by Mike Masnick
Wed, Jan 25th 2012 3:57am
A few years ago, we wrote about a case, in which a court found that a defendant could not be forced to give up his encryption key for encrypted files on his computer, because that would be a violation of the 5th Amendment. The argument was that the key was a form of speech, and that speech would self-incriminate the person. However, in a new case, a judge has said that it is not a 5th Amendment violation if a defendant is required to decrypt their laptop, even if that laptop contains incriminating information. The difference here? The key. In the first case, the question was over whether or not the defendant had to hand over the key. In this case, there was no request for the key -- just to decrypt the hard drive. As the court saw it, this was no different than demanding a defendant hand over documents related to a case, something that obviously happens all the time. It does seem like a fine line (and perhaps a meaningless distinction if law enforcement now knows to do the latter, rather than the former). Either way, the defendant in this case, Ramona Fricosu, accused of being part of a mortgage scam, is intending to appeal. It would be interesting to see the Supreme Court eventually weigh in, but I would guess that they'll side with this particular ruling.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- James Comey's New Idea: An International Encryption Backdoor Partnership
- UK Home Secretary: I Need People Who Understand The Necessary Hashtags To Censor Bad People Online
- Encryption Workarounds Paper Shows Why 'Going Dark' Is Not A Problem, And In Fact Is As Old As Humanity Itself
- Despite Stream Of Leaks Exposing Tremendous Gov't Surveillance Capabilities, James Comey Still Complaining About 'Going Dark'
- CIA Leak Shows Mobile Phones Vulnerable, Not Encryption