Judge: Americans can be forced to decrypt their laptops [telecom]

[CNET]

Judge: Americans can be forced to decrypt their laptops

American citizens can be ordered to decrypt their PGP-scrambled hard drives for police to peruse for incriminating files, a federal judge in Colorado ruled today in what could become a precedent-setting case.

Judge Robert Blackburn ordered a Peyton, Colo., woman to decrypt the hard drive of a Toshiba laptop computer no later than February 21--or face the consequences including contempt of court.

Blackburn, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled that the Fifth Amendment posed no barrier to his decryption order. The Fifth Amendment says that nobody may be "compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," which has become known as the right to avoid self-incrimination.

"I find and conclude that the Fifth Amendment is not implicated by requiring production of the unencrypted contents of the Toshiba Satellite M305 laptop computer," Blackburn wrote in a 10-page opinion today. He said the All Writs Act, which dates back to 1789 and has been used to require telephone companies to aid in surveillance, could be invoked in forcing decryption of hard drives as well. ----

formatting link
may be power, but communications is the key snipped-for-privacy@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

Reply to
danny burstein
Loading thread data ...

As they say, the devil is in the details. In this particular case, those details very substantially change the situation:

a) The woman was granted immunity from prosecution, b) The cops can't use anything they find against the woman.

see:

formatting link
I am no lawyer, but I think when a witness is given immunity and 'use' protection, they _can_ be compelled to testify (I've read of cases where a witness was jailed for contempt for refusing to testify). Since their testimony could not result in their prosecution, there is no self-incrimination involved.

I don't necessarily agree with this. The constitutional protections were put in place to guard against overzealous prosecutors, which I can't help but wonder is the situation here.

Another issue with "self-incrimination" is that while testifying may not result in one's own 'prosecution', it could still result in great harm, such as from loss of employment or business customers and community hostility.

Reply to
HAncock4

............

I do find it a little puzzling that a legal precedent used for telecommunications has now been applied to a data storage device.

Can anyone enlighten us as to the rationale behind this?

Reply to
David Clayton

Not true, and the article you quote was very poorly written and misleading.

The immunity they granted was immunity for the act of providing the key, but none for the data that the key decodes. See the actual decision at

formatting link
page 11, section C.

Reply to
Ron

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.