January 7th, 2008, 10:34 AM #1
Customs Search: If Your Hard Drive Could Testify ...
“Electronic storage devices function as an extension of our own memory,” Judge Pregerson wrote, in explaining why the government should not be allowed to inspect them without cause. “They are capable of storing our thoughts, ranging from the most whimsical to the most profound.”
Interesting... But will probably wind up in the Supreme Court"The world burns while Obama Tweets."
January 7th, 2008, 12:33 PM #2
TrueCrypt allows you to hide an encrypted partition and even open a "safe" partition if forced to do so. One password opens the "safe" side and one opens the real encrypted side. There's no way of telling that there is another hidden partition. You don't even need the TrueCrypt app on your laptop. You can just download it when you get to where you're going.
That said, I agree that a)your laptop contents are no different than your suitcase contents, and b)that if you do have an encrypted area, being forced to reveal a password violates your Fifth Amendment rights.You can't fix stupidity.
January 7th, 2008, 01:28 PM #3
- Join Date
- Oct 2001
- inside the Beltway
- Blog Entries
The problem is that this guy did reveal his password once; now he's claiming the right not to reveal it again to the idiots who lost or forgot it. He's gonna lose on that point. If he had never revealed it in the first place he'd have a better case by far.
Can the government force you to divulge something that exists only in your head? I kinda doubt it, but we'll see what the Orwell Supreme Court holds.I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. --J.S. Mill
January 7th, 2008, 02:21 PM #4
A federal judge in Vermont has ruled that prosecutors can't force a criminal defendant accused of having illegal images on his hard drive to divulge his PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) passphrase.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Jerome Niedermeier ruled that a man charged with transporting child pornography on his laptop across the Canadian border has a Fifth Amendment right not to turn over the passphrase to prosecutors. The Fifth Amendment protects the right to avoid self-incriminationThey say technology slows down for no one. I know it outruns my wallet. I figure its because my wallet isn't light enough yet.
TechIMO Folding@home Team #111 - Crunching for the cure!
dulce bellum inexpertis
January 7th, 2008, 04:07 PM #5The magistrate judge, Jerome J. Niedermeier of Federal District Court in Burlington, Vt., used an analogy from Supreme Court precedent. It is one thing to require a defendant to surrender a key to a safe and another to make him reveal its combination.
January 7th, 2008, 04:18 PM #6
January 7th, 2008, 04:33 PM #7
Of course this guy doesn't seem like the sharpest tool in the shed, so who knows what stupid move he'll make next.You can't fix stupidity.
January 18th, 2008, 03:30 PM #8
Is your password protected by the 5th amendment?
Can the government force you to reveal a password to unlock encrypted files on your computer that are known to contain child pornography? Or would doing so constitute a violate your Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination?
January 18th, 2008, 03:31 PM #9
child abusers of any kind need to be shot or hung. no questions asked.
it's beyond sick.He who seeks vengeance must dig two graves. One for his enemy, and one for himself.-- Lao Tzu
January 18th, 2008, 03:34 PM #10
Why would they need a password? Don't they have the technology to break it?
January 18th, 2008, 03:39 PM #11it had been encrypted using software from Pretty Good Privacy (PGP). According to court documents, the files are nearly impossible to open without knowing the password or without any "back doors" to the files. The only way to get access to the files without the password is to use an automated password guessing system but it's a process that could take years, according to the government.
Apparently they don't!
January 18th, 2008, 04:00 PM #12
He's being asked to open a drive on someone else’s hard drive is another factor maybe. They cloned his drive apparently and they aren’t asking him to open his own HDD. I wonder how the rule of evidence covers this?
As well, this already went through this forum.“Religion: Together we can find the cure.”
January 18th, 2008, 04:02 PM #13According to court documents, the files are nearly impossible to open without knowing the password or without any "back doors" to the files. The only way to get access to the files without the password is to use an automated password guessing system but it's a process that could take years, according to the government.“Religion: Together we can find the cure.”
January 18th, 2008, 04:12 PM #14
January 18th, 2008, 05:59 PM #15
Why teh hell would someone be attracted to pre-pubescent children?
What is there to look at? Srsly.I'm PL, I've come to suck all the intelligence out of this thread.
January 19th, 2008, 12:41 AM #16
January 19th, 2008, 02:42 AM #17
For now, people who have child porn have the same protections as terrorists who are citizens. If they can't look in a terrorist's hard drive, they can't look in his.
What is the difference legally?
All they guy has to do is refuse and face the consequences. It's a simple choice we all make when the government tells us to do something."The world burns while Obama Tweets."
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By jkrohn in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 2Last Post: November 14th, 2005, 06:15 PM
By Theophylact in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 2Last Post: September 28th, 2005, 12:36 PM
By ninjamyst in forum Storage RelatedReplies: 7Last Post: May 5th, 2004, 08:18 AM
By willy_ph in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 2Last Post: March 30th, 2004, 09:36 PM
By Jüš† ä gü¥ in forum Linux and UnixReplies: 1Last Post: November 20th, 2003, 04:59 PM