Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Appeals Court Upholds Suspect's Right To Refuse Decryption

Posted by Soulskill on from the still-vulnerable-to-$5-wrench-decryption dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has found that forcing a suspect to decrypt his hard drive when the government did not already know what it contained would violate his 5th Amendment rights. According to Orin Kerr of the Volohk Conspiracy, 'the court's analysis (PDF) isn't inconsistent with Boucher and Fricosu, the two district court cases on 5th Amendment limits on decryption. In both of those prior cases, the district courts merely held on the facts of the case that the testimony was a foregone conclusion.'"

10 of 358 comments (clear)

  1. Only when they don't already know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why only if the government doesn't already know what it contains? Does that mean that they can force you when they already know what it contains?

    That doesn't make sense to me.

    1. Re:Only when they don't already know? by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sounds great, I'll support that as soon as they put a penalty for the law enforcement being wrong.

      This is the problem, they CAN go on fishing expeditions without any recourse. They can smash down a door and kill the family dog on accident and the family does not get all damages covered, they get told "sucks to be you"

      As soon as I get to sue the Cops that did the deed and the city department for all damages and legal costs I'll support that warrants are legitimate.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:Only when they don't already know? by demonlapin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As I understand it, the primary distinction is that giving the government the key to a locked door in your home can be compelled, because it's a locked door in your home - it's entirely reasonable to expect you to have control of that door. But forcing you to give the government the combination to a safe is forcing your testimony, as it's only in your mind, not a physical object, and thus can't be required. (The law rapidly becomes murky as hell to me once you get beyond these statements, and IANAL, so I won't say more.)

    3. Re:Only when they don't already know? by Jessified · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The key is in your mind, and you have to make words to give it to others. It's not entirely the same.

      But let's assume you can be compelled, whether they know what's in the container or not. I have been trying to think about ways to get around this. From an academic point of view of course :P

      What if the pass key itself was incriminating (i.e. "I killed a guy in 1994 and his body is under the bridge.")? Could you plead the 5th? Might be a bit of a risk. (I mean...killing is bad.)

      Truecrypt allows the plausible deniability with the drive in a drive. Give them the wrong code and it opens a second container with something more innocuous in it. For those who are actually afraid of giving in (to torture? desperation?) the under duress password could have the function of changing the real password to 500 random characters, thereby making it permanently inaccessible to anyone.

      Another idea is to have a daily or weekly maintenance password. That is, you are required to type in a password once a day or once a week, and if you don't, the passkey changes to some random 500 characters and is permanently inaccessible. If your stuff is seized or you are arrested, all you have to do is sit back and relax. While I am sure it would be a problem for you to go around actively destroying evidence, I'm curious to see if you get in trouble for this. First of all, you aren't destroying evidence per se, rather it is being rendered inaccessible (automatically I might add). Second, while you can't actively destroy evidence, can you get in trouble for not actively preserving it for the authorities?

    4. Re:Only when they don't already know? by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 5, Interesting

      All cynicism aside, we as a People need to find a way to allow the government to prosecute real criminals but also protect John Q. Citizen.

      In all seriousness, as soon as the government starts making a distinction between real criminals and John Q. Citizen we can start letting our guards down on this but until then we should always err on the side of less power and intrusion.

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    5. Re:Only when they don't already know? by __aajgon4133 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've been a court reporter for a few years now. I'm in court pretty much all day, every day.

      Our judge is better than most. We certainly don't have a bible in the courtroom and every witness is asked "Do you swear or affirm under penalties for perjury that the testimony you are about to give..." before testifying. I'd say one in twenty people specify that they specifically affirm even though the question is deliberately phrased so that they don't have to specify. I like those people.

      If it were up to me, any testimony given by someone who professes to believe in supernatural beings by taking a religious oath should be treated as suspect; they've already demonstrated their willingness to put hearsay first.

      No argument there.

  2. What I want to know by medcalf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What encryption product was used? It sounds like it is doing its job.

    --
    -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
  3. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals by wcrowe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What I find heartening is that this is the 11th Circuit Court (Alabama, Georgia, Florida) -- i.e., not a court known for "wacky" decisions. If it were the 9th Circuit I would be more worried that this fight isn't over.

    I particularly liked how the court used the government's own analogy of a combination to a safe to make their ruling. The ruling explained that the Truecrypt software shows random characters even if nothing exists on the hard drive, so if the hard drive is like a safe -- as the government contends -- then it can be full of incriminating evidence, or completely empty. There is no way for the government to know without opening the safe. Therefore the government cannot use the argument that the evidence was a foregone conclusion. Additionally, the court (thankfully) acknowledged that just because the defendant owns a safe, is not an indication that any criminal activity is going on. The ruling both turned the government's analogy on its head, and revealed that the court has a fairly good understanding of the technology.

     

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
  4. Re:Did the submitter not read the article...? by Rogerborg · · Score: 1, Interesting

    And Slashdot hits a new low, somewhere in the slime below the bottom of the scraped out barrel.

    Sure, most of the time the summary is just biased, misleading, or inaccurate. But to boldly claim the exact opposite of the clear headline and content of linked article? Jesus wept.

    I know there's no real pretence that the "editors" are anything other than Malda's old college drinking buddies - or the very small shell scripts that they wrote a decade ago - but either way, "Soulskill" needs to be sacked or re-written.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  5. Simple: the data no longer exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Posting AC, but there's one simple difference:

    With a safe, if it's locked, the contents still exist.

    If I encrypt a disk, the original data quite literally no longer exists. The encrypted disk is not a "container" for my data -- it is a completely different set of data.

    The original data can only be recreated on cue if I supply my encryption passphrase. Therefore, by supplying the passphrase I am creating or assisting in the creation of evidence against me. I'm pretty sure the Fifth Amendment has something to say about being forced to do that.