4th Amendment + 5th Amendment (? maybe?) nonsense
by
, 12-04-2012 at 07:21 PM (10205 Views)
I'm asking the person to give me an online source so I can edit it in - but this story is probably all over USA In various fashion:
"In the US, there is a case in the courts right now. A border agent observed a US citizen viewing CP on his laptop. The cop took his computer and arrested him. But, he shut down the computer. When the cops restarted it, they learned that the files were PGP encrypted. Now, prosecutors want to force the defendant to turn over his passphrase."
Confiscating property is something the police often does, but self incriminating acts like giving away your password or encryption keys / algorithms is another thing altogether. I strongly believe that such actions should be protected by 'the constitution' (whatever that is) and that Police cannot force a person (by threatening punishment for non compliance) to incriminate themselves.
You got the hard drive. You can't prove anything. Let him go.
U mad?
Summon Raistlin. He'll agree with me (but say it more coherently)
edit: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Boucher[/url]
it looks like he gave his key away. Bah. I'm upset now. And the rest, as I am not a lawyer, is layperson babbling:
[q]Boucher accessed the Z drive of his laptop at the ICE agent's request. The ICE agent viewed the contents of some of the Z drive's files, and ascertained that they may consist of images or videos of child pornography. The Government thus knows of the existence and location of the Z drive and its files. Again providing access to the unencrypted Z drive 'adds little or nothing to the sum total of the Government's information about the existence and location of files that may contain incriminating information. Fisher, 425 U.S. at 411. Boucher's act of producing an unencrypted version of the Z drive likewise is not necessary to authenticate it. He has already admitted to possession of the computer, and provided the Government with access to the Z drive. The Government has submitted that it can link Boucher with the files on his computer without making use of his production of an unencrypted version of the Z drive, and that it will not use his act of production as evidence of authentication.[8][/q]
This seems like nonsense to me: [i]He has already admitted to possession of the computer, and provided the Government with access to the Z drive. The Government has submitted that it can link Boucher with the files on his computer without making use of his production of an unencrypted version of the Z drive, and that it will not use his act of production as evidence of authentication.[/i]
The government has gibberish data. They cannot confirm this (hence they need the decryption keys). What could the government actually punish the defendant with?