannot search someones brain for information (at least not yet). The password is held in his mind, something the founding fathers deemed sacred enough to create an amendment for. The police do have the authority to posses and do whatever they want to the hard drive in order to extract information from it, but neither they, nor a judge, has the authority to force anyone to speak if they do not want to. Doing just that is usually accomplished by torture or entrapment.
        • DavidGX, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2Listen to this man.. he gets it.
        • buckrogers1965, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1Thank you for that. You have exactly expressed what what fumbling around in my own mind.
    • Psi57, on 12/16/2007, -0/+65th amendment, actually. Its