I know some in here would totally disagree with what the court system has ordered her to do. To me under these circumstance I feel the courts are right in this case >> http://www.dailytech.com/Colorado+W...pt+Laptop+in+Bank+Fraud+Case/article23853.htm what do you think?
-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
Colorado Woman Ordered to Decrypt Laptop in Bank Fraud Case
- Thread starter hey_moe
- Start date
Daveroo
Members +
well im usually wrong when it comes to opinions on this board..but i think the court is right,this woould open up an entire new ellement to criminal activity...the criminal minded people look for anything to use to be crooked....ofcourse in thier little minds its "creative income" but then ive known several people you broke the law often because they had a better life in jail than they did out on the street....personally i never could understand that...but oh well
rhumbaflappy
Charter Member
All citizens and visitors to the United States have the constitutional right not to incriminate themselves. The judge is not only wrong, but compliance with the judge's order will undoubtedly lead to a valid appeal and an overturn of any convictions using that evidence. This judge has really screwed the prosecutor's case, and any future cases involving this evidence.
The end result of this nonsense will be yet more of the taxpayers money foolishly spent chasing unprosecutable crimes. All this while our prisons are bulging with criminals. Let the bank file a non-criminal lawsuit to recover any funds... there is no 5th amendment for non-criminal cases. Then they can jail the woman for contempt of court, and just let her rot, without damaging any legal discovery from the harddrives to be used in future cases. We have plenty of violent criminals waiting to get into jail... why not focus on them, and save some money in the process?
And seriously... if you were the woman, wouldn't you just destroy the harddrive if you get your hands on it? Whoops? As they say "Come on, man!"
Dick
The end result of this nonsense will be yet more of the taxpayers money foolishly spent chasing unprosecutable crimes. All this while our prisons are bulging with criminals. Let the bank file a non-criminal lawsuit to recover any funds... there is no 5th amendment for non-criminal cases. Then they can jail the woman for contempt of court, and just let her rot, without damaging any legal discovery from the harddrives to be used in future cases. We have plenty of violent criminals waiting to get into jail... why not focus on them, and save some money in the process?
And seriously... if you were the woman, wouldn't you just destroy the harddrive if you get your hands on it? Whoops? As they say "Come on, man!"
Dick
The way I read that report they are going to let her take the laptop away and then come back when it's been un-encrypted. Are the authorities completely insane!? 
I would be demanding that she hands over any and all passwords while the laptop remains in the court's possession. There is absolutely nothing stopping her from going home, opening the laptop, swapping out the HD for a new one, putting in a new OS and then taking it back as clean as new penny. :isadizzy:
I would be demanding that she hands over any and all passwords while the laptop remains in the court's possession. There is absolutely nothing stopping her from going home, opening the laptop, swapping out the HD for a new one, putting in a new OS and then taking it back as clean as new penny. :isadizzy:
Meshman
Charter Member
I agree with Dick. IMO, it's a clear violation of the 5th amendment.
Suppose it's not a computer, but some other type of alleged criminal act and you are the suspect. They throw you into jail and tell you that you're staying until you give them the location of the evidence they think will prove their case. I don't think so! But because it's a computer legal precedence no longer applies? Or is it because she is accused of bank fraud and therefore must be the kingpin for the GEC?
Please proceed carefully and very slowly, if you're willing to have the constitutional protections (my constitutional protections!) stripped away, bit by bit.
Suppose it's not a computer, but some other type of alleged criminal act and you are the suspect. They throw you into jail and tell you that you're staying until you give them the location of the evidence they think will prove their case. I don't think so! But because it's a computer legal precedence no longer applies? Or is it because she is accused of bank fraud and therefore must be the kingpin for the GEC?
Please proceed carefully and very slowly, if you're willing to have the constitutional protections (my constitutional protections!) stripped away, bit by bit.
I believe the 5th Amendment DOES protect this woman against self incrimination.
Imagine if a judge were to determine that an accused person MUST tell the authorities how s/he disposed of the murder victim. If the accused does not comply, then leave them in jail unconvicted until they WILL comply. This cannot be the only way to gather evidence.
I believe the same thing applies here. The authorities who have legally confiscated the laptop may use it as evidence if they wish, but they should not be able to force anyone to self incrimination.
- Ivan.
Imagine if a judge were to determine that an accused person MUST tell the authorities how s/he disposed of the murder victim. If the accused does not comply, then leave them in jail unconvicted until they WILL comply. This cannot be the only way to gather evidence.
I believe the same thing applies here. The authorities who have legally confiscated the laptop may use it as evidence if they wish, but they should not be able to force anyone to self incrimination.
- Ivan.
cheezyflier
Charter Member
whether it's legal or not is of little consequence. the government will do what it wants, and to hell with what anyone thinks of it.
Well said. :salute:
Naismith
Charter Member
The way I read that report they are going to let her take the laptop away and then come back when it's been un-encrypted. Are the authorities completely insane!?
I would be demanding that she hands over any and all passwords while the laptop remains in the court's possession. There is absolutely nothing stopping her from going home, opening the laptop, swapping out the HD for a new one, putting in a new OS and then taking it back as clean as new penny. :isadizzy:
I agree with you, or "Oh dear your Honor, I accidentally formatted the HD, I don't know what I was thinking, I panicked."
Somehow I think there is something missing in the reportage here.
Meshman and Ivan are right.
If the cops want to know what is on the laptop they can decrypt it them self.
As for "I accidentally formatted the HD" That depends on what is on the HD. If what is on the HD is going to get me more time than the charge of "destroying evidence" than it will be reformatted, microwaved than I would find the biggest magnet I could and leave it on the HD.
If the cops want to know what is on the laptop they can decrypt it them self.
As for "I accidentally formatted the HD" That depends on what is on the HD. If what is on the HD is going to get me more time than the charge of "destroying evidence" than it will be reformatted, microwaved than I would find the biggest magnet I could and leave it on the HD.
Well I guess this 5 amendment will work great for the guys who are into photographing children in the nude and doing sex acts. I don't have any problems with the law grabbing a computer and getting inside of it to see all the evidence they need to convict the person or persons involved. This is what is wrong with our country now. The victims are the criminals and the criminal is the ones who's rights are protected.I feel when you break the law like this you have just given up all your rights. Look what happen here in Hampton >> http://www.dailypress.com/news/crime/dp-nws-murder-charges-dropped-20120124,0,4538185.story this is the second case that was dropped this month because they didn't have enough evidence to convict these guys. They know this guy did it but they don't have the proper evidence to prove it. One of the officers questioning him said he just laughed and smiled when questioning him about the murder he committed. Look at the OJ case...it goes to show you if you have money you can get away with anything.
Meshman
Charter Member
I'll respectfully disagree with your assessment, Moe. The rights that are being protected are for those that are innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. Once they have had their day in court and have been found guilty of a felony they do lose many of their rights. Our judicial system is built upon the notion that a person is innocent, no if's and or but's, until proven guilty in a court of law. If this wasn't the case, we would end up like too many other countries where if someone thinks something, it must be so. Proof is not needed, so throw them into a jail. Luckily for you and me, we don't live under such a format. And for that I'm grateful and would continue to advocate that we protect the rights we have. Because once you start chipping away at these rights you run the risk of something coming along that will bite you in the rear. And you might start wondering where the people are that might be an advocate for your "now lost" rights.
And don't even get me started on the dummies on the O.J. case. They couldn't spell DNA, much less understand what it is...
rhumbaflappy
Charter Member
If they leave her alone with the harddrive and she has access to a hammer, she will destroy the evidence... and what can the judge then do? Not much. This all seems to be quite foolish. At the very least, she'll wipe the drive, or re-encrypt the encyption, and the data will be gone.
Just a foolish waste of taxpayers money. Why did the DA take it to court, when they knew they couldn't recover the data? Moronic. Reminds me of the saying "I'll cross that bridge when I get to it"... If anyone thinks that, I guarantee that bridge was crossed a long time ago ( you just haven't realised it yet ). The DA's case was lost a long time ago... he just can't accept it, and is willing to push it to violating the constitution to save his ego.
Dick
Just a foolish waste of taxpayers money. Why did the DA take it to court, when they knew they couldn't recover the data? Moronic. Reminds me of the saying "I'll cross that bridge when I get to it"... If anyone thinks that, I guarantee that bridge was crossed a long time ago ( you just haven't realised it yet ). The DA's case was lost a long time ago... he just can't accept it, and is willing to push it to violating the constitution to save his ego.
Dick
TeaSea
SOH-CM-2014
It's an interesting question, but I'm not sure I see the application of the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination. At issue is a physical device. A physical device cannot testify either way. If there is incriminating evidence on the device, the prosecution must still work to prove a direct relationship between the evidence on the device, and the accused. The accused still has their day in court and if asked "is this your information on the PC" may plead the 5th at that time. If the judge does not accept that and through threat, intimidation, or trickery forces the accused to admit to the information on the PC, well that's a violation and a subsequent appeal would likely toss any potential conviction.
To get access to the physical device, the authorities must obtain a warrent. That too is part of due process. They must approach the judge with probable cause to execute the warrent. Aside from a warrent, items obtained in a search in the execution of a warrent are available for subsequent searches. Over 200 years of U.S. criminal law have well established the parameters for executing such searches.
So, I would ask, where in this has anyone's rights been violated? The only thing unique about this device is it has encryption. Encryption is simply software. Are we saying that because it has this particular software package that it's somehow specially protected from a warrent? What if it had FSX on it, would that somehow make it special. Obviously there's a difference, but not from a legal perspective.
Not knowing the particulars of the warrent, looks like the judge is dead on, and no threat to any civil liberties from my perspective.
BTW, we use strong Data Encryption on our DOD systems. I had to send a drive in for forensics a few months ago. I informed the recepient that it had encryption...they said they could "bust right through that", they were after all the experts in the field.
They ended up toasting the drive through repeated efforts attempting to break the encryption. A lot of what you see on TV......just ain't so.
To get access to the physical device, the authorities must obtain a warrent. That too is part of due process. They must approach the judge with probable cause to execute the warrent. Aside from a warrent, items obtained in a search in the execution of a warrent are available for subsequent searches. Over 200 years of U.S. criminal law have well established the parameters for executing such searches.
So, I would ask, where in this has anyone's rights been violated? The only thing unique about this device is it has encryption. Encryption is simply software. Are we saying that because it has this particular software package that it's somehow specially protected from a warrent? What if it had FSX on it, would that somehow make it special. Obviously there's a difference, but not from a legal perspective.
Not knowing the particulars of the warrent, looks like the judge is dead on, and no threat to any civil liberties from my perspective.
BTW, we use strong Data Encryption on our DOD systems. I had to send a drive in for forensics a few months ago. I informed the recepient that it had encryption...they said they could "bust right through that", they were after all the experts in the field.
They ended up toasting the drive through repeated efforts attempting to break the encryption. A lot of what you see on TV......just ain't so.
Yup. Anyone with the ability to use google could easily make their data next to impossible to decrypt. It is pretty cool stuff actually.