Feds Want Judge to Force Suspect to Give Up Laptop Password; Judge orders woman to...

I put the bootloader and boot partition on a flash drive (I use linux and LUKS). Even though LUKS doesn't hide it's header like truecrypt in my experience at least all you have to say is you wipe out the hard drive besides the header. I just said I wanted it to look like it there was encrypted data when it wasn't.

That said I don't know if they didn't get a warrant because I was "co-operating" or because they didn't have enough proof to get one. (They did file for one but pulled out last minute for some reason).

I think it was the first one. Just look like you are trying to help from the start and they will be, for lack of a better word, nicer.

 

Regarding the I forgot the password, couldn't a court of law simply force the suspect to make a bunch of tests to attest such affirmation, and if found to be lying, then have the legal right to force the suspect to give access to the encrypted information? And, even if the suspect still refuses to give the password, then wouldn't the court of law now have the legal means to send this person to prison for a while? Who knows, maybe also as a way to make the suspect have a change of heart, so that later on remembers the password?

Or, if the suspect refuses to attest the I forgot the password, by order of the court of law, can't this suspect also be sentenced to do some time in prison?

I for sure have no idea how things exactly work over there, but there must be a limit to what a suspect can refuse... If you make the affirmation I forgot the password, then you must be able to attest such before the court. What do you fear? If you genuinely forgot the password, then there's no reason to refuse to make all the tests that a court of law orders you to do. Otherwise, justice works in favor of any potential criminal and not the innocent.

Sure, innocent until proven guilty. But, there must be a limit. And, if you make an affirmation that could be crucial to ether prove your innocence or guilt, then you should have to prove you aren't lying. And, again, if you're really innocent, then there's no reason to lie? If you fear someone stealing your newest novel, then say I only got a new novel I'm writing on that encrypted disk. I can give the password, provide you folks sign a NDA.. Why not? It should work?

Otherwise, one can only think this person has something bad to hide. Maybe the suspect didn't commit this crime, but has other incriminatory material on the computer, which is encrypted. Now, how exactly would this be a problem to the court of law? It would be the suspect's own problem. A lesson learnt the hard way.

 

Sure, you can force someone to do a polygraph, you can force someone to undergo hypnosis and you can also force someone by injecting drugs referred to as 'truth serum'. But those are practices not to be performed in proper democracies.

Erm, no. Innocent until proven guilty is exactly what it is. You can't be largely innocent or a tad innocent until proven guilty.
That's not how a judicial system works. In a proper democracy founded on civil liberties, that is. (Not meant obtrusive m00nbl00d, just my pov).

And I'm signing off because were going slightly towards political and I've stated my dime a dozen layman opinion already.

 

But as said before you can't prove a negative; that you didn't do it. I can't prove I don't know the password. But it is possible to prove I know it under certain circumstances (tricking me into logging in by releasing me from custody). However a lie detector is not admissible evidence in a court of law. They are flawed devices and produce false positives more often than not (any amount of stress or increase in emotions will be read as a lie). I for one would not want my outcome to depend on that of a polygraph.

Personally the NDA way works for me. (I would use that as the data on my computer is more proprietary/confidential data than criminal anyways). The issue of course is that most agencies wouldn't agree and would just grab a warrant if they could.

The last point you made is flawed, as that is exactly the point of the 5th amendment. If I commit a crime (let's say hacking into a bank account) and you are investigating an unrelated crime (say someone trafficking drugs ). If you can get a warrant for my password than you can now see I am innocent of the latter crime but in giving you my password I have now convicted myself. Something the 5th amendment protects against.

That said it has been shown again and again that the courts are barred from your mind, that is to say they can't force you to disclose something that only exists in your mind.

 

Colorado woman must turn over computer hard drive.

-- Tom

 

lotus, that link does not work for me outside of USA.
Mrk

 

Hi Mrk,

The story is on ap.org. Suggest searching for title enclosed in quotes.

-- Tom

 

Eleventh Circuit Finds Fifth Amendment Right Against Self Incrimination Protects Against Being Forced to Decrypt Hard Drive Contents

Source

 

Just read about this on another site. Good to see the Constitution is still recognized.

 

Passwords now covered by the 5th

I know there is another thread running through here but its very long and is for a different case.

The higher court has just reversed the lower courts decision. Passwords are now covered by the 5th, at least in the USA.

http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/courts/ca11/201112268.pdf

We hold that Doe properly invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege. In
response, the Government chose not give him the immunity the Fifth Amendment
and 18 U.S.C. § 6002 mandate, and the district court acquiesced. Stripped of
Fifth Amendment protection, Doe refused to produce the unencrypted contents of
the hard drives. The refusal was justified, and the district court erred in adjudging
him in civil contempt. The district court’s judgment is accordingly REVERSED.
SO ORDERED.

 

One thing I have learned in this thread is the lack of education among some as to what constitutes "self incrimination." The house, with a body inside, is not information that is stored in your brain and only in your brain. "Self incrimination," is information you possess - yourself - that would implicate you in a crime. You have the constitutional right to not do that. Of course, the police can get a search warrant for the house. BUT, you can also force the search warrant - you don't have to let the police in without it. With this whole question of the application of the fifth and decryption - it's a clear matter of having information, only you possess, which might implicate you in a crime. It may , or may not, that's why the word "may" is there. It's a basic and fundamental right. I'm surprised at the lack of understanding by some of this basic constitutional right. Some of the analogies are just off-the-charts as in having nothing, whatsoever, to do with self incrimination.

 

Thank you!

 

I guess it's not possible with TrueCrypt on Windows?

I understand DiskCryptor offers such a feature, not sure about PGP...

 

It is possible. GRUB4DOS and WinGrub allows you to create a bootable device and place your rescue disk image on it to boot from. You then restore the Windows MBR, rendering your computer un-bootable without the device. Search GRUB4DOS on TC's forum.

PD

 

Constitutional showdown voided: Feds decrypt laptop without defendant’s help.

-- Tom

 

They just now tried them? That is hard to believe after all this litigation. Looks to me like they've had access for some time but wanted to use this as an excuse to establish precedents that favor their position, forcing the divulging of passwords.

 

Reading further down:

Seems the ex-husband also knew the password. Either that or the password was 'hunter2'

 

Saw that. It's what the attorney thinks happened. Her ex is a co-defendent. They just now asked him for the password? They would have done that in the beginning.

 

how in the hell did you know my password?

mods - ban this hacker

 

I hope this is the case. I was worried when I saw that article and it sounded from the headline that they were able to decrypt it without a password...

 

I find it impossible to believe that the ex husband just now reveals the password.

 

Possible deal on the side for a lesser charge? Unfortunately that is just speculation. We will most likely have to wait for more details to come out if at all as the trail is still ongoing.

That is also a possibility as well; most people use easy to remember or short passwords and if authorities were trying to Brute force the thing nonstop since the beginning they may have been able too.

 

Try this?

I understand the analogy of an encrypted HD to a locked safe. I can see that the courts may require the searchee to provide access to potential named physical evidence in a named location.

However...... whether or not the human memory/flashdrive/128 digits scrawled on that crumpled postit still exists is known only to the defendant, and only in their head, and the specific knowledge as to status of a possible password that may not even still exist is simply not known to the court and cannot be compelled.

 

Feds Decrypt Laptop Without Defendant’s Help

Colorado federal authorities have decrypted a laptop seized from a bank-fraud defendant, mooting a judge’s order that the defendant unlock the hard drive so the government could use its contents as evidence against her.

The development ends a contentious legal showdown over whether forcing a defendant to decrypt a laptop is a breach of the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self incrimination.

Source:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/02/decryption-flap-mooted/

 

Re: Feds Decrypt Laptop Without Defendant’s Help

as much is i understand her husband gave up the password , what a ~ Snipped as per TOS ~ , never trust anybody not even your own family with your password rule nr.1