Colorado woman must turn over computer password

From the local news:

You encrypt your PC, police confiscate it, and require you to unencrypt it so that they can prosecute you.

I think it's a bad decision and inherently unenforceable. "I wrote it on a piece of paper that you seem to have lost" would be my response. Coming up with a piece of information that only I know would seem the definition of self incrimination. Apparently, the court disagrees.

 

this is absurd. sometimes i think these courts just spew out bullshit knowing it totally wrong and just hope people comply, which happens more times than not. many times pleading and giving in to the system will leave you with more money in your wallet and time on your hands than fighting.

this is as cut and dry as it gets.

 

I understand their worries about everyone encrypting everything, but I wish it were easier and safer to do (I suck at remembering passwords). And the police/government doesn't have to right to demand the password or use backdoors that they developed or forced/rewarded the companies for putting into their software.

However, this issue, Internet censorship, and the Internet access one(BackTrack is 10% of the way there) are huge problems that the Open Source community needs to address and really hasn't. I want to have a version of Linux that if you don't log in, there is no way to get to the information. And once you are in that no government or company (however good or evil) can track, it is built in and turned on by default into the web browser... And that there are ways that you can use any Internet Access point to get on-line, so it is meaningless to go after the person who owns it.

 

Strikes me as unconstitutional. But I'm very far from being a fourth amendment expert.

 

sounds like a fourth and fifth amendment thing... dissapointing that they would do that, but not surprising that so many people are getting butthurt about it.

 

it compels the computer's owner to provide information against herself, as distinct from turning over an object (which can be subpoenaed). Here the cops already have the object (the computer) but they want the owner to explain how to access the stuff on the hard drive. That's forcing the owner to provide testimony against herself, which is a violation of the fifth amendment. But as I said, I'm not a fifth amendment expert.

 

they have no way of accessing the info without having the owner provide information about how. That's forcing her to testify against herself. It would be different if they could just take stuff that a court allows them to take by warrant -- presumably that's how they got the computer. But they can't force her to speak - she has the right not to be forced to speak.

 

I think if they have a warrant they can do what they need to do to read what's on the computer, same as they can pop the lock on a diary or a suitcase.
But as I said, this isn't my area of expertise.

 

she can't be compelled to provide evidence against herself (5th)

she can't be mandated to give information that would make her unsecure in her "letters, effects etc..." where she has a reasonable expectation of privacy. one would think that an encrypted hard drive would have a reasonable expectation for privacy

 

as long as they have a court order/warrant which needs probable cause first, they can have someone break into the computer, but if it's for no reason and there's no evidence to back up their suspicion, then theres no warrant, no seizure, no more evidence collected against her.

depends, i think they're allowed to do either though depending on circumstances and permissions granted by the courts.

mind you i'm speaking from the education of a Law 220 class that i had a year ago and i slept through so i'm no expert.

 

I believe that in the Enron cases the company was no longer under the management of the bad guys, and the new management, which was liquidating the company in bankruptcy court, was cooperating with the government.

Remember -- your employer owns your work email, not you. All s/he has to do is give law enforcement access to the email server.

 

i dont think it should matter. when you are arrested you have the right to remain silent and to not perjure yourself. if they can get a warrant and get the password out of the employer then it's fair game, but how do you make someone give up a password? the only possible way is through coercion or torture if it's exclusively stored in the persons mind. this is what the 5th amendment is supposed to protect against among other things.
--- merged: Feb 29, 2012 3:15 AM ---

honestly, you really have to ask yourself if torture is ok to get this information out, because that's one of the main reasons the 5th was included. if someone won't talk there isn't a lot you can do besides coercion or torture. you can bust down a physical door to get information but you can't break through a person's mind without physical or mental stress like torture. if she was water boarded, i'm sure the password would come out in no time. is that really where we want to go?