21–30 of 128 posts
We saw the same thing with the Patriot Act..do not have proper staff? than by God make sure that the US constitution suddenly does not apply if traveling outside the US..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." -- H.L.Mencken
Yeah... no. There's a line, and past that line, law enforcement has no power to enforce laws at all. Removing the DOJ's ability to collect evidence is, in some cases, the equivalent to denying a detective access to a crime scene. If all productions of electronic evidence can be encrypted, and the defense is not forced to decrypt those files, then dirty corporations only need to encrypt everything to defend themselves…
Passwords to encrypted containers are slightly different - they're not as simple as a key to a safe, and not as obviously protected as my above (contrived) example. However, the same problem exists. If I compel you to decrypt an encrypted volume, and you don't actually have the password (i.e. it's a friends', or whatever), then it's similar enough to the example above.
I'm not a lawyer, nor am I well-versed in law. But I know enough to say that it's not nearly as cut-and-dried as some people think.
The truly interesting bit, will be when a case of (real or alleged) multiple hidden encrypted volumes is publicized. If the government feels the information they want is on a laptop, the laptop's owner would suddenly find themselves forced to prove a negative (there are no more hidden volumes), lest they be held in contempt. If they can seemingly compel you to reveal something they can't proven even exists and lock y…
US v Hubbell makes clear that the government cannot compel production of documents (except under immunity to prosecution) which it does not know, ahead of time, to exist.
What happens to her if she doesn't know the password?
An obstruction of justice charge, probably. Here's a pretty decent page about the charge: http://www.federalcriminallawyer.us/2011/01/12/federal-law-o... tl;dr: "18 USC 1503 is a felony offense for which the sentence can be 10 years imprisonment."
What if she actually doesn't know the password? For example if it isn't her laptop or the password was written down and lost or it is an old encrypted volume which she doesn't use anymore, etc.
I believe this is enough to get protection under 5th amendment. Giving password or providing decrypted content is already testimony against yourself saying that you control these files..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An obstruction of justice charge, probably. Here's a pretty decent page about the charge: http://www.federalcriminallawyer.us/2011/01/12/federal-law-o... tl;dr: "18 USC 1503 is a felony offense for which the sentence can be 10 years imprisonment."
That seems to be imply that she is lying, though. What if she actually doesn't know the password? For example if it isn't her laptop or the password was written down and lost or it is an old encrypted volume which she doesn't use anymore, etc.
I wonder if anyone has thought of using more than one keys as a decryption possibility. I've always considered it, but never figured there'd be too much use. Say, have one correct key to decrypts data stored in one way, and another key to either "decrypts" into a pre-generated text, or another variation of what's stored. I guess it latter might be too content dependent.