Topic: Judge Orders Defendant to Decrypt Laptop (Read 5618 times)

Oddly enough, the judge in this case seems to have the same flaws you see in me.  Since the crook pleaded guilty, I guess we will never know who was right.

Based on conversations from my buddies from law school who have gone onto become US attorneys, public defenders and district attorneys it seems that it has to do with the allocation of resources (only the best cases are selected for prosecution by US attorneys), politics (many district attorneys, etc. are publicly elected) and career considerations (taking only cases with the higher conviction rates leading to promotions versus getting experience to move into private practice).

Perhaps others have some additional insights.

BTW, Hawker, you seem to have no understanding of the actual rules which are applicable with regards to self-incrimination, spoliation of evidence and the contempt power, reason worse than a rock and have no understanding of the law. I am not sure why people keep wrestling with you; you'd think they would figure out the pig likes the mud and they only get dirty.

Funny how that is being thought of recently.

There have been people being released from Prison because the 'State' doesn't want to take care of their medical needs. Last case I remember is a woman in Mississippi that needed a Kidney Transplant.

When enough people become poor, hungry, and/or need medical care, prison will be the support system.

The corrections system is the largest employer in the country after Wallmart  (I mean the industry as a whole not an individual company). That is not even counting the law enforcement side, or all of the asset seizures. Putting people in prison is big money, and we have over 2 million people in prison right now.

Decent related article explaining some of the profit motives: http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=852

That's amazing. Why is it so high?

There is an extremely high conviction rate in US Federal courts. Over 95% of ALL defendants taken to US Federal courts are convicted, leading almost everyone to plea-bargain to a lesser charge and plead guilty.

The problem is the perps keep pleading guilty before it can ever get that far.

Let's see, that's a "yes" from the 10th circuit and a "no" from the 11th.  Supreme court time.

Thread resolved:

http://volokh.com/2012/02/23/eleventh-circuit-finds-fifth-amendment-right-against-self-incrimination-not-to-decrypt-encyrpted-computer/

Have you read the article?  Really?  Because I don't see how you can get from a woman who openly admits she can reveal the contents of the hard drive and that the contents are evidence.  There is no speculation here.

I can only hope that my judge has better mind-reading powers than you. 

What puzzle's me, is that you think an unfound bag of evidence, IS evidence when it is nothing but speculation that there is evidence.

I suggest you tell the judge you lost it.  If he is unreasonable, you have an immediate right to have his decision reviewed and he can't lock you up during the review.

What puzzles me is that you think computers are somehow special.  Saying you don't remember your password is no different to saying you don't remember where you buried a bag of evidence.  Its a dumb strategy.  The correct approach is it say nothing at all.  If Ramona Fricosu has left emails on her laptop proving that the mortgage applications were based on fake references, why should she be able to keep the money just because the details are stored electronically as opposed to on a notebook she buried somewhere?

Partly true.

  The Judge orders you to disclose something you don't know. That precedent would be dangerous as it would circumvent a trial. If you don't know something, you can't disclose it.

For example: You have your Private Key to your wallet.dat file. You accidentally destroyed that file. You are being prosecuted for 'laundering' and the judge orders you to disclose your private key. It was in your possession, you had control of it, you however lost it.

The Judge orders you to reveal your private key. He doesn't believe you don't know it. So off to jail for life, it is for you.

Maybe you can't because you are in debating mode. 

In the real world, if you are in court and the judge has ordered you to disclose something, generally you are going to jail if you don't comply.  That's how the law works - without that sanction, there would be no law enforcement and you'd need to go after thieves yourself.

The only example that I could think of is: If the defendant says: Yes, I know but I am not going to tell you.  Or a reporter that refuses to reveal a source. Which, by the way, many reports would love to go to jail because it is a badge of honor that will get them many more sources.

That didn't answer my question. How did the judge become convinced that I remember something? I should hope that before punishing anyone for any reason they have proof, and I can't think of a legal way to prove someone remembers something.

Well, I agree with that last sentence. One would hope she would be watched, and prosecutors would swoop in as soon as signs of her ill-gotten gains appear.

But again, "as long as it takes" potentially means forever, if she for whatever reason no longer can provide that unencrypted data. That potentially means her punishment for forgetting, or for losing her password, or just for being stubborn about it, would be far more severe than the punishment for the actual crime itself.

That sets in motion a system whereby anyone can be over-punished in such a manner. Actually, where such a thing is guaranteed to happen to some people. That's an inherently unjust system, and one I can never support (which is consistent, because I *know* I'll be furiously protesting were I caught in such a situation where info was demanded that I couldn't provide even if I wanted to.)

As far as this case in particular, I have no doubt that after punishment any attempt to use the funds would be obvious, unless she slowly spent it on trivial things, which wouldn't even be worth cracking down on.

Actually, I'm a big proponent of restitution as punishment anyway. If instead of jail time she were charged to pay back what she owed, plus interest, plus damages, plus court costs and finally a fee just because she's a thief; and were that obligation held over her regardless of where she worked or what she did, she'd have every incentive to give up any ill-gotten gains. And if she couldn't? Well, tough, you were found guilty even without the files, and you need to pay it back, so get hopping....

To be locked up for any crime, the prosecution needs to be prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.  If they do that and if the amount stolen is significant, then lock her up as long as it takes.  There is no way someone who has gained several million dollars by way for mortgage fraud should be able to do a few month custody for dishonestly filling in forms and keep the money for when they are released.

Hmm. It would appear that the article I read (from a Facebook post) differs from this one in a few points.

That said, I still don't think we're in as much agreement as we'd prefer. I'm actually challenging the core principle, that the judge has the right to order information be given in the first place, under any circumstance, regardless of how common it is the modern-day USA. The fact that the data can't be used against her (at least until someone, maybe this judge, overrides that later) doesn't address that.

Let me try to drive it home, boil it down to one big question:

If she claims she doesn't remember the password, or she says for some reason she can't decrypt the drive, or if she says the password is on a Post-It note which is missing from her desk and she says "Well, then I don't know who took it," then how long should she remain in jail?

"Until she remembers," of course, would mean "for the rest of her life, if necessary."

Is that what you feel is justified?