Slashdot Mirror
PGP Ruled as Relevant For Criminal Case
waytoomuchcoffee writes "A Minnesota appeals unamimously ruled in a child porn case that "the existence of an encryption program" on the defendants computer could be admitted as evidence of criminal intent. The article doesn't mention if this can be taken into account for sentencing too."
It also depends on whether he was using PGP to encrypt just his email or his HD, since newer vesions can do either. Personally I don't think he should have to produce the keys either way, but there is a difference. If he was just using PGP for email then it should be entirely irrelevant, since obviously no nine year old girl is going to have PGP on her email (or at least any 9yo girl who does should be smart enough not to hang around pedophiles).
If you had carefully RTFA, you would notice that nobody is suggesting that encryption software is illegal. They included it as a component of their case to establish _criminal intent_. In other words, if he's hiding something, he knows he has something to hide, therefore he knows he's doing something wrong... not just really, really stupid. Again, they're not suggesting everybody that has encryption software knows they're doing something wrong... in this case, the fact that he was doing something wrong was established with other evidence. The fact that he knew that what he was doing was wrong was supported by the fact that he tried to hide it. The same argument would probably be made if he had locked the pictures in an industrial-strength safe. As usual, the FA is not as bad as the slashdot headline.
As a side note, with that earlier /. article about the MS guy saying to write your passwords down, is encrypting my password list an act with criminal intent?
My front door has a lock which can be opened only with my key. Therefore, I am hiding something reprehensible inside my house.
Logic, people, logic!
-- The reason it's called the right wing? Irony.
Yes, but by this logic, if someone "takes the fifth", it could be used to incriminate them, which kind of destroys the purpose of the right.
Why is this relevant? Well, if he is using encryption, and they ask him for his key to decrypt the files, I'd say that would be him testifying against himself. Along those same lines, if he refuses to give the key (because he has the right NOT to incriminate himself), they are basically saying "Hey, we don't need the key, because he wouldn't be hiding anything if he had nothing to hide, so he must be guilty!"
This really represents a failure on the part of the judge. The only thing encryption represents is an unknown: not intent, not a particular set of data. You might as well hand they police a blank drive and infer from that "He must have erased it, and he wouldn't have done that unless he was guilty!"
Just like the presence of a gun during a robbery lifts the crime to armed robbery, the presence of encryption ought to imply not only that the culprit intended to commit the crime but also intended to cover it up as well.
Well, if I use a gun in a robbery, that makes it armed robbery. But if I own a gun that is not used in the robber (say it's locked in a safe at home) does any robbery I undertake automatically become armed robbery? I mean, don't you think there should be evidence that I actually used the gun in the robbery?
That said, this isn't what the court decision is about. It isn't saying he is guilty because he has encryption software. It's saying the jury can consider that as evidence.
Mathematically, it is true that the significance of a fact depends on context. Thus something which in isolation doesn't mean much can become significant when joined to other facts. However, some things are so commonplace that you can't fit them into anyt kind of logical structure that will help you make a conclusion.
You might as well say that bank robbers wear shoes and the accused owns several pair.
Fortunately with the other evidence against him, I doubt this spurious instruction had any effect.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The fact that he knew that what he was doing was wrong was supported by the fact that he tried to hide it.
And if you had read the article carefully, you would have noticed that there's no evidence he tried to hide the files. From the article:
Using your analogy it's more like they found an empty bargain-bin safe at the house, and used that as evidence against him. "The man had a SAFE! Only criminals have safes!". As far as comparing PGP to a "industrial strength safe", well that might be a good comparison.. if all safes were industrial strength and given away very cheap or free.
AccountKiller