Judge Orders Defendant to Decrypt Laptop

[Contumacious]

Judge Orders Defendant to Decrypt Laptop

A judge on Monday ordered a Colorado woman to decrypt her laptop computer so prosecutors can use the files against her in a criminal case.

The defendant, accused of bank fraud, had unsuccessfully argued that being forced to do so violates the Fifth Amendment’s protection against compelled self-incrimination.

“I conclude that the Fifth Amendment is not implicated by requiring production of the unencrypted contents of the Toshiba Satellite M305 laptop computer,” Colorado U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn ruled Monday. (.pdf)

The authorities seized the laptop from defendant Ramona Fricosu in 2010 with a court warrant while investigating financial fraud.

The case is being closely watched (.pdf) by civil rights groups, as the issue has never been squarely weighed in on by the Supreme Court.

Full disk encryption is an option built into the latest flavors of Windows, Mac OS and Linux, and well-designed encryption protocols used with a long passphrase can take decades to break, even with massive computing power.

The government had argued that there was no Fifth Amendment breach, and that it might “require significant resources and may harm the subject computer” if the authorities tried to crack the encryption.

_-_-_-_----__--__--__---___----_____


Scumbag Federal Courts "Judges" have USURPED Judicial Immunity and this is the end result - they can ignore the Constitution with impunity !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

 

[Contumacious]

Judge Orders Defendant to Decrypt Laptop

A judge on Monday ordered a Colorado woman to decrypt her laptop computer so prosecutors can use the files against her in a criminal case.

The defendant, accused of bank fraud, had unsuccessfully argued that being forced to do so violates the Fifth Amendment’s protection against compelled self-incrimination.

“I conclude that the Fifth Amendment is not implicated by requiring production of the unencrypted contents of the Toshiba Satellite M305 laptop computer,” Colorado U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn ruled Monday. (.pdf)

The authorities seized the laptop from defendant Ramona Fricosu in 2010 with a court warrant while investigating financial fraud.

The case is being closely watched (.pdf) by civil rights groups, as the issue has never been squarely weighed in on by the Supreme Court.

Full disk encryption is an option built into the latest flavors of Windows, Mac OS and Linux, and well-designed encryption protocols used with a long passphrase can take decades to break, even with massive computing power.

The government had argued that there was no Fifth Amendment breach, and that it might “require significant resources and may harm the subject computer” if the authorities tried to crack the encryption.

_-_-_-_----__--__--__---___----_____


Scumbag Federal Courts "Judges" have USURPED Judicial Immunity and this is the end result - they can ignore the Constitution with impunity !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

When Dr Paul RESTORE then ENFORCE the Constitution HONEST Judges will be nominated to the Supreme Court who will find no authority to USURP Judicial Immunity.

.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Yep and it's tyrannical...

Our government (mostly democrats) could give a rats ass about the Bill of Rights...

Our judicial system has gone mad.

If they want those files then they can use their own means or resources to get them - that woman has a Fifth Amendment right....

If I was in her position I would just say: "I don't know the password" and that would be the end of it.

Unfortunately she made it clear she knows the password - even then she should tell the tyrants to go fuck off..

This case should go to the SCOTUS...

 

[Mr.Nick]

Judge Orders Defendant to Decrypt Laptop

A judge on Monday ordered a Colorado woman to decrypt her laptop computer so prosecutors can use the files against her in a criminal case.

The defendant, accused of bank fraud, had unsuccessfully argued that being forced to do so violates the Fifth Amendment’s protection against compelled self-incrimination.

“I conclude that the Fifth Amendment is not implicated by requiring production of the unencrypted contents of the Toshiba Satellite M305 laptop computer,” Colorado U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn ruled Monday. (.pdf)

The authorities seized the laptop from defendant Ramona Fricosu in 2010 with a court warrant while investigating financial fraud.

The case is being closely watched (.pdf) by civil rights groups, as the issue has never been squarely weighed in on by the Supreme Court.

Full disk encryption is an option built into the latest flavors of Windows, Mac OS and Linux, and well-designed encryption protocols used with a long passphrase can take decades to break, even with massive computing power.

The government had argued that there was no Fifth Amendment breach, and that it might “require significant resources and may harm the subject computer” if the authorities tried to crack the encryption.

_-_-_-_----__--__--__---___----_____


Scumbag Federal Courts "Judges" have USURPED Judicial Immunity and this is the end result - they can ignore the Constitution with impunity !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

When Dr Paul RESTORE then ENFORCE the Constitution HONEST Judges will be nominated to the Supreme Court who will find no authority to USURP Judicial Immunity.

.

I've been following this case for a while. I love the reasoning behind the states argument - that their techs could potentially damage evidence if they attempted to hack the computer...

WTF.... So what... They don't want to damage potentially incriminating evidence, so they attempt to force the woman to give them potentially incriminating evidence.... AND THAT IS NOT A FIFTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION??? If that's not then what is????

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Under the 4th amendment the law has the right to search your house and sieze any contents that the judge thinks relavent to a court case. The law can't compel you to plead guilty, or to say anything. But anything you do say is permissible to record.

Also, what we have here is the equivalent of a locked cabinet. Under the 4th amendment, the government can compel you to produce the keys. (usually they don't bother. They just break the lock or call in a locksmith )

I am pretty sure that any algorithm that Windows has, the NSA can break.

 

[xotoxi]

Full disk encryption is an option built into the latest flavors of Windows, Mac OS and Linux, and well-designed encryption protocols used with a long passphrase can take decades to break, even with massive computing power.

Better idea...defendant can either decrypt or remain in jail until the government can decrypt.

 

[Contumacious]

This case should go to the SCOTUS...

Unfortunately the 4th and 5th Amendments have been destroyed by SCOTUS.

BTW, it was them who encouraged the doctrine of Judicial Immunity

Clothed with the power of the state and authorized to pass judgment on the most
basic aspects of everyday life, a judge can deprive citizens of liberty and property in complete disregard of the Constitution.

Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967)

.

 

[konradv]

Don't see that as a 5th amendment breach. It's totally analogous to asking for documents to be handed over to the court.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Under the 4th amendment the law has the right to search your house and sieze any contents that the judge thinks relavent to a court case. The law can't compel you to plead guilty, or to say anything. But anything you do say is permissible to record.

Also, what we have here is the equivalent of a locked cabinet. Under the 4th amendment, the government can compel you to produce the keys. (usually they don't bother. They just break the lock or call in a locksmith )

I am pretty sure that any algorithm that Windows has, the NSA can break.

No they don't have the right to compel you to give them the keys - that would be a FIFTH AMENDMENT violation...

If they want the contents of that cabinet they can get to the contents using their own means......

 

[G.T.]

I'm missing the unconstitutional part.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Don't see that as a 5th amendment breach. It's totally analogous to asking for documents to be handed over to the court.

NOT if they incriminate you...

No one is stopping the court from attempting to hack into that computer. Forcing someone to do it who otherwise may be incriminating their self is absolutely a Fifth Amendment violation..

An individual has the right to not self incriminate - knowingly handing over incriminating documents is a Fifth Amendment violation...

The state has to gather their evidence themselves..

 

[Contumacious]

Under the 4th amendment the law has the right to search your house and sieze any contents that the judge thinks relavent to a court case. The law can't compel you to plead guilty, or to say anything. But anything you do say is permissible to record.k.

Of course, the FIRST question that needs an answer is WHY does the federal court has jurisdiction to hear the case?

"2. Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, and no other crimes, whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” therefore ... all their other acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution,) are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory."

.

 

[Mr.Nick]

I'm missing the unconstitutional part.

You cant force someone to self incriminate.

The woman would be doing such if she unlocked the computer..

It's not her duty to provide the state with evidence.

This would be no different than forcing a person to elocute to a crime....

 

[G.T.]

I'm missing the unconstitutional part.

You cant force someone to self incriminate.

The woman would be doing such if she unlocked the computer..

It's not her duty to provide the state with evidence.

This would be no different than forcing a person to confess to a crime they didn't commit..

Unlocking her computer would be akin to unlocking her door when they show her a warrant.

 

[Contumacious]

Full disk encryption is an option built into the latest flavors of Windows, Mac OS and Linux, and well-designed encryption protocols used with a long passphrase can take decades to break, even with massive computing power.

Better idea...defendant can either decrypt or remain in jail until the government can decrypt.

And you must be an employee of the Department of inJustice.

.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Full disk encryption is an option built into the latest flavors of Windows, Mac OS and Linux, and well-designed encryption protocols used with a long passphrase can take decades to break, even with massive computing power.

Better idea...defendant can either decrypt or remain in jail until the government can decrypt.

That is against the law too..

Individuals have the right to due process and the right to a speedy trial...

The court would have no right holding an individual indefinitely for not providing information.

Our Bill of Rights was manifested in response to bullshit like that.

You may as well crush a person with rocks until they tell you what you want to hear, in which you then can promptly hang them based on the information they just gave you..

 

[Contumacious]

Don't see that as a 5th amendment breach. It's totally analogous to asking for documents to be handed over to the court.

You are correct.

The Fifth Amendment of the Cuban Constitution does allow the judge to demand incriminating evidence.

.

 

[Missourian]

Let's look at this another way.

If I was the only person in the world that had deciphered Rongorongo, and I wrote all my notes in it, could the government compel me to translate my notes into English so they could be used against me by the state in a criminal prosecution?

Absolutely not.

That is the states responsibility...and it is my right to refuse to answer any questions that may incriminate me...period.

 

[Mr.Nick]

This case should go to the SCOTUS...

Unfortunately the 4th and 5th Amendments have been destroyed by SCOTUS.

BTW, it was them who encouraged the doctrine of Judicial Immunity

Clothed with the power of the state and authorized to pass judgment on the most
basic aspects of everyday life, a judge can deprive citizens of liberty and property in complete disregard of the Constitution.

Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967)

.

Totally agree...

I wouldn't expect the SCOTUS to rule in her favor - however if we were a lawful nation they would.

I expect the case to go to the SCOTUS...

This is a huge case that could set precedent for the authoritarian police state on top of that..

It's sad not many citizens these days give a rats ass about civil liberties granted to us by our founders via the Bill of Rights..

If people don't stand up for their rights they will be taken away like our government is trying to do now.

Our government wants supreme ownership over every person, place, thing or idea...

This country is slowly progressing into Orwells 1984...

 

[Mr.Nick]

I'm missing the unconstitutional part.

You cant force someone to self incriminate.

The woman would be doing such if she unlocked the computer..

It's not her duty to provide the state with evidence.

This would be no different than forcing a person to confess to a crime they didn't commit..

Unlocking her computer would be akin to unlocking her door when they show her a warrant.

No it's not...

You don't even have to open the door for a warrant - not to mention even with a "no knock warrant" its not the duty of the served to bring whatever it is the pigs are looking for to them while they sit around and eat doughnuts and drink coffee..

It's the states responsibility to make a case against the defendant and the defendant has absolutely ZERO obligation helping the state make a case against his or herself..

What part of the Fifth Amendment is too difficult for some to understand?