Is This Legal ?

[Lewis]

A judge on Monday ordered a Colorado woman to decrypt her laptop computer so prosecutors can use the files against her in a criminal case. The defendant, accused of bank fraud, had unsuccessfully argued that being forced to do so violates the Fifth Amendment's protection against compelled self-incrimination.
"I conclude that the Fifth Amendment is not implicated by requiring production of the unencrypted contents of the Toshiba Satellite M305 laptop computer," Colorado U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn ruled Monday (.pdf).
The authorities seized the laptop from defendant Ramona Fricosu in 2010 with a court warrant while investigating financial fraud.
The case is being closely watched (.pdf) by civil rights groups, as the issue has never been squarely weighed in on by the Supreme Court.
Full disk encryption is an option built into the latest flavors of Windows, Mac OS and Linux, and well-designed encryption protocols used with a long passphrase can take decades to break, even with massive computing power.
The government had argued that there was no Fifth Amendment breach, and that it might "require significant resources and may harm the subject computer" if the authorities tried to crack the encryption.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Patricia Davies said in a court filing (.pdf) that if Judge Blackburn did not rule against the woman, that would amount to "a concession to her and potential criminals (be it in child exploitation, national security, terrorism, financial crimes or drug trafficking cases) that encrypting all inculpatory digital evidence will serve to defeat the efforts of law enforcement officers to obtain such evidence through judicially authorized search warrants, and thus make their prosecution impossible."
A factually similar dispute involving child pornography ended with a Vermont federal judge ordering the defendant to decrypt the hard drive of his laptop.
While that case never reached the Supreme Court, it differed from the Fricosu matter because U.S. border agents already knew there was child porn on the computer because they saw it while the computer was running during a 2006 routine stop along the Canadian border.
The judge in the Colorado case said there was plenty of evidence — a jailhouse recording of the defendant — that the laptop might contain information the authorities were seeking.
The judge ordered Fricosu to surrender an unencrypted hard drive by February 21. The judge added that the government is precluded "from using Ms. Fricosu's act of production of the unencrypted hard drive against her in any prosecution."
CNN

 

[Hitch]

After due process the prosecution may search/seize hidden papers and effects. I dont see how this order is fundamentally different from a judge ordering a defendant to open a locked file cabinet. Even if the files contained were personally written by the accused.

 

[WIP]

I wonder....the court may issue a warrant to search for hand-written documents and once found use them but can the court order a person to unlock a file cabinet to produce those documents to be used against them?

Likewise, the court may issue a warrant to seize a person's computer but can the court order the defendant to open the computer files or is it the prosecution's responsibility to gain access to those files?

 

[tim-from-pa]

I'm no legal expert, but my gut logic says that once the government seizes something, then they are in TOTAL control over that as evidence, i.e. a person has no right to interfere. So whether it would be positive or negative, I don't see why she should help them encrypt something any more than she should hinder any research. In other words, she's out of the equation. It works both ways.

If they are not smart enough to do it themselves, then they have to look for other evidence.

But then again, this generation has a crooked way of interpreting things, and will interpret the law and constitution to fit their notions so that it sounds "reasonable". If I were that woman, I'd tell them to shove it. I'm wondering what law she is breaking if she turned the files over? That's not her problem if they can't speak English so-to-speak and understand them.

 

[John 8:32]

Since when did it matter to the government whether it is legal or not? They will do what they will.

 

[th1b.taylor]

I´m just a lowly computer enthusiast and a Christian to boot but I do not see this as being positive. She is likely a criminal but this sets a rule of thumb that can be so bad.

 

[Sparkey]

Six computers were seized. Only one, the Toshiba "Satellite M305", was password encrypted by PGP (Pretty Good Protection) software. The federal agents, who acted within their authority to seize all the computers, have been able to access the other 5 confiscated computers but the privacy software installed on one of the computers has so far prevented the agents from being able to decrypt it.

The Fifth Amendment doesn't specifically deal with "password protected computers," of course, but what it does say, in essence, is that no person shall be compelled to provide testimony against themselves. The courts have ruled that people on trial can not be forced to reveal the contents of their mind, for instance.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

Much of what has become our "constitutional right" under the 5th Amendment has done so under case law, where principles are expressed for the first time in various court decisions.

We're dealing with lawyers here and they have defined the problem and how it works under the 5th Amendment. Part of the problem is that the very act of producing damning documents is that the defendant (by doing so) acknowledges that they exist. Here though, the defendant is protected from that implication -- and has been given immunity from the "act of production." In essence, the computer is expected to give evidence against her, not the defendant herself. The Prosecution has been ordered to provide her with a copy of the encrypted hard drive and she has been ordered to provide them, in return, an unencrypted version of it.

Well, that's my take on it. The court order requires compliance by the prosecution by February 6th and 15 days later the unencrypted contents are to be returned. I think that she will have to comply.

 

[Former Christian]

Originally Posted by Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

The person in question is asked to be a witness against herself. That is against the Law. The Law of the constitution. Plain and simple. But it's the Judicial system that says what that Law means to any current situation. What we think about their decisions has no bearing on the case. The defendant will be required to act against her own best interests, against the Law. The Law of the Constitution. For the one who is having her do so is in reality the Law. Not the Constitution.

It's a lot like another situation all Christians are familiar with.

FC

 

[tim-from-pa]

I find it humorous, in a twisted way, that the government, in their unmitigated arrogance wants to "seize" her computers and then these characters on their legal high-horses actually admit they do not know how to decipher the coveted files. This is a "first" for a government so full of themselves that they actually admit they don't know something. I thought they impressed upon us they know everything. Freakin' incredible.

 

[Sparkey]

The person in question is asked to be a witness against herself. That is against the Law.
...
FC

So, if you had a weapon that you used to murder your neighbor with and you kept it in a locker under your bed, along with a locked diary that had notes about your plans to kill your neighbor --- and you were arrested and the police had proper warrants to collect the evidence -- would this be illegal or unconstitutional search and seizure?

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself

You don't have to testify but evidence is evidence. Being told to produce the key is not an infringement of your constitutional rights -- same with computer files -- she isn't being made to give testimony against herself, but only being forced to produce they "key" that unlocks evidence already in the state's possession.

According to the ruling:

The day following the execution of the search warrant, Mr. Whatcott called Ms. Fricosu from the Four Mile Correctional Center.
Their conversation was recorded.
During that call, the following relevant exchange occurred:

Ramona: Oh so anyway, earlier we were talking about that lawyer thing
Scott: Yes​

Ramona: So um, in a way I want them to find it

Scott: OK
Ramona: in a way I don’t just for the hell of it
Scott: OK
. . . .
Ramona: Ookay (pause) uhm in a way I want them to find it
Scott: Mm-hmm
Ramona: and uhm because they will have to ask for my help uhm and in another way I don’t want them to find it let them let them work for it

__________________________________________

Even the defendant knows she's not being forced to give testimony against herself, it's just an attempt to forestall the inevitable, right?​

 

[tim-from-pa]

Six computers were seized. Only one, the Toshiba "Satellite M305", was password encrypted by PGP (Pretty Good Protection) software. The federal agents, who acted within their authority to seize all the computers, have been able to access the other 5 confiscated computers but the privacy software installed on one of the computers has so far prevented the agents from being able to decrypt it.

The Fifth Amendment doesn't specifically deal with "password protected computers," of course, but what it does say, in essence, is that no person shall be compelled to provide testimony against themselves. The courts have ruled that people on trial can not be forced to reveal the contents of their mind, for instance.



Much of what has become our "constitutional right" under the 5th Amendment has done so under case law, where principles are expressed for the first time in various court decisions.

We're dealing with lawyers here and they have defined the problem and how it works under the 5th Amendment. Part of the problem is that the very act of producing damning documents is that the defendant (by doing so) acknowledges that they exist. Here though, the defendant is protected from that implication -- and has been given immunity from the "act of production." In essence, the computer is expected to give evidence against her, not the defendant herself. The Prosecution has been ordered to provide her with a copy of the encrypted hard drive and she has been ordered to provide them, in return, an unencrypted version of it.

Well, that's my take on it. The court order requires compliance by the prosecution by February 6th and 15 days later the unencrypted contents are to be returned. I think that she will have to comply.

So, you are saying that the government, the all knowing government, is too stupid to take the evidence it seized and needs that key? "Pardon us, but we don't say you have to help us to kill yourself, but supply the bullets please for us to shoot you. After all, you are not doing it, we are." :o

incredible. The Antichrist won't have any trouble deceiving some "Christians".

They're probably mad because I heard the lady uses Linux. They expect all us sheeple to use Microsnitch, which is the same OS that gets "viruses" only because the the OS created a back door for them and all the government to spy on people and the virus writers use that feature to do the same and infect computers. Linux does not get viruses and that only infuriated the government goons and gorillas because they can't decipher it.

 

[Sparkey]

So, you are saying...

:bigfrown NO! That's what I said and you know it.

What I said was that Amendment V privilege protects a person only
against being incriminated by his/her own compelled testimonial communications.

 

[jasoncran]

tim the ac is a spirit and has been on this earth since the cross.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

tim the ac is a spirit and has been on this earth since the cross.

While it is true that the spirit of antichrist is, and has been, in the world, the spirit of antichrist is also very clearly manifested in a man:

"...that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God." (2 Thess. 2:3-4 NIV1984)

Which as of the time of Paul's letter had not happened yet.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Linux does not get viruses and that only infuriated the government goons and gorillas because they can't decipher it.

Linux is open source. Maybe it's more accurate to say that since it is open source no one can exploit it easily.

It's like a group of people writing a letter together and being able to see exactly what has been written, and by whom. Then if someone comes along and inserts a rouge paragraph here or there through another letter it can more easily be identified as not belonging to the original script.

 

[Sparkey]

Are there now three topics in this thread?
totopic Right?

 

[jasoncran]

While it is true that the spirit of antichrist is, and has been, in the world, the spirit of antichrist is also very clearly manifested in a man:

"...that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God." (2 Thess. 2:3-4 NIV1984)

Which as of the time of Paul's letter had not happened yet.

yet it did happen in ad 70.

the problem is that needs a modern temple to be such, but we digress.