Slashdot Mirror
Judge Rules Man Cannot Be Forced To Decrypt HD
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "In Vermont, US Magistrate Judge Jerome Niedermeier has ruled that forcing someone to divulge the password to decrypt their hard drive violates the 5th Amendment. Border guards testify that they saw child pornography on the defendant's laptop when the PC was on, but they made the mistake of turning it off and were unable to access it again because the drive was protected by PGP. Although prosecutors offered many ways to get around the 5th Amendment protections, the Judge would have none of that and quashed the grand jury subpoena requesting the defendant's PGP passphrase. A conviction is still likely because prosecutors have the testimony of the two border guards who saw the drive while it was open." The article stresses the potential importance of this ruling (which was issued last November but went unnoticed until now): "Especially if this ruling is appealed, US v. Boucher could become a landmark case. The question of whether a criminal defendant can be legally compelled to cough up his encryption passphrase remains an unsettled one, with law review articles for the last decade arguing the merits of either approach."
Update: 08/19 23:49 GMT by KD : Several readers have pointed out that this story in fact did not go unnoticed.
Update: 08/19 23:49 GMT by KD : Several readers have pointed out that this story in fact did not go unnoticed.
Great news!
Yay! nuff said!
Did the Border Patrol have reason to open the hard drive case?
Did they have a clean room?
And who has CP displayed when they go thru customs?
Woot! Cherry popping screenshot!
But serious, thought police = bad. Good for the judge.
"thousands of images of adult pornography and animation depicting adult and child pornography."
I know that TFA is about encryption and the rights to passwords but I think the phrase above is far more interesting. That quote could be misleading, but what if the Border Enforcers didn't find any photographs or videos(hell, any evidence at all)of real human child exploitation?
:)
If they are able to legally get the key and crack the drive, and all they found was animation, then maybe they should just give him a warning and and call him a "perv"...especially if he has "thousands" of files and not a single one is "real".
By the way, those of you who fantasize about your wife or girlfriend in a schoolgirl outfit are also pervs
A rare victory where both the criminal loses and our rights are protected.
Would read a second time.
Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
Border guards testify that they saw child pornography on the defendant's laptop when the PC was on
wow, so cops testify that it's true? that's good enough for me!
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/15/1459243
A conviction is still likely because prosecutors have the testimony of the two border guards who saw the drive while it was open
two border guards, who are white collar workers of non technical origin, non geek, AVERAGE internet user just like the ma and pa in illinois.
Read radical news here
(which was issued last November but went unnoticed until now)
Turn *off* your laptop before going through customs.
Turn off the GRUB menu and change the default key combination to have it come up.
Have a WinXP install to boot up into and set it as the default boot option.
Strong cryptography is lovely but it is not for idiots.
How we know is more important than what we know.
The article is from Dec 17 2007.
In any case, it is good to see judges in the US (or anywhere else) making into the news for taking the right stand regarding governmental search limits.
Why do good things happen only to bad guys?
Here, we have a story which is not only over 8 months old, but is also a dupe. That has to be some kind of a record.
From TFA :"Orin Kerr, a former Justice Department prosecutor who's now a law professor at George Washington University, shares this view. Kerr acknowledges that it's a tough call, but says, "I tend to think Judge Niedermeier was wrong given the specific facts of this case." "
The phrase "given the specific facts of this case" gives me chills in this context. As we all know, kiddie porn is, along with terrorism and drugs, one of the three Prime Evils of American jurisprudence and public opinion, the unholy trinity that justify any and all measures in their eradication.
In short: Why, why does our potential landmark 5th amendment case have to be a kiddie porn case? I'm no fan of child pornography; but it would be an absolute disaster if, thanks to the vociferous moral condemnation that such a case always involved, we end up setting a dangerous precedent concerning the 5th amendment and crypto keys/passwords.
I think it involves no hyperbole to say that the crypto key issue is probably the most important 5th amendment related question that technology has yet raised(mindreading tech will probably top it, when it becomes available). I'd hate to see this be yet another decision chiseling away at our constitution, just because some punk likes kiddie porn.
IANAL, but if my memory serves me correctly, Customs and "border guards"aren't constrained by the same laws that other law enforcement is. That's why they can search your vehicle, personal effects, body cavities, etc. when you enter the country without a warrant.
I have a constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures once inside the United States, but not while entering it. The judges decision sounds nice, but I don't think it will stand.
Have gnu, will travel.
Seriously, are the editors asleep?
This story from last December had the exact same article. This was noted in the firehose entry, and somehow this still got posted. I thought that kind of thing was a major purpose of the firehose?
WTF
He said that encryption keys can be "testimonial," and even the prosecution's alternative of asking the defendant to type in the passphrase when nobody was looking would be insufficient.
Umm...If nobody was -really- looking dood, "Format C:"
Too bad there's no data wipe param.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
Plug for TrueCrypt 6.0's Hidden OS feature. This allow one to give a password (not the "real" password) and have the system boot to a hidden OS which is not your real installation. Moreover, there is no way to prove the "real" OS exists. http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=hidden-operating-system
Well, the fact that "they"'ve gone to all this trouble, and have fallen flat on their faces suggests there really aren't any backdoors in PGP at least, or that they aren't open to people at that level, which is nice.
-- All your booze are belong to us.
Glad to know our border guards are fully trained in recognizing and identifying pornography in terms of US code Title 18. Wait, does that even apply to animation?
Seriously, while child pornographers deserve a fate worse than I'm willing to admit, it is often far too go after someone accused of such things.
Good for him to stand up for his 5th. Good for the judge to protect it.
import system.cool.Sig;
It's good that they can't just force their way into the guy's privacy, but don't they have reasonable grounds to get a warrant which should force the guy to allow them "entry" as such?
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
Ok, why is it then that when taxpayers refuse to sign their 1040 tax forms they are taken to court and convicted to end up in jail? The 5th amendment to the Constitution gives you the right to refuse to incriminate yourself. The IRS forcing you to sign the 1040 under penalty of perjury DOES JUST THAT! Oh, I know why - because - see, when you get to the court of the IRS it's not a regular court, noooo. It's a TAX COURT. And this means you're screwed until unscrewed! The 1040 tax bullshit would not stand a chance in civil court!
No, this smells to me like another test case to try take away another of our few remaining rights as innocent citizens, with "scary child pornographers" as an excuse. The sad thing is, if this guy really is a child porn-hawking scumbag, he might get off because the Feds want more power over the rest of us. Which shows you what their priorities really are.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
Period. End of discussion. They cannot compel your testimony. Not one word can they force you to utter. It is your choice to stand mute and that cannot be used against you.
Anything more than this, compelling you to utter even a single syllable in order to prove your own innocence or guilt, and we don't live in the land of the free anymore.
Any bets on how long it will be before O'Reilly labels this judge soft on paedophiles?
The good of this is obvious. In the US, we're guaranteed a certain set of rights, which often get trodden on in the name of justice under the noses of judges willing to look the other way (FBI wire-tapping, anyone?) This will allow for a more guaranteed level to the protection of privacy.
The bad to potentially come of this is when you *know* someone has done wrong, but their rights are protected to keep such things secret. I'm think terrorism, laundering of money, etc, falling into this group.
Last, there's the ugly. There's the pedophiles, rapists, etc, that are able to hide their wares and get away with it. I'm not implying they don't have the same rights, but you've gotta figure there's other potential ill-deeds going on.
Given all three, it's still a right I feel strongly about, and a right thousands of men and women are willing to give their life to protect (crazy looney at the helm, or not). What I'm curious about is whether this would have any affect on the legality of breaking into an encrypted file/filesystem when the owner has denied access.
The article is from December 2007, and the last action in the case was in January 20008! Hello... are the ./ editors going nuts or something?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003
I knew that I read this somewhere... Prohibits computer-generated child pornography when "(B) such visual depiction is a computer image or computer-generated image that is, or appears virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (as amended by 1466A for Section 2256(8)(B) of title 18, United States Code).
I know a lot of people who were getting very nervous about even *visiting* the USA. Think they're overreacting and melodramatic? Think again - all we hear are stories of how foreigners, with no rights, detained by customs, forced to incriminate themselves, forced to give up encryption keys on threat of indefinite detention in stateless legal no-mans-land .. how reasonable it is to worry about it all *that* much is questionable but it's undeniably been a bad trend for a long time.
This, though - an unequivocal restoration of the right to silence, at a border no less - is a *very* welcome development. Let's hope it's the first in a long run of "restoration" decisions as the pendulum swings back from the terrorism bubble.
Really happy to see this. I'm not American, but I was taking no joy whatsoever in watching the previous slide. I'm feeling pretty joyful to see this kind of thing, though - separation of powers worked in the end!
Here's to a few more key decisions like this. Go USA.
Let my new 7-digit UID be a lesson to all - write down your passwords.
In our great country:
1. Companies don't use encryption to protect my private information for various reasons/excuses...
2. Child pedophiles can(and do) use encryption to protect THEIR private information...
3. AND BOTH ARE LEGAL!?
I totally agree that the judge was totally in the right with his decision, but why the hell aren't companies held completely liable for #1? If Joe Schmo can encrypt his data to the point it can't be used, then why should companies NOT be required to be able to encrypt it? They have vastly more resources available to protect their data(and therefore yours and mine). If they aren't compelled to encrypt their data because it's "the right thing to do" then we needs laws requiring it.
All I have to say is this:
To the few people that use child porn as a "witchhunt"
"Hahahahahahaha!"
To the rest(if not all of us) that use our credit card, and it has been compromised by lost backup tapes, hard drives, etc.
"Why the hell do we let this happen to ourselves?"
I have always preferred letting people volunteer for projects, overtime, etc. But when huge companies have to be voluntold how to do "the right thing" then the world is in a sad state of affairs.
Exactly how are they going to "force" him to divulge the key? Unless we plan to torture him or drug him, I'm pretty sure its ultimately his choice to tell someone his password.
I've known that for years... Man was not made to decrypt hard drives. That's why we have COMPUTERS. Hello are we not on slashdot, the technical center of the internet universe? golly!
I find it hard to believe that no encryption software out there has a self-destruct mechanism built in. Give them one passphrase and it decrypts. Give them another passphrase and it attempts to re-encrypt but with an unknown key, leaving NOBODY with access.
Passphrases that are obtained under duress would be a non-issue, more because the people trying to get the information would already know that there is a good chance the info will be lost anyways.
Get tossed in jail for Contempt of Court? They would have to prove that the information was there in the first place. Kind of hard to do at that point.
I'm interested in how this affects U.S. Customs with regards to inspecting laptops of U.S. citizens returning from travelling abroad. If the courts decide that revealing the key is a violation of the 5th amendment, then perhaps it could also apply to individuals not accused of a crime? In other words, you can take my laptop, but I don't have to give you access to the data /pfffffft
I mean that.
This post is not a joke and I fully expect to be down modded for being off topic or whatever. I want level4 to know that his/her actions is appreciated.
That is all.
Yeah, the guy was so horny he couldn't stop watching his kidde porn even when he approached the border guards. I find that hard to believe. especially that the guy obviously is not stupid (he encrypted his drive for god's sake - how many smart people do you know who know how to do this?). These border guards are full of it - but you know what - if the guy is headed for jail it'd be smart of him to give them his pass to show them he's got no kiddie porn. if he withholds that then he must have something to hide that would get him more jailtime than kiddie porn.
Glad to see the 5th amendment holding up.
I saw a quote, I think on one of the previous Slashdot stories about this case:
"For Soviet Russia's KGB, the amount of time required to crack a passphrase is inversely proportional to the temperature of the soldering iron shoved up the guy's ass."
Guy's lucky he didn't make his way to Gitmo.
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
I don't envy the mods today.
Child pornography is such a sensitive issue it can derail any topic. Even one as simple as "The right to encrypt".
In parts of eastern Europe at the turn of the 20th century it was common for >14 year old girls to be married off to any financially stable (read older) man. The rationale behind it was simple, women just didn't live very long and to keep families from dying out the female reproductive cycle had to start ASAP (as soon a biologically possible). Clearly sociological/cultural norms mean more than some Bible-toting tub-thumper's, TV evangelist pseudo-moralizing looking for some free press.
My grandmother was married to my grandfather when she was fifteen (she died at twenty eight) and he was in his thirties, his second wife was seventeen at the time of his marriage to her (he died at seventy nine).
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
And set the bios to ONLY boot off the CDROM
So what if I made my pass phrase the confession to some minor crime and then confessed the fact? Wouldn't that make it a more clear-cut fifth amendment issue as revealing my pass-phrase would be directly incriminating?
-Dave
> I have a constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures once inside the United
> States, but not while entering it. The judges decision sounds nice, but I don't think it will stand.
It's worse. I fail to understand how a court can't order the asshole to produce the data. We have protection against unreasonable search. We have a right against self incrimination. But neither apply here. Nobody is going to argue that a judge can't issue an order for you to cough up documents whether on paper or a computer. Our whole system of law would collapse were law enforcement unable to obtain evidence, even with a court order.
Drop all the cyber bullshit and imagine this as a meatspace problem. Imagine you have a fortress of doom that it would be totally impractical for law enforcement to gain entrance to without the key. (perhaps you have crazed killbots inside, or whatever) If a judge issued a valid search warrant you would indeed be required to produce the key or be held in contempt. Why is it different because computers are involved?
Even better example. Judge issues warrant for you to produce paper files. You are the only one who knows where they are located. If you try saying that telling the court where they are would be self incrimination and thus you are invoking the 5th you should not be suprised to find yourself in a cell.
This case is going to come down to two sworn officers asserting they saw kiddie porn on exhibit A, the laptop. Almost any jury is going to be willing to accept that as proof beyond a reasonable doubt considering the defense could rebutt by simply unlocking the laptop and proving their innocence. This isn't a case of guilt until proven innoccent, this is two officers vs a suspect who refuses to allow anyone to see the evidence he claims would free him. Hell, I'd convict on that.
Democrat delenda est
Eeeew!
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
No, not because he agrees with me. Because he knows something all these other people apparently don't; that the laws in the US have changed, and while it was true that it was not previously illegal, it has been since 2003.
I'll be man enough to admit that I thought it had been illegal for much longer, and so the various "you're wrong" responses to my post were also quite enlightening, but they seem to have missed this crucial change in American law.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
Can be suspended in some situations.
But its great that a judge used some common sense and stood up for what is right.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
This is a good ruling and interpretation of the 5th Amendment. That said, there is a first amendment issue, The right for a person to be secure in his person and effects shall not be violated. Given that he is the established owner of the computer, he has the requisite heightened expectation of privacy. And, given that the material in question resides on the computer locally, there is a heightened expectation of privacy. If the material were merely links, then the first amendment issue is less applicable. As much as I despise the aforementioned activity, our rights as guarranteed by the consitution outweigh what I find morally despicable.
In short: Why, why does our potential landmark 5th amendment case have to be a kiddie porn case?
Because the prosecutors ALWAYS go after the least-sympathetic scumbag they can find (or create the appearance of) when trying to establish a break-the-bill-of-rights precedent.
In the case of trying to clamp down on new forms of speech, press, or association this is USUALLY a child pornography or child molestation case.
Once they've got the precedent in place they can go after the real target: Anybody they don't like.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Even the bravest individual will hold back when their identity is known or potentially discoverable.
You don't know a lot of brave people, do you? :-)
I can even see the dollar bill with a big (?) inside the oval and Anonymous Brave Man written in the ribbon below
If someone hides below anonymity, then it is not brave. And it's ok, it's not everyone's job to be brave. But it was Ghandi's, Washington's, Tiradentes' job/life to be brave. And _that_ is why we know their names and faces.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Oh, how I wish I had mod-points so I could mod you into oblivion.
You are a fucktard.
In a discussion about 5th amendment rights and preventing self incrimination, you effectively just called several thousand people "pedophile sympathizers".
I can't possibly think of anything more disingenuous and counter to an intelligent and rational society.
It's blind zealots like you that give the US a bad name and will lead to the further crumbling of our constitution and freedoms.
Congratulations Osama.
Why would a pedophile prefer castration to imprisonment? Oh, you were just trying to be childish and nasty, weren't you? Good job.
Border guards testify that they saw child pornography on the defendant's laptop when the PC was on...
As someone who grows marijuana in his front yard and keeps Ukrainian sex slaves chained up in the back yard, I can say that the border guards' testimony is totally believable.
For about a year I've noticed that the growing rhetoric in the mass media outlets is that encryption is something only paedophiles or criminals use . If you can't force people to disclose the passphrase you can sure make people who do use encryption look like criminals.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
GOOGLE or WIKIPEDIA THIS: "Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement/
Couple the effect of THIS particular legal ruling setting precedent into US law, with the Uber-Secretive ACTA group (AKA: RIAA & MPAA).
These "corporate terrorist" efforts to enact International Law under their "Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement" will wipe all your privacy rights while traveling anywhere in the 1st world countries.
This trade law will allow arbitrary *search and siezure* of your iPods, USB drives, computers, phones, any digital media whatsoever if a Border Guard thinks you didn't pay for the song/movie/photo that they find on your PC or other devices.
Contact your Senator/MP or other federal government trade commissioner. Tell them this ruling must be stopped, or we (and all our children) will have lost any and all privacy at any and all major border crossings/airports/seaports/etc.
Putting arbitrary power to search, accuse and sieze in the hands of people that don't understand what the hell they are doing is very dangerous.
"Oh, he had a Led Zeppelin song on his $2000 notebook PC that I think didn't have DRM on the file! So I confiscated his computer. I can, so therefore I did...despite his pleading that his entire life's work was on the hard drive as well as the book he's been writing for the past year."
We are quickly being overtaken by facisim. It is under the guise of terrorism and child protection...oh save us all from the horrors that don't exist, please take away all of our rights! A$$holes!
... legally considered child pornography? I ask, because that's all the customs agents found on this guy's laptop. That and a bunch of normal porn.
but that doesn't mean I don't hope they find a legitimate legal means to catch him and stop child pron.
problem is right now you dont have that right at the border and they make damn well sure to say it. they have widely publicized, and even the company I work for reminds us monthly, that any computer (and now digital audio players) can and be confiscated and inspected for unknown unspecified periods of time for or without any reason at all because stupid people everywhere don't mind giving up their rights in the name of "a little security". So while in terms of constitutionally I think he has everyright to keep his mouth shut on the password, his lack of intelligence suggests to me that he'll be caught soon anyways and not to worry.
if you don't want to deal with that find another way to get your digital shiz across.. I hate it, its atrocious, and should be challenged in court. but until then its what it is. so do yourself a favor, find another way to get to the crap and don't carry it on you
sadly these are the same people who will talk about how people died for our freedom we have to be out fighting our wars and crap like that.. newsflash what they fought for are the rights you are GIVING UP left and right. The very things they wanted were protections from the government doing exactly this; to ensure the right to revolution, the right to privacy, pursuit of happiness, and the right to disagree and make change.
but what else is new?
all that said, props to the parent... go watch the futurama episode of the crazed red neck lawyer who defends zoidberg and then requests a satanic burial.
"Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny" ~Frank Zappa
EdelFactor
I had a spare drive that I put in my computer. I thought I'd give truecrypt a try and encrypted the thing, being sure to create a strong password. Now a year or so later, I have nothing on the drive and completely forgot the passphrase. I don't care because there's nothing on the drive.
If I lived in the UK, I guess I could theoretically be imprisoned for not handing over my password.
anyone else curious? What hap'd the first time around, did he decide to run across the border with the laptop out and open while browsing his child pron collection? I'm genuinely curious.
that said it seems like he may have problem in that he turned it on once... but then again how do we know the dudes arent lying. wheres the proof of the child pron. i hate it, i hate child pronographers... but seriously get some evidence or get lost.
lastly, why not use the DMCA to help yourselves out. rig it such that by "circumventing" the encryption of the hard drive they also circumvent the encryption of copyright protected works. sure they will probably still do it, but you can take some money from them while they are at it.
"Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny" ~Frank Zappa
EdelFactor
www.fbi.gov
A lot of slashdotters want to be permitted to violate a number of laws, after all "they know better" (and ... benefit themselves from those crimes, but that has nothing to do with it at all), so obviously they side with the criminal.
And yes they have an excuse in this case. But that's for show. They don't want to be convicted for not buying their own entertainment, for not abiding by software licences they use (however they *do* want to force others to abide by the GPL, using financial and even criminal punishments for violations).
You can draw an "obscene" picture of minors and go to prison for it in the United States.
1 - This was passed a mere year after that same provision was struck down in the CPPA.
2 - the qualifier of the "Miller test" is pure smokescreen, as looking it up on wikipedia shows this nebulous and entirely subjective criteria. Any DA, Justice, or Juror on a McCarthyist crusade can pretty much lump anything from scant clothing to showing an ankle into this "test".
he Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California.[1] It has three parts:
Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[2] specifically defined by applicable state law,
Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. (This is also known as the (S)LAPS test- [Serious] Literary, Artistic, Political, Scientific).
I get the feeling this too will be quashed under scrutiny, and this very case we're commenting on could be the landmark case.
Let's hope he has a competent attorney.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Caution: redundancies in text for clarification.
Exactly where in any border crossing facility does the full protection of the Bill of Rights begin or end?
The US Constitution grants the federal government the exclusive power to conduct foreign relations. The States are thus prohibited from entering into foreign relations. That is why driver compacts with the provinces of Canada had to be accomplished by the federal government entering into treaties with Canada or adopting and implementing relevant UN conventions. Think of it as plastic wrap (I prefer a titanium curtain) that surrounds the continental United States, Alaska and Hawaii. Some of the film goes into the water. The Coast Guard assists in border enforcement on the seas. Some of the film is on land. That is the function of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In order to properly protect the States in the union, there must be a diminished expectation of liberty while transiting the 'film' of exclusive jurisdiction. Once having properly transited the barrier, one may enjoy the 'full' expectation of liberty as one who is IN one of the States of the USA. There is this idea that US citizenship offers each person this same bubble around such person that somehow exempts such person from an examination necessary for security of the nation. That is what the criminal and terrorist elements seek to exploit for their ends.
International travel may be a right under various court rulings and international conventions, but such is not absolute (with the possible exception in fleeing persecution; that is why asylum laws exist). It is precisely the failure to properly execute these necessary functions of border enforcement that has led us to this point.
The thought of giving border enforcement windows into our souls does not thrill any liberty-loving person to the least. However the opacity the traveling citizen desires to not feel uncomfortable when crossing the border is the same opacity the terrorist and the criminal desire for their purposes. It is the 'uncomfortable security' at the border that protects the value of 'liberty' inside. What exists today is turned inside out and outside in. Think of it as a gated community. Show proof that you belong there and security lets you in. If you don't live there, someone on the inside must let you in. Either way there must be an interaction with security. One may live there, but security needs to do its job.
This is why I believe that signs need to be posted at border crossing using specific language. An idea would be:
You are entering a restricted area that is under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress apart from the Bill of Rights. While you are in this area, there is a reasonable expectation of diminished liberty. If you wish to be in complete and uninterrupted exercise of your Constitutional rights, please do not enter this area. You have a right to travel. However in the process of travel, you will invariably enter areas where security is paramount. If no incident is encountered, once leaving these areas you will resume full exercise of your Constitutional rights within the United States or the rights of citizens or aliens afforded by the jurisdiction into which you may travel.
Since the incident occurred in this area, the law will be different.
I will not discuss internal security as it is beyond the scope of the article.
Sure. YOU would give up your password because you had "nothing to hide". Never mind the naked pictures of your wife that the border guards thought was underage. Never mind the trade secrets in your work files. Never mind the investigative files your firm has built up on the regional chief of these border guards. And never mind all that other stuff too.
Seriously. There are nearly uncountable LEGITIMATE reasons for not wanting the authorities to intrude into your private files. You might feel like giving up your password on demand. That is your right if you want to do so. But DO NOT try to insist that I do so too. If you were to do something that dumb, someone like me would likely find you in a dark alley someday and treat you like the traitor to the Constitution that you would, in fact, be.
Whether law enforcement could get a search warrant is irrelevant! The judge ruled that the password could not be demanded, warrant or not, because that would violate the suspect's 5th Amendment right to not incriminate himself. Those are two very different things.
Translation: Giving a defendant limited immunity in terms of forcing them to turn over the passphrase can lead to a conviction. That's because the fellow technically isn't being convicted based on his passphrase; he's being convicted for what it unlocks. Isn't the law grand?
So lets take this out of the what-is-this-pgp-thing arena and apply it to something the more average american can relate to.
OK Mr Roberts, we know you killed your wife, we have this picture of you in your car, driving past a speed camera, and we can clearly see a hand sticking out of the trunk. OK lets have it, where is your car?
Not tellin'. 5th Amendment and all. Go pound sand.
The 5th Amendment doesn't apply here. We aren't asking you where the body is, we just demand to know the location of your car.
You may now continue to go pound sand.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
If the entertainment in question is older than I am, then it is right that I should not have to pay for it. ...as far as "software licenses" go.
One of the beautiful things about Free Software is that all
of those "software licenses" can be shoved out an airlock
and it's all perfectly legal.
It's the Windows users that have to "pay or pirate" in order
to "remain a part of the civilized world".
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Good site, but where are the picz?
Ok, a lot of people think you should fire kevin dawson for posting stories that are blatantly wrong, dupes, stupid, etc. I have a better idea: why don't you use him to filter out the crap in the firehose? Basically, everytime he approves a story, there's a good chance it sucks, so instead of posting it to the front page, delete it from the firehose.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
No this has nothing to do with the 5th amendment. If you have a big safe in your basement and the police have reason to suspect you have cocaine in it, then they can order you to open it. If you have something in your car trunk, the police can demand you unlock it for a warrented search. This is NO DIFFERENT except that it is new and that while we can force open safes and car trunks, its harder to brute force decryption.
The 5th amendment says "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". That means you dont have to comply with the demand for an admission of guilt. It does NOT mean you dont have to provide the court with objects and/or information that is directly or indirectly related to the case. If you were really going to stand on that then you could refuse to be searched when you are under arrest because the gun in your pocket would be a "witness" against yourself.
Last I checked, a witness is a PERSON.
He is not the one being an idiot, you are. Do you know ANYTHING about the law?
"Don't be an idiot. Enforcing would be done exactly as it is done in any other case of someone refusing to comply with an order issued by a court. You hold them in contempt of court and lock em up until they obey or they can get a higher court to reverse. No rubber hoses required."
Not so. Physical compliance is one thing. Compelling someone to speak is something entirely different. They are different areas of the law, and covered by different parts of the Constitution. Further, once again: this has to do with the 5th, which prevents compelling someone to testify against himself. AND, as I mentioned elsewhere, there are MANY perfectly legitimate reasons why someone would not want -- very much not want -- the "authorities" to access their files, even if there is nothing illegal in them!
("Gee, let's see... I am a border guard, and I have this bogus "do not fly" list, consisting largely of people who are political activists... let's accuse him of child pornography and see what's in his secret files!")
If you think that scenario is unrealistic, then you have not studied your history.
"But since the testimony of two sworn peace officers will almost certainly convict beyond a reasonable doubt in the absence of any defense, going that route is a sure fire path to a "pound me in the ass" federal prison."
Bullshit. In order to convict on "say-so" only, the two witnesses would have to be VERY credible. If I were a juror, it is unlikely I would vote to convict without physical evidence. And as for being credible witnesses, especially when it comes to identifying children on grainy video... heck, it's a stretch even calling most border guards "law enforcement"!
By the way, I should mention that a couple of years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that in order for something to be judged "child pornography", it must be proven that (1) it is actual pornography, and (2) that the subjects are actual children. Good luck proving those with no videos. Do you think the guards recognized those particular children? Do you think that they names and addresses were flashed on the screen? I doubt it.
"Basically this guy is saying "That laptop over there doesn't have anything illegal on it. Those pigs are just lying ignorant bastards who wouldn't know a playboy bunny shot from japanese tentacle porn. But you guys on the jury are just going to have to trust me on that..."
Yep. And that is enough, legally and Constitutionally. As it should be. You don't seem to appreciate how horrifically "the system" could be abused, if we did not have such safeguards. History is full of such stories... are you going to be one of those people doomed to repeat history because you did not bother to learn it? I hope not.
-- "That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." - Benjamin Franklin
A warrant covers physical evidence. The 5th amendment covers the right to not testify against oneself. They are two very different things.
As ridiculous as it may seem at first glance, a judge could order a warrant to search the contents of the computer, but still uphold the suspect's right to exercise his 5th Amendment right to not give up the password that would make executing the warrant possible.
Yep. All we have to do to get the cops is give up our 5th amendment rights, and all we have to do to catch Osama is give up the rest of them. A bargain at any price!
Any competent judge in a case like this would instruct the jury that exercising one's 5th Amendment rights is NOT an admission of guilt. If the judge did not do it, then the defending attorney would be sure to do it. But in a case like this it would really be the judge's duty to do that... anything else would likely result in a mistrial... or certainly be grounds for appeal.
Wake me when an appellate court or the Supreme Court rules this way.
"We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
Since publicly available encryption algorithms are now (in many cases) too strong for the government to break, they only tool they have left to prevent it -- a tool of desperation -- is to try to discredit those who use it.
Really, they are giving up the sorriness of their situation every time they attempt such a thing.
I really hesitate to say this, but I think that deleting SI swimsuit pictures out of concern that they would somehow "corrupt your child" labels you as a bit of a fanatic.
I've been bitchy about news stories akin to "Water is now wet: film at 11!" but this is *exactly* the kinda thing we IT people need to know about. As a sysadmin, for example, what are the limits on revealing the passphrase? (rhetorical) Great addition. If I knew how to mod up the original story, I'd love to. (Man, it's FUN to not have to bitch and moan...) :>
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
In fact, the obvious choice is to use free stuff. If you cannot afford, or chose not to afford, X, you cannot, and should not, steal X. Go with something you either can afford, or do without, or put up with the free stuff. You continue to live, and you won't turn into a russian-ugly-vodka-swilling booze hound that lives off the dole and eats flapjacks for dinner. All here matching that description, say, ay! mattie!
Apparently I misunderstood.
You almost got childish and pedophile in the same sentence, those usually don't go well together.
New things are always on the horizon
"Although prosecutors offered many ways to get around the 5th Amendment protections, the Judge would have none of that and quashed the grand jury subpoena requesting the defendant's PGP passphrase."
Trying to circumvent the constitution in order to circumvent someones protection of their privacy.
I did some further digging on the protect act as it applies to Lolicon
The court stressed that virtual child pornography remained under the protection of the First Amendment, except when it was offered or solicited under the mistaken impression that actual children were depicted.
In May 2008, the Supreme Court, while ruling on the PROTECT ACT, ruled that the act cannot be used to punish persons who view or make virtual child porn, provided it is not promoted as actual child porn.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I'm not *really* talking about swimsuit photos, either, really. I'm sure at some point, some of them were wearing swimsuits, but that was well before the photos were taken. ;)
"I forgot my password officer"
And that still doesn't bother you? That people could be thrown into prison because they possess drawn lolicon which they claim is real child pornography (who the hell knows the definition of that anymore), even though no actual children are involved? And all of this sanctioned and approved by the constitutional last line of defense, the supreme court? Some wingbat can be convicted on child porn charges even though he never actually possessed any child porn?!?
Does that seem acceptable to you?
You also realize the Supreme Court upheld the pandering provision of the PROTECT Act and didn't overturn anything, right? Looks like you were wrong.
And that still doesn't bother you? That people could be thrown into prison because they possess drawn lolicon which they claim is real child pornography (who the hell knows the definition of that anymore), even though no actual children are involved? And all of this sanctioned and approved by the constitutional last line of defense, the supreme court? Some wingbat can be convicted on child porn charges even though he never actually possessed any child porn?!?
Does that seem acceptable to you?
The point is, they can't. Re-read my quotes.
Do I dislike the fact that people who are "different" from normal society are imprisoned for victimless crimes, even if they're later found unconstitutional? Of course I do!
Still, the USSC's record on lolicon is exemplary compared to the DMCA, and the fact they kicked puritanical congressmen to the curb on such a publicly villified subject indicates there is some residue left of the spirit our forefathers forged into the constitution.
On the whole, minority opinion is still protected more now than it was before the nation was born.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
You also realize the Supreme Court upheld the pandering provision of the PROTECT Act and didn't overturn anything, right? Looks like you were wrong.
fine i'll reiterate the quote:
In May 2008, the Supreme Court, while ruling on the PROTECT ACT, ruled that the act cannot be used to punish persons who view or make virtual child porn, provided it is not promoted as actual child porn.
clearer now?
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I read the title and thought it meant that someone shouldn't have to decrypt HD video they paid for. Almost thought it was the end of the road for DRM! Damn!!
so do you.
There seemed to be some confusion on this, so i dug up on excerpt from the 2008 opinion. The mention is tangential, but significant:
[T]he dissent accuses us of silently overruling our prior decisions in Ferber and Free Speech Coalition. According to the dissent, Congress has made an end-run around the First Amendmentâ(TM)s protection of virtual child pornography by prohibiting proposals to transact in such images rather than prohibiting the images themselves. But an offer to provide or request to receive virtual child pornography is not prohibited by the statute. A crime is committed only when the speaker believes or intends the listener to believe that the subject of the proposed transaction depicts real children. It is simply not true that this means âoea protected category of expression [will] inevitably be suppressed.â Simulated child pornography will be as available as ever, so long as it is offered and sought as such, and not as real child pornography.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I think you giving up your balls is a win for all. Since you don't have the backbone to show who you are.
I'm guessing the guys password is "ilove2fuck_pre-teens"
Security is irrelevant. Citizenship is irrelevant. The only thing relevant here is "shall not", and for the Government those words drown out every other concern under the sun until they are rubbed out.
You say the border should be under the sole jurisdiction of Congress. That's all well and good. But Congress is under the jurisdiction of the people of the United States of America, who have set its boundary conditions, which include those enumerated in the Bill of Rights. It is thus impossible for Congress to have jurisdiction of anything without the Constitution as amended having jurisdiction of it; the Constitution as amended has jurisdiction over Congress. Since always.
Or do you argue that the border is outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Government entire? If so, I can accept that the rights as enumerated in the Constitution may not be protected by the anarchy present there. But then, at that moment of dissolution of the Federal Government's power, the laws of Congress cease to matter either, and your measures of security must be enforced by the barrel of a gun. At that moment, any action by the Government would be unilateral and outside its charter, and thus cease to be an act of the Government as instantiated and legitimized by the will of its citizens. At that moment, rights have nothing to do with it. Only might.
A is A. Either something is a right or it is not. And no-one should expect less privacy from an organization than the leader of that organization has deemed the minimum. Until that leader - until the people themselves - change their minds and in doing so change the charter, the Government is incapable of exceeding the boundary conditions specified there without ceasing to be the Government, ceasing to be legitimate, and sublimating back into the form of some thugs on the border, acting on their own whims, who'll let you through if you do as they tell you.
And if we find that this leaves a legitimate instantiation of the Government with insufficient power to protect us from our enemies, we must decide whether we value that protection over a bit of extra liberty on the border, and change the charter accordingly. Until then, we'll be protected only by an illegitimate Government, or illegitimate agents of the Government - and I'd rather be unsafe from outside than be guarded by false guards.
Sorry for making you read all of that. I'll shut up now. >_>
(rot13) rpbzbab@tznvy.pbz
First of all, let's stop pretending that this has anything at all to do with "child pornography".
I think he was "pretending" for reasons of satire, rather than to give you an opening to get up on a soapbox.
A ruling on the pandering aspect of the protect act from may of this year
Quote:
From the wikipedia entry on lolicon
The Department of Justice appealed the Eleventh Circuit's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case review docket is listed as 06-0694 and was scheduled for October 30, 2007 on the 2007-2008 schedule.[3] The Supreme Court heard arguments on the case and overturned the Eleventh Circuit's ruling 7-2 with Justices Souter and Ginsberg dissenting. The court stressed that virtual child pornography remained under the protection of the First Amendment, except when it was offered or solicited under the mistaken impression that actual children were depicted.[72]
In May 2008, the Supreme Court, while ruling on the PROTECT ACT, ruled that the act cannot be used to punish persons who view or make virtual child porn, provided it is not promoted as actual child porn
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
clearer now?
It's dicta, not a "ruling" or a holding. I'll repeat: the Supreme Court did not overturn any portion of the PROTECT Act. In fact, they overruled the 11th Circuit which had found the pandering provision to be unconstitutional.
My original point remains correct: you can draw an "obscene" picture of minors and go to prison for it in the United States. In fact, it's even worse than that.
You should read the whole opinion and pay particular attention to what the court is saying with the pandering provision. There doesn't need to be any actual child pornography involved for a person to be put in prison; they simply have to believe, and make another person believe, that they possess child pornography. You can't get much closer to thought crime than that.
You are consistently missing the point. I'll try to make this as simple as possible.
It used to be: possession of pornography involving children was illegal.
It is now: possession of anything which is claimed to be pornography involving children is illegal.
See the difference? Now insert virtual pornography into the new definition. Suddenly it's illegal. It's the same trick, i.e. making material not involving actual children illegal, with a new twist. Suddenly the burden is on the possessor/distributor to correctly describe material as not involving children, rather than on the government to prove that the material involves real children.
It would be easy would it not, to apply two passwords to any encrypted partition of the TrueCrypt type. A large file mounted as "Z" for example. One password would access the Z drive as the intended (eg 10GB drive). The other would access the Z drive as a fresh, possibly empty 10GB drive. A small change in the encryption technique or file system handling algorithm could render this whole discussion moot.
This will go the way of DVD encryption. Useless folly.
Encryption does pose a new situation which was unfathomable at the time the Fifth Amendment was drafted, and I can't believe no one is even considering this.
A big problem with forced self-incrimination is that you can torture someone into admitting to something they didn't do. But there is no such thing as a "false" encryption key. The question is "what is on this hard drive", and it is impossible for the defendant to give any untrue answer by providing an incorrect key.
Now, I'm just playing a little devil's advocate here, and I'm not trying to convince anyone that you should have to give up your encryption keys. But please, if you're going to participate in this argument, at least acknowledge that cryptography provides a unique characteristic to the requested information: it is verifiable. You have to have some appreciation, at least on a purely mathematical level, of how this is fundamentally different.
You are consistently missing the point. I'll try to make this as simple as possible.
It used to be: possession of pornography involving children was illegal.
It is now: possession of anything which is claimed to be pornography involving children is illegal.
See the difference? Now insert virtual pornography into the new definition. Suddenly it's illegal. It's the same trick, i.e. making material not involving actual children illegal, with a new twist. Suddenly the burden is on the possessor/distributor to correctly describe material as not involving children, rather than on the government to prove that the material involves real children.
I beg to differ.
The government would be hard pressed to prove "animation" as described elsewhere in this response column depicted real children.
You're not getting the bigger picture here.
What happened after the 2002 ruling killing off the "lolicon ban" clause, was that anyone accused of possessing digital kiddie porn was claiming it was CGI. They were winning those cases.
The ruling had tipped the balance in the opposite extreme, allowing the exploitation and abuse of real children to achieve legal profitability online through a technicality.
I agree this skirts a razor's edge, but every example of convictions on the wikipedia entry indicate there was real kiddie porn mixed in with the artistic works.
The indicator in this recent decision is clear:
if it's patently obvious the porn actually involved a real kid, you get your conviction.
BUTif you as the fed go "big brother" and start arresting anyone with obviously "virtual" material (this covers everything from ambiguously aged anime characters like washyuu in suggestive poses, to full on lolicon posted to 4chan), you will be spanked by the USSC.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Actually, you don't have to look far to see a way for the government to compel compliance -- the same legal concept that the IRS uses to compel tax filing. It has to do with who is in possession of the facts. The one who controls possession has to use them to counter allegations. If they take him to court with the hearsay testimony of the ones to saw the content on his machine, the judge may admit their testimony as evidence and the presumption would be that they were telling the truth. The onus would then be on the owner of the PC to unlock the machine to prove them wrong. If he refused, the jury could assume the worst.
If you don't believe this can happen, then you have never been to tax court.
Dictionary give only common usage, but mine says that "torture is the infliction of intense pain to coerce, punish or afford sadistic pleasure". It says nothing on whether the pain must leave permanent damage or not. So no matter how much Bush and co want to redefine water boarding and other niceties, it is by common usage of the definition *torture*. That they can get away with it and not much more American is not on the street protesting such a policy is beyond me.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Let's try to get this through your skull, because apparently you do not understand it.
In the United States, there are a couple of principles (among many) by which our law is supposed to operate:
(1) Lack of evidence does NOT constitute evidence. (aka "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence... or evidence of presence.")
(2) A person CANNOT be compelled to testify (speak) against himself.
(3) There are MANY legitimate reasons for people not wanting their personal effects (including computer files) rifled and savaged. YOU might not have experienced such, but our little set of American colonies had first-hand experience of what arbitrary search and seizure can do, not so many generations ago.
(4) A couple of barely-trained border guards who glimpsed some files in passing are hardly the most credible witnesses. ESPECIALLY if they were dumb enough to subsequently turn off the computer. If anything, the court should err on the side of caution, simply because the so-called witnesses are "authority figures" who demonstrated atrocious lack of judgment.
(5) See my mention above about the recent Supreme Court ruling. Simple verbal testimony, even from two "law enforcement" officers, has very little chance of ending in conviction in cases like this.
(6) It is the duty of the judge to inform the jury about the 5th Amendment, and that exercising one's 5th Amendment rights is NOT evidence of guilt! If the judge fails to do so, there are probably grounds for a mistrial, or at least appeal.
Numbers 2 and 3 are the most important of all these points. If we let those slide, as you would have us do, it would do tremendous damage our legal system. Of course, YOU don't seem to mind that, because you are innocent, right? But that is the point here: if we distort the law to imprison those we "know" to be criminals, the next thing you know, it is the innocent who go to prison. History has demonstrated this again and again.
Believe me, WE are not the ones here who are failing to understand!
The catch is that if he's NOT a pedometer he will give up his pvt PGP key. If he is a pedometrist he won't. Balls are a pinko herring, if you will. It's a well use legal technical, used as far as back as the Dark Ages, in what we now no as Persia.
> at least acknowledge that cryptography provides a unique characteristic to the requested
> information: it is verifiable.
Not really. Forget all this technowanking and keep focused on what is happening. If a court can't order somebody to turn over files from a computer because of encryption then the whole justice system is dead, it's every man for himself and we all better be stocking up on ammo and food because civilization won't last much longer because if "encryption" is the magic word stops any investigation then you won't believe how fast EVERY criminal will adopt it.
It's time for you kids to get a grip. When a judge signs an order for somebody to turn over documents you have to fork em over. Imagine if Microsoft had tried this guy's stunt. "Nope, we all put our emails on encrypted volumes. So we are taking the 5th and thus don't have to give you guys anything." After the judge stopped laughing his ass off he would toss their butts in the pokey. The courts don't and shouldn't care about the tech details; they order you to produce documents/files/physical evidence and you comply, if they happen to be on an encrypted volume you unlock it and dump the goddamned files out as ordered. If they are in a safe you open it. And if they are in a rented storage in another state you drive over there and get them because telling a judge anything other than "Yes your Honor." makes judges cranky.
Encryption stops people from snooping on your files, it doesn't stop a properly issued warrant. Just because one judge got it wrong doesn't mean it won't get sorted out higher up.
Democrat delenda est
Ok, lets just have a hypothetical here. Let's say that a police officer was driving by your home and looked in the window and say kiddy porn on the TV. He knocks on the door, you see him and quickly stash the kiddy porn in a nearly indestructible safe and hide the key.
If I'm not mistaken, the cop can call for backup, have the backup stay and watch you and the safe, go get a warrant, come back, and if you refuse to open the safe you are guilty of obstructing justice.
Why should an encrypted harddrive be any different? As far as I'm concerned, if the cops have a warrant, refusing to divulge the password is no different that refusing to let the cops into your house. The process of getting a warrant should be every bit as rigorous as any other warrant (well, at least any other warrant 7 years ago).
They should have to say what they are looking for, where they are looking, and why they have a reasonable suspicion that they will find it. If you don't trust the justice system that far, what difference does it make, they can already come search you, your car, and your house with this process, what makes a harddrive so significantly different?
How did you come by such a negative attitude?
Apologies, I am not trying to criticize... I was just wondering.
There have been a LOT of good court rulings recently. Sadly, some of them have been split decisions that were a bit too close for my taste... but they were good decisions nevertheless.
If that trend keeps up, then we aren't doing so badly, after all.
If you want to find some unique characteristics of the encryption find something else, not verifiability. First of all the encryption CAN be unverifiable (it is not in this particular case but it can be in general). For example with truecrypt hidden drives: if there's still free space on the encrypted drive you never know if there's another hidden volume. If you get 3 passwords from the defendant you still don't know if there's a forth password and so on.
So the encryption is not necessary verifiable.
It also goes the other way around: the information from the defender's brain is sometimes (probably more often than not if he's guilty) verifiable. "Where is the body?", "Where is the murder weapon?". This is usually verifiable information. Still you're not allowed to get it from the defendant unless he gives it voluntarily.
No, it really doesn't bother me. Doesn't make me sleep any better at night, mind you, but it doesn't really bother me, either.
It's an issue on which I am, essentially, totally ambivalent and if legal minds greater than mine care to duke it out one way or another, so be it.
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
The core of the 5th amendment is that you CAN NOT be required to make a sound, motion or issue any utterance during your trial.
You can plead the 5th and remain totally silent and you cannot be held in contempt for this unless you have voluntarily chosen to take the stand in your own defense and uttered an oath that you will tell the whole truth.
There simply is no way to compel someone to SAY something. It's not part of our legal system.
There is a BIG f*cking difference there,hoss. if you refuse to open a safe,then they can whip out a blowtorch. refuse to open the trunk,make a call to the locksmith. In this case it is them saying "Open this box so we can put you in jail forever,and if you don't we'll put you in jail forever." See how either way you go it ends with "put you in jail forever"? That was the WHOLE POINT of having the fifth,so we wouldn't be put in positions like that.
And do you think that,oh I don't know,they just happened to get lucky in finding a perv without the password? Do you honestly think they haven't run into this situation in the past with a drug runner or gun smuggler? Of course they have. They didn't try this sh*t because they knew it wouldn't fly. Pedo is the commie of the 21st century,don't you know that? Because they know they can pull sh*t that would get shut down with any other kind of criminal,but guys like you will yell "Get the pedo!" and let them do whatever they want to the perv.
I have a buddy in the state police and have helped him out from time to time. Believe me,these guys? not real hard to catch. They crave that nasty crap like I crave my first morning cigarette. Do you honestly think if they let this guy go that he will NEVER look at little kid pics again? Or that it would be hard to get a judge to sign off on monitoring his Internet connection based on the testimony of two border cops? Of course not,but that isn't what they want. A precedent doesn't have a "only useful on pedos" clause,and after FISA and warrantless wiretapping do you REALLY trust the bozos in power with even MORE?
I don't give a diddly damn if he has the greatest pervo collection in the entire history of pervs,forcing someone to give them the rope to hang them with is just wrong,which is why the founding fathers put the fifth in there in the first place. But go ahead,scream "get the pedo!" all you want, because with crap like the FBI setting up fake kiddie pron sites and not bothering to check referrers,all it takes is one rickroll and folks will be screaming for YOUR head on the pike. But as always this is my 02c,YMMV
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Let's leave the pedophile angle completely out of this for now because it really doesn't matter what the authorities think is stored inside an encrypted container. The principle is that you are allowed to keep secrets from the authorities and hang on to these. Any small breach is equivalent to a thought police and a big brother police state (in the making anyway).
The thing is - everything stored inside an encrypted container have to come from somewhere. The police can easily prove that someone downloaded pedophilia from a site whose logs they have. The culprit could have deleted (wiped) everything and still be convicted. So it's not like all cyber-pedophiles have a free run here. The police can still convict.
So let's rejoice that this judge was awake and didn't fall for the police-state-for-the-sake-of-the-children angle here. It's about the right to privacy, a right that should have been a central part of the human rights declaration since forever.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Judge is an idiot, not the point of the fith amendment. To protect you from FORCED FALSE testimony, that is why we have the fith ammendment. Testimony under duress was not to be trusted, and people could be forced (or even signatures forged) to sign confession documents that are false. When FALSE testimony can be ruled out, for example if the encryption key works or not,the fith ammendment should not apply. The Judicial branch is lucky the executive and legislative branch have not used a creative interpetation of "treason" to target activist judges.
What is your favorite kiddie porn website?
The best place to express your desires for pedo material.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Stick around and you'll get to see this dupe duped another three or four more times in the upcoming weeks and months.
And again welcome to the /. club.
That's / = slash and . = dot.
Hop on over to the FAQ list. There's a link to it next to the left-handed magnifying glass on the main page.
Damn, there goes my karma.
So how was your visit with the secret service?
There won't be one. Now that our beloved Internet gives assholes like him the ability to, well, spread their asshole essence, there simply aren't enough agents to check out every faux-brave attempt to poke the Secret Service in the eye. Even if someone here reported him, since it's a brief statement, they'd probably ignore it. They simply have too many other possible loonies to deal with. So the asshole up there gets think he's being courageous without consequence.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Border guards testify that they saw child pornography on the defendant's laptop
Law enforcement officials can view child porn without being law-enforced?
It's the Catholic Church and other organizations that dress up young girls in such hot outfits who are sick.
A plain white shirt and a plaid skirt going below the knees is hot? For who? Saudis?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
"Not so. Physical compliance is one thing. Compelling someone to speak is something entirely different."
Ah, but we're in new and evolving legal territory here, and that's why this could still be overturned. While the key to unlock the HD is memorized knowledge, and thus testimony, it's also a tool, just like a hardware key would be to open a physical lock. It is, in fact, a virtual key for a virtual lock, but the result is the same... a real safe, so to speak, containing real evidence. And there's a lot of precedent that computer and telecommunications equipment and code don't have the same kinds of Constitutional protections as other physical mediums. So things really could go either way on appeal.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
"First of all, let's stop pretending that this has anything at all to do with "child pornography"."
So lets get this straight... are you saying the border agents lied, and this is all a conspiracy?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Border guards testify that they saw child pornography on the defendant's laptop when the PC was on
wow, so cops testify that it's true? that's good enough for me!
So you're assuming cops are automatically liars? We all know cops are human too, and they haven't been perfect, but really, you automatically assume they're all corrupt?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
The reason to want to be anonymous is not cowardice.
You are right, there are sound reasons to be anonymous.
But cowardice is not the opposite of courage/bravery. Bravery is standing up to something, facing the consequences, and thinking that the consequences for one are worth the greater good. Courage is shitting in your pants but _still_ jumping in front of the bullet.
That's why I argumented that _real_ brave people do not hide behind anonymity.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
I guess it would be nice if there were 2 passwords associated with encryption. One to read it and one to totally scrog it. I know if I were carrying around dubious or secret information it would be handy. For every attack there is a defense. Then when confronted by a border nazi you just say my password is "destroy the contents of my drive".
The difference is that if you are put in jail for contempt you will be higher on the ranking scale in the jail than if you are put in jail for child pornography.
The difference is like between cleaning the toilet or being the toilet.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
http://boortz.com/mp3/archive/countdown.swf
Environmentalism is the new Victorianism. Everyone ties on a green corset and pretends we're virtuous.
The ruling had tipped the balance in the opposite extreme, allowing the exploitation and abuse of real children to achieve legal profitability online through a technicality.
In the latest SCOTUS case that we are referring to, US v. Williams, Souter mentions in his dissent that the government was unable to come up with one example of this actually occurring in the real world. It's a scare tactic Congress used to expand the definition of child pornography. In Souters own words:
You're stilling missing the point about the pandering provision of the PROTECT Act. The pandering provision states that if you believe, or intend to make another believe that you possess child pornography, even if you do not possess that child pornography, or if its fake or virtual or nonexistent you violate federal law (I believe with a mandatory minimum of five years). Whether or not there are real child involved is irrelevant. US v. Williams was about the pandering provision of the PROTECT Act, and the court upheld it.
Seriously, read the case, or at least a summary.
They can get a warrant to search the safe or car trunk, but, you are under no obligation to help them. They might have to crack the safe or pry open the trunk themselves....same situation here, the person shouldn't have to aid the cops in evidence discovery, let them crack it themselves.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Yeah. Next you know, if you try to rob a bank but only get monopoly money, you'll still get punished.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
It's unfortunate that our champion in upholding our constitutional rights watches child porn. Even if he wins there's a push in the public sentiment that our rights only protect the guilty and perverted.
Seems like the same concept should apply here. You have a repository for storing things that is protected by a lock and key. Now, clearly they can get a warrant to open the safe by force, but that isn't always feasible when it comes to encryption. When it comes to a physical lock and key, can they compel you to cough up the key?
A question for those familiar with the E U: can someone get in trouble if he still has explicit pictures of his high school sweetheart?
A conviction is still likely because prosecutors have the testimony of the two border guards who saw the drive while it was open Not that I am trying to defend anyone who abuses children but how the hell can the convict him on just the testimony of 2 witnesses? Don't you need more credible evidence then "I saw some chick that looked like she could be 13 on his computer". I mean what if she is one of those models from one of those sites that is meant to depict someone that just LOOKS young or something like that. What kind of jury would convict a person just cause a cop said so. I may hate them but I understand the need for some sort of law enforcement, however, I don't believe they should be able to convict on just their word. Even when they try to plant drugs on people at least they have the physical drugs. Corrupt System
There simply is no way to compel someone to SAY something. It's not part of our legal system.
Actually there is. If they give you immunity from prosecution you can't remain silent and refuse to answer questions.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Truecrypt lets you have a hidden OS on your machine, meaning even if you are forced to give up the key you can just give them a "safe" one to an OS with a bit of random (legal) porn on it, and keep the real one secret. No way to prove there is a hidden OS, and you now have proof that your PC does not in fact have any child porn on it.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Moving on, I see you are pretty fast off the mark to assume these officers are both "badly-trained" and "dumb" - do you have any proof that this is true? Are you letting your dislike for authority figures, as demonstrated in points (4) and (5), get the better of you? You seem willing to give the accused the benefit of the doubt, why not leave a little for the working men here?
Lastly, your point (6) is again not here nor previously disputed, so why make it?
I'll even tack on a quibble to a different post of yours - could you explain to me how a picture that may or may not contain a depiction of child-porn is "electronic communication"? If this were a physical document, would it be less protected somehow? Why?
Here's what I think - the judge should allow the officers to testify, and the accused's lawyer should argue about their qualifications, just like in every other case of law. If the accused refuses to provide access to the disputed item, the judge should (and please do correct me if this is where I went astray) be able to lock him up for contempt, NOT child porn. The child porn case can be adjudicated with or without the actual picture, and his refusal to allow its viewing IS germane to the jury, even though it is completely legal. Reasonable doubt works both ways, doesn't it?
I eagerly await your response. It's funny - your jaundiced view of the law enforcement community is matched rather completely by my none-too-thrilled view of our justice system.
Hmmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
So here's an idea. Make your passphrase an admission of guilt (plus something else of course). Let's say you've got an encrypted partition full of stolen movies. You set your passphrase to "I swear I am guilty of copyright infringement and my password is blah" (or something like that). So then when they tell you to cough it up, you argue it contains an admission of guilt and you can't be forced to give it up without immunity.
Obviously IANAL but I'm curious what would happen.
I realize some people have great faith in their technology to find the solution here, one will find the traditionalist will get the answer a lot faster than the technologist. Torture has and always will be a great solution to finding stuff out without doing a whole lot of work.
Water Boarding vs Prison, most people would take prison.
Internet Retail spaces are wonderful. Get over it!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865/
This is the same reasoning allowing searches at airports and field sobriety tests after having been stopped by the police.
Which are also crap.
Let's put this another way - how can a US Citizen re-enter the country without having his civil rights violated?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
More likely the judge would just throw that information out as evidence.
If he has it, sure. But if you tell the judge, "Your honor, my passphrase is a confession of a crime I committed," can he then compel you to reveal it?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I would encourage you and anyone else who has 2 whits about him or her to go to CNN's website and vote in the poll on the right side of the main page. I would also encourage you to comment on the article that goes with the story. Personally I will not send my future kids to a school that coddles my kids and puts them in time out. If they teacher or school administration can tan my kid's ass then I'll find some place that can and will. George Carlin summed it up best when he referred to this sissy-nanny society that we've become as the "Pussification of America". That's exactly what we've become. A bunch of damn pansies (not referring to homosexuals, so don't take it that way) who can't do anything for themselves. I swear, kids today have never even got dirt on their shoes, scrapped their knees or fell out of a tree! Wusses.
Well.
The very first thing you are told when you are arrested is:
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT.
And this is a fact you simply can't escape. That's how things work here.
You can be physically strapped to a table and cavity searched for weapons, but you cannot be compelled to speak.
Period.
Big difference, but nice try on the crappy analogy.
There simply is no way to compel someone to SAY something. It's not part of our legal system.
Actually there is. If they give you immunity from prosecution you can't remain silent and refuse to answer questions.
Actually, even immunity cannot compel you to testify. But if evidence is found that proves that you are complicit in said crime, you could be charged with obstruction of justice. Still, they cannot MAKE you talk.
Yeah, they can do that stuff you mentioned (IF they get a warrant, otherwise it's inadmissible and it doesn't matter if they have it because they can't use it), but you cannot be compelled to help them open it. Again, you completely miss the point.
Hey, Jane, you seem to accept completely the notion that the accused is a lily-white innocent because his case matches your preconceptions of good legal practice whilst simultaneously imputing stupidity/ignorance/etc to those on the other side of the case - were you just all out of "benefit-of-the-doubt" when you replied above? Could those folks be capable observers without an axe to grind, or is that just too impossible to believe?
I know I'm probably in the minority here when I say that I have worked with a number of law enforcement folks who were individually and collectively moderate and intelligent people, rather than the jack-booted thugs so often described. In my admittedly anecdotal experience, the @$$-holes are the exception, not the rule, just like in every other social setting including this one.
Hmmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.