Solve : Criminal Defendant Ordered to Decrypt Own Hard Drive?

1.	Solve : Criminal Defendant Ordered to Decrypt Own Hard Drive?
Answer» http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/criminal-defendant-ordered-to-decrypt-own-hard-drive?awt_l=MvOQK&awt_m=1a53JaU176K295 If Sebastien BOUCHER thought that encryping the data on his hard drive would protect him from prying eyes, he may have been right. But if the Derry, New Hampshire resident, who is originally from Canada, thought that it would protect his 5th Amendment right against self incrimination, he may have another think coming. Last week, U.S. District Judge William Sessions (in Vermont) over-ruled a lower court ruling that Sebastien Boucher could not be forced to decrypt his hard drive, or provide the password to do so, because it would be a violation of his right to not incriminate himself, as guaranteed under the 5th Amendment. At issue is the prosecution’s contention - based on solid evidence - that there is child pornography on Boucher’s hard drive. It all started when Sebastien Boucher was coming back into the country from Canada, and a customs agent noticed some child porn images on his laptop. At that time Boucher waived his Miranda rights to an attorney, and admitted that yes, there were child porn images on his laptop. The customs agent stated that they were able to view his “Z” hard drive partition, which contained “thousands of images of adult pornography and animation depicting adult and child pornography.” [Note that it is likely that such a defendant may have believed that having animation involving children was not illegal - which would explain why he readily admitted it and waived his Miranda rights to a lawyer - but, in fact, anything that depicts a minor in a censored act - even fictitious, cartoon-drawn minors, may be illegal.] However, after the files were viewed by the customs agent, the laptop was powered down, and nine days later, when authorities tried to access the data, they discovered that, upon turning the laptop on, they needed a password to access the data. The trial court ruled that he could not be compelled to decrypt it, because it would violate his 5th Amendment rights. However, last week’s ruling directly overturns that decision. Said Judge Sessions in his ruling, “Boucher is directed to provide an unencrypted version of the Z drive viewed by the ICE agent.” The Judge added that “Boucher’s act of producing an unencrypted version of the Z drive likewise is not necessary to authenticate it. He has already admitted to possession of the computer, and provided the government with access to the Z drive. The government has submitted that it can link Boucher with the files on his computer without making use of his production of an unencrypted version of the Z drive, and that it will not use his act of production as evidence of authentication.” All this is legalese for “we already know he has it - and have other ways of proving it - so he’s not incriminating himself by being forced to give up his password.” Jim Budreau, Boucher’s attorney, says that an appea is already underway. very good , another one behind barsThis is one of those very controversial things... I believe heavily that child pornography is wrong, and that people in possession of it should be prosecuted. On the other hand, I also believe that the government has no right to pry into the computer data of its citizens, for no reason whatsoever, even if your a suspected terrorist. Example: I encrypt my drive, and I cant say that theres anything illegal on my computer... and, I dont have a lot to hide, but, I do have personal things, such as journals and emails. Quite frankly, I dont want some government agent reading it. I dont care if I know who they are, but, I dont need to know that they are GOING to end up talking about this laptop they confiscated, and the private things some kid wrote in a journal and the conversations he had in email. Whats the point of believing in freedoms if we are forced to say things? Its our right to not only speak when we want to, but, to stay silent when we choose. Why do I encrypt my hard drive when the government can force me to give the password up? And what if that password is the same that accesses my email, and other web services? Quote even if your a suspected terrorist I think, this is ridiculous. I came from the country, where any freedom was a scarce, so I'm extremely sensitive to freedom issues, but I believe in search warrant, if issued in case of a crime. You're saying, that, if I killed someone, nobody has a right to search my house, to see, if I have a gun?most countries have the right to search your pc for what ever reason they see fit , what your saying is that if they wanted someone on 9/11 the police should not be allowed into the hard drive for material , harry Quote from: Broni on March 09, 2009, 08:55:57 PM You're saying, that, if I killed someone, nobody has a right to search my house, to see, if I have a gun? I believe in warrants. My statement: "even if your a suspected terrorist" Means: The government should never spy on its citizens telephone, internet, mail, or data communications of any kind, just because you said the word "terrorist" in the supermall. PATRIOT act is one of the most unreasonable laws, in my opinion, since, there doesnt have to be any real evidence that you might even possibly be a terrorist before you can be: Spied on, imprisoned, have your rights completely removed. What is your exact solution, because I'm little bit lost?Basically they should have a reason, beyond a doubt, that you have something worth searching for. IE in your example Broni they couldn't just willy nilly break into your house to search for a gun; or a murder weapon- rather they should try to isolate what the murder weapon is as well as try to place some motive. As an example if they had video footage of the killing with the identification of the killer and the murder weapon it should be presented as conclusive proof of the killing. The stupid thing is if that video is on the internet they actually need permission from the poster to use it as evidence, which is complete and utter BS; conclusive proof LIKE that should never be inadmissable. In the case of the patriot act being suspected of being a terrorist is essentially equivalent to being a terrorist- and in fact it seems that being islamic or from the middle-east is enough to arouse suspicion. In fact, replace almost all of this terrorist propaganda with the word "communist" and we're in the cold war all over again. The hilarious part about the cold war was essentially that the US didn't agree with the ideology that essentially stripped individual freedoms... and yet in an attempt to fight that ideology they implemented that very system of freedom stripping. The same is occuring now. Strip away personal freedoms in an attempt to preserve those freedoms is a backwards and frankly hypocritical method of "FIGHTING" the enemy whose expected plus sides are at the very least specious. Quote from: harry 48 on March 10, 2009, 01:04:38 PM what your saying is that if they wanted someone on 9/11 the police should not be allowed into the hard drive for material , harry And that's what we mean. The methods at law enforcements disposal seem to work just fine for murders and rapes and so forth, so I'm a bit sketchy why they needed to strip personal freedoms and privacy. Is treason really a bigger problem then serial killers? Do they really need to spy on everybody to find them? If you think about it it's SIMPLY laziness on the side of law enforcement- instead of following the "rules" they simply cheat. I am of course not saying that it's easy the other way around- but something about the fact that our tax money goes to allowing this to occur doesn't sit right. i believe the police , cid , fbi , should be allowed to use what ever means they have , as you said about youtube , also wiretaps , etc , anything should be ok to use in court , but as long as they do not go outside the law , harry Quote from: harry 48 on March 11, 2009, 12:19:55 PM i believe the police , cid , fbi , should be allowed to use what ever means they have , as you said about youtube , also wiretaps , etc , anything should be ok to use in court , but as long as they do not go outside the law , harry Wiretaps would be outside of the law. Its an invasion of privacy. they shouldn't have to go outside to law to turn suspicion into proof; and if they do then the evidence they attain is questionable in some cases.

Answer» http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/criminal-defendant-ordered-to-decrypt-own-hard-drive?awt_l=MvOQK&awt_m=1a53JaU176K295

If Sebastien BOUCHER thought that encryping the data on his hard drive would protect him from prying eyes, he may have been right. But if the Derry, New Hampshire resident, who is originally from Canada, thought that it would protect his 5th Amendment right against self incrimination, he may have another think coming.

Last week, U.S. District Judge William Sessions (in Vermont) over-ruled a lower court ruling that Sebastien Boucher could not be forced to decrypt his hard drive, or provide the password to do so, because it would be a violation of his right to not incriminate himself, as guaranteed under the 5th Amendment.

At issue is the prosecution’s contention - based on solid evidence - that there is child pornography on Boucher’s hard drive. It all started when Sebastien Boucher was coming back into the country from Canada, and a customs agent noticed some child porn images on his laptop. At that time Boucher waived his Miranda rights to an attorney, and admitted that yes, there were child porn images on his laptop. The customs agent stated that they were able to view his “Z” hard drive partition, which contained “thousands of images of adult pornography and animation depicting adult and child pornography.”

[Note that it is likely that such a defendant may have believed that having animation involving children was not illegal - which would explain why he readily admitted it and waived his Miranda rights to a lawyer - but, in fact, anything that depicts a minor in a *censored* act - even fictitious, cartoon-drawn minors, may be illegal.]

However, after the files were viewed by the customs agent, the laptop was powered down, and nine days later, when authorities tried to access the data, they discovered that, upon turning the laptop on, they needed a password to access the data. The trial court ruled that he could not be compelled to decrypt it, because it would violate his 5th Amendment rights.

However, last week’s ruling directly overturns that decision.

Said Judge Sessions in his ruling, “Boucher is directed to provide an unencrypted version of the Z drive viewed by the ICE agent.” The Judge added that “Boucher’s act of producing an unencrypted version of the Z drive likewise is not necessary to authenticate it. He has already admitted to possession of the computer, and provided the government with access to the Z drive. The government has submitted that it can link Boucher with the files on his computer without making use of his production of an unencrypted version of the Z drive, and that it will not use his act of production as evidence of authentication.”

All this is legalese for “we already know he has it - and have other ways of proving it - so he’s not incriminating himself by being forced to give up his password.”

Jim Budreau, Boucher’s attorney, says that an appea is already underway.
very good , another one behind barsThis is one of those very controversial things...

I believe heavily that child pornography is wrong, and that people in possession of it should be prosecuted.

On the other hand, I also believe that the government has no right to pry into the computer data of its citizens, for no reason whatsoever, even if your a suspected terrorist.
Example:
I encrypt my drive, and I cant say that theres anything illegal on my computer... and, I dont have a lot to hide, but, I do have personal things, such as journals and emails.
Quite frankly, I dont want some government agent reading it. I dont care if I know who they are, but, I dont need to know that they are GOING to end up talking about this laptop they confiscated, and the private things some kid wrote in a journal and the conversations he had in email.

Whats the point of believing in freedoms if we are forced to say things? Its our right to not only speak when we want to, but, to stay silent when we choose.
Why do I encrypt my hard drive when the government can force me to give the password up? And what if that password is the same that accesses my email, and other web services?
Quote

even if your a suspected terrorist

I think, this is ridiculous.
I came from the country, where any freedom was a scarce, so I'm extremely sensitive to freedom issues, but I believe in search warrant, if issued in case of a crime.
You're saying, that, if I killed someone, nobody has a right to search my house, to see, if I have a gun?most countries have the right to search your pc for what ever reason they see fit , what your saying is that if they wanted someone on 9/11 the police should not be allowed into the hard drive for material , harry Quote from: Broni on March 09, 2009, 08:55:57 PM

You're saying, that, if I killed someone, nobody has a right to search my house, to see, if I have a gun?

I believe in warrants.

My statement:
"even if your a suspected terrorist"
Means: The government should never spy on its citizens telephone, internet, mail, or data communications of any kind, just because you said the word "terrorist" in the supermall.
PATRIOT act is one of the most unreasonable laws, in my opinion, since, there doesnt have to be any real evidence that you might even possibly be a terrorist before you can be:
Spied on, imprisoned, have your rights completely removed.

What is your exact solution, because I'm little bit lost?Basically they should have a reason, beyond a doubt, that you have something worth searching for.

IE in your example Broni they couldn't just willy nilly break into your house to search for a gun; or a murder weapon- rather they should try to isolate what the murder weapon is as well as try to place some motive.

As an example if they had video footage of the killing with the identification of the killer and the murder weapon it should be presented as conclusive proof of the killing. The stupid thing is if that video is on the internet they actually need permission from the poster to use it as evidence, which is complete and utter BS; conclusive proof LIKE that should never be inadmissable.

In the case of the patriot act being suspected of being a terrorist is essentially equivalent to being a terrorist- and in fact it seems that being islamic or from the middle-east is enough to arouse suspicion.

In fact, replace almost all of this terrorist propaganda with the word "communist" and we're in the cold war all over again.

The hilarious part about the cold war was essentially that the US didn't agree with the ideology that essentially stripped individual freedoms... and yet in an attempt to fight that ideology they implemented that very system of freedom stripping. The same is occuring now. Strip away personal freedoms in an attempt to preserve those freedoms is a backwards and frankly hypocritical method of "FIGHTING" the enemy whose expected plus sides are at the very least specious.

Quote from: harry 48 on March 10, 2009, 01:04:38 PM

what your saying is that if they wanted someone on 9/11 the police should not be allowed into the hard drive for material , harry

And that's what we mean. The methods at law enforcements disposal seem to work just fine for murders and rapes and so forth, so I'm a bit sketchy why they needed to strip personal freedoms and privacy.

Is treason really a bigger problem then serial killers? Do they really need to spy on everybody to find them?

If you think about it it's SIMPLY laziness on the side of law enforcement- instead of following the "rules" they simply cheat. I am of course not saying that it's easy the other way around- but something about the fact that our tax money goes to allowing this to occur doesn't sit right.

i believe the police , cid , fbi , should be allowed to use what ever means they

have , as you said about youtube , also wiretaps , etc , anything

should be ok to use in court , but as long as they do not go outside the law , harry Quote from: harry 48 on March 11, 2009, 12:19:55 PM

i believe the police , cid , fbi , should be allowed to use what ever means they

have , as you said about youtube , also wiretaps , etc , anything

should be ok to use in court , but as long as they do not go outside the law , harry

Wiretaps would be outside of the law. Its an invasion of privacy. they shouldn't have to go outside to law to turn suspicion into proof; and if they do then the evidence they attain is questionable in some cases.

Solve : Criminal Defendant Ordered to Decrypt Own Hard Drive?

Discussion

No Comment Found

Related InterviewSolutions

Reply to Comment