Posted on 01/24/2012 12:06:01 AM PST by LibWhacker
True. The government can search all they want. They can't require you to tell them where or what everything is that they might be looking for. The situation is analogous.
So am I understanding from this thread that it is the advice of Freepers that child pornographers should just hide their evidence in an encrypted laptop with a wipe password? and that the government has no right to get the password of the laptop involved in a crime because of the FIFTH amendment?
Ah yes, the old bugaboo of child pornography, trotted out to justify the taking of our liberties by government.
It is unfortunate, that technology can be useful to this type of scum, but that's just too freaking bad. The government is constantly trying to use any excuse it can to eliminate our freedom. I'm not buying their crap anymore. Many of us aren't.
I draw the line using a “rag doll” model. They can compel fingerprints, physical keys, DNA, etc. insofar as they can manipulate your limp unresitive (albeit uncooperative) body to take fingerprints, extract keys from pockets, snip a hair, extract a blood sample, etc. They cannot, however, compel you to act on their behalf and against your own interests - to wit, they cannot demand you speak (type, write, press buttons) words the whole point of which can and will be used against you. If they can find the password, fine; if it exists only in your head, no.
“Rubber hose cryptology” (to wit: threaten you with harm unless you confess the keyword) is not an acceptable legal tool.
What evidence do you have that the NSA can break PGP? I've not seen any. All they could really do is brute-force the passphrase, which might work if a weak passphrase was used. They'd have hell breaking mine. They'd probably manage it before the heat death of the universe, I'd be quite content to wait.
If you mean they have actually cracked the algorythms that underlie PGP, I and many others would be extremely interested in knowing that. Personally, I doubt it. Used to be the best crypographers worked in government. That's not necessarily the case any more.
I like your “rag doll” analogy. I think you’re on to something there. The court can allow the state to inspect, search, and take things— even as you say with fingerprints and DNA. But that logic does not extend to compelling a defendant or witness to say anything. I can’t think of any other example of somebody being forced to say or write some specific thing.
They tried but the FBI overreached & demanded to be able to read the encrypted data of the federal reserve & they said no & let it be known in terms that left no doubt that there would really really ugly economic fallout if push came to shove.
Remember all the things Hillary “forgot” about Whitewater, the Rose law firm, the 900 FBI files, ad nauseum ?
Lol, you sound like me. Mine was about 40 characters long. Bit of a pain to type in, but I type reasonably well... a few seconds and I'd be in business.
Well, the first 30 or 40 times I typed it, it was slow. After that, it pretty much just flies from my fingers.
People think really long passphrases are hard to use, but as long as you don't have some silly corporate policy to change them every 30 days (which is what they require now at where I work!!!!!) you can actually use decent passphrases that are easy to remember and quick enough to type that even someone shoulder surfing ain't getting much out of it.
Actually someone already sells that. Not PGP brand, can't remember who it is.
Just use the Hillary Clinton defense; “I don’t recall”:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1584592/posts
I haven’t read the underlying case documents or the court’s opinion, but it seems to me that if the prosecutors can make out a probable cause argument for a search warrant to search the contents of the laptop, then the defendant here can be compelled to decrypt the contents of the laptop just as she could be compelled to turn over the keys to a locked filing cabinet if prosecutors could make out a probable cause argument for claiming that incriminating evidence was contained in that locked filing cabinet.
The question here, it seems to me, is more a matter of whether the prosecutors have made out a probable cause argument that there is incriminating evidence in the laptop and not merely whether or not an individual can be forced to divulge the decryption passkey to a laptop.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.