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.
"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
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!
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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).
Considering that the constitution provides that he shouldn't be forced to incriminate himself, it is definitely good news that the Judge didn't try to rewrite the constitution. It's high time that we start holding the judges who disagree with this concept accountable.
Good things like this only happen to bad guys because that's where the infringement on rights starts. You don't infringe a soccer mom's right to privacy, you infringe the creepy mexican guy who likes to watch child pornography. Once his rights are infringed and the courts have set a precedence, then you can infringe the soccer mom's rights all you want, it's now legal! Defending society's rights requires defending them for every member, the scum included.
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
You'd probably get thrown in jail for that, and it'll probably stick. Refusing to divulge your passphrase is protected by the Fifth Amendment, but if you give them a self-destruct phrase and tell them it's the passphrase, you have just destroyed potential evidence that is in their possession, and I'd be surprised indeed if that is not against one or more laws.
First of all, let's stop pretending that this has anything at all to do with "child pornography".
The justice department was just trying to get some case law saying an individual could be forced to relinquish his password, and by using "child pornography" they thought they could bully some judge into betraying the Constitution. It's a good sign that those sons of bitches lost, too.
And ultimately, torture doesn't work. Eventually, a society that violates basic human rights so blatantly will fall, and often (but not always) the perpetrators end up on the other end of the see-saw. Then, it becomes harder to find people who will obey orders to torture. We in America will eventually learn that it was a huge mistake to forsake our principles and become a torture regime. But, I can only hope that Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez and others will face the music. There's no guarantee that justice moves quickly enough to give that kind of satisfaction. But move it does - and inexorably.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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
I fail to understand how a court can't order the asshole to produce the data.
Because the data is in his head, not on a physical document. If he had written it down the court could order him to hand over the hardcopy. But if they could order him to divulge the contents of his memory to be used as evidence against him they could do it, not just for passwords, but for anything else. (Like: "Did you kill Jane Doe?") The famous part of the 5th Amendment expressly prohibits that.
What would "enforcing" such an order consist of? Torture. That's WHY it's prohibited.
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.
It's not up to the defendant in a criminal case to prove his innocence. It's up to the prosecution to prove his guilt. Are the officers such experts in video synthesis and manipulation that they can determine, at a glance, that the images were of actual children? No? Tough luck. If that's all they have I'd expect the judge to direct the verdict or throw it out for lack of evidence.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
First of all, let's stop pretending that this has anything at all to do with "child pornography".
Thank you Pope Ratzo!
Any time the government wants to remove one more right from you, the test case will always be a charge of child pornography or terrorism. But it's not like the precdent will be "only for accused terrorists" - it will be used for anyone. Even if it were, accusing your political opponents of being pedophiles or terrorists in order to use the "special case" laws against them has been done throughout recorded history. It's not exactly hard to put encrypted child porn on a seized laptop after the fact, if you're willing to break a law to get a conviction!
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The US "doesn't torture" only because it asserts that it doesn't. It also asserts that inflicting pain would not be considered torture unless it caused "death, organ failure or permanent damage."
Even the current Republican presidential candidate, John McCain, considers waterboarding to be torture, saying, "it was used in the Spanish Inquisition, it was used in Pol Potâ(TM)s genocide in Cambodia, and there are reports that it is being used against Buddhist monks today."
Besides, many consider any form of pain compliance, for forced information extraction, to be torture. Waterboarding is essentially forced drowning with a medic in attendance, to revive the "patient" in case his/her vitals falter.
O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
The reason to want to be anonymous is not cowardice. The reason is that the repercussions are not acceptable.
This myth was dispelled long ago, one example is gorilla warfare. Europeans thought it cowardly to hide from your opponents instead of facing them openly on a field of battle. It wasn't cowardly, it was tactically sound.
The same is true of avoiding prosecution by unjust government and preventing those whom you are criticizing from discovering your loved ones.
The difference between the AC and the non-AC? The AC legitimately believes there are people out there fear. The non-AC just likes to talk conspiracies.
Personally, I just think our government lacks the resources to track individual slashdot posters on a routine basis... so far.
I'm going to kill the president.
My other car is first.
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
"Eventually, a society that violates basic human rights so blatantly will fall..."
Historically speaking, the societies that have violated basic human rights lasted far longer than those that did not.
A state run society may be bad for an individual, but it's often pretty good for the stability of the society as a whole.
The president of what?
Well there's your problem. You used an amateur. Try getting a professional to do it. I guarantee you'll change your opinion.
May I speak for all of us when I say "We wish you the best of luck!"
zosxavius photography
I find it sad that most everyone discussing this topic feels compelled to add in a condemnation the pornographers as if otherwise people would suspect them of being one. We can discuss murder and other heinous crimes without needing a disclaimer.
Not that I'm defending child pornographers in any way.
Waterboarding's not so fucking bad, eh? Then why is the US even using it? And if amateur/non-hardened terrorist types like you and your buddies are able to easily withstand it, then what good is it as a form of torture? (Note that John McCain flip-flopped and voted *for* waterboarding even after he denounced it.)
Regardless, torture is considered a lossy means of extracting information from interrogation subjects. Because with the threat of imminent death (e.g. repeated waterboardings, with the drowning response telling your body that you're about to die), you'll do anything to save your life, won't you? Like making shit up. (Of course, making shit up is just what the US did to get us into the Iraq war in the first place.)
I'd be unsurprised to learn that waterboarding is a kind of red herring - there are many far more simple, painful and damaging techniques that our rendition and torture outsource partners (and let us not forget contractors) are all too willing to employ. That's what you can do when you partner with dictatorships in a war on terror.
O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
I fail to understand how a court can't order the asshole to produce the data.
They can and they did. They have physical custody of the hard disk on the laptop, and it's been examined with a fine-toothed comb. They've had the data to do whatever they want with it. The fact that the data is not in a form useful to the government's case is not the defendant's problem. Compelling the defendant to provide testimony to *make* it useful to the government is a breach of his Fifth Amendment rights.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
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.
They tell you that, but in actual fact it's closer to having to prove you guilty of being suspected of ...something. Then your entire life is put under the microscope until they find some evidence (real or circumstantial) of some level of wrongdoing which then gives them the mandate to lock you up until they can find/misinterpret something to keep you pretty much indefinately.
Oh wait, you were talking about the US, not the UK. I'm sure that your law enforcement agencies are far more responsible and less petty than ours. I mean we can't both be ruled by security services that act like playground bullies can we?
'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
I disagree, Mr. President.
You are welcome on my lawn.