Topic: Judge Orders Defendant to Decrypt Laptop - page 4. (Read 5618 times)
I don't think breathalyzers are a good example because the constitution does not protect drunk driving suspects. It's a hideous little exception.
http://www.duicenter.com/lectures/exception01.html
When you get arrested, say nothing to anyone whatsoever unless so directed by your lawyer.Period. Exclamation point!
http://www.duicenter.com/lectures/exception01.html
When you get arrested, say nothing to anyone whatsoever unless so directed by your lawyer.
Your Honor,
Ordering me to decrypt my laptop is like ordering me to remember something. My password was, (note: the past tense, your honor), memorized. I can't remember the pass phrase.
And Your Honor, if the precedent is to be able to order someone to remember, wouldn't that apply to all, equally. So all witnesses and defendants would not be able to say; "I don't remember."
BTW: Your Honor, what was the License Plate number of your very first car? YOU must answer. If your wrong, you're lying.
If I was to guess for you, Your Honor, I would guess: ASSHAT Don't you love those specialty plates?
Ordering me to decrypt my laptop is like ordering me to remember something. My password was, (note: the past tense, your honor), memorized. I can't remember the pass phrase.
And Your Honor, if the precedent is to be able to order someone to remember, wouldn't that apply to all, equally. So all witnesses and defendants would not be able to say; "I don't remember."
BTW: Your Honor, what was the License Plate number of your very first car? YOU must answer. If your wrong, you're lying.
If I was to guess for you, Your Honor, I would guess: ASSHAT Don't you love those specialty plates?
I'm sorry officer, it's in my motor memory only, you'll need to bring me my specially marked keyboard.
Why doesn't the fifth amendment apply?
I'm not American, so I don't understand your strange ways, but as far as I can see, it should be: your warrant gives you access to the laptop; and if you can get what you want off it, good luck to you; but the moment the password passes my lips then I have self-incriminated.
Just as a warrant would get you access to my house; but I don't have to tell you were I hid the knife (assuming I am a knife-wielding stab fiend).
I don't suppose the constitution has much meaning these days; but it seems a little unfair does this.
I'm not American, so I don't understand your strange ways, but as far as I can see, it should be: your warrant gives you access to the laptop; and if you can get what you want off it, good luck to you; but the moment the password passes my lips then I have self-incriminated.
Just as a warrant would get you access to my house; but I don't have to tell you were I hid the knife (assuming I am a knife-wielding stab fiend).
I don't suppose the constitution has much meaning these days; but it seems a little unfair does this.
Because the 5th doesn't mean you can refuse the police your fingerprints, refuse a breathalyser or refuse the police access to search your property. These are all examples of searches which are allowed, as is the requirement for a passkey for an encrypted hard drive.
My fingerprints can be taken merely by forcibly holding my hand on a bit of inky paper. Similarly a breathalyzer. Passwords have to come out of my head. Once you can flash a warrant to get something out of my head; why can't you simply flash one that says "you will admit you are guilty; we know you are"?
I'm only asking for interests sake; I'd always quite admired the American constitution (watching similar rights in the UK being dropped at the wave of a parliamentary pen) and am interested about where its boundaries fall.
Why doesn't the fifth amendment apply?
I'm not American, so I don't understand your strange ways, but as far as I can see, it should be: your warrant gives you access to the laptop; and if you can get what you want off it, good luck to you; but the moment the password passes my lips then I have self-incriminated.
Just as a warrant would get you access to my house; but I don't have to tell you were I hid the knife (assuming I am a knife-wielding stab fiend).
I don't suppose the constitution has much meaning these days; but it seems a little unfair does this.
I'm not American, so I don't understand your strange ways, but as far as I can see, it should be: your warrant gives you access to the laptop; and if you can get what you want off it, good luck to you; but the moment the password passes my lips then I have self-incriminated.
Just as a warrant would get you access to my house; but I don't have to tell you were I hid the knife (assuming I am a knife-wielding stab fiend).
I don't suppose the constitution has much meaning these days; but it seems a little unfair does this.
Because the 5th doesn't mean you can refuse the police your fingerprints, refuse a breathalyser or refuse the police access to search your property. These are all examples of searches which are allowed, as is the requirement for a passkey for an encrypted hard drive.
It should also be pointed out, that he would have been fine if he used truecrypt with the plausible deniability feature.. or a hidden volume inside of his encrypted volume.
this.
Why doesn't the fifth amendment apply?
I'm not American, so I don't understand your strange ways, but as far as I can see, it should be: your warrant gives you access to the laptop; and if you can get what you want off it, good luck to you; but the moment the password passes my lips then I have self-incriminated.
Just as a warrant would get you access to my house; but I don't have to tell you were I hid the knife (assuming I am a knife-wielding stab fiend).
I don't suppose the constitution has much meaning these days; but it seems a little unfair does this.
I'm not American, so I don't understand your strange ways, but as far as I can see, it should be: your warrant gives you access to the laptop; and if you can get what you want off it, good luck to you; but the moment the password passes my lips then I have self-incriminated.
Just as a warrant would get you access to my house; but I don't have to tell you were I hid the knife (assuming I am a knife-wielding stab fiend).
I don't suppose the constitution has much meaning these days; but it seems a little unfair does this.
It should be pointed out that they had a warrant.
It should also be pointed out that they had a ton of evidence that the evidence they were looking for was on the laptop. Including a jail house confession.
It should also be pointed out, that he would have been fine if he used truecrypt with the plausible deniability feature.. or a hidden volume inside of his encrypted volume.
It should also be pointed out that they had a ton of evidence that the evidence they were looking for was on the laptop. Including a jail house confession.
It should also be pointed out, that he would have been fine if he used truecrypt with the plausible deniability feature.. or a hidden volume inside of his encrypted volume.
Jump to: