Encryption and Court Cases

[comperr]

The focus of this debate will be the question of
In the context of a court case, should individuals be required to divulge necessary passwords to decrypt relevant files to the case?

This is fundamentally a question of the need for privacy and the need for law enforcement. When do the two clash? When they do clash which one should rule?

[godofcereal]

assuming i understand what you mean the two can really only come together if something illegal is been done within the privacy of someone who is doing the illegal action.
example: bugging someones phone to see if they are selling drugs. while bugging it they find out that he is having an affair and that his wife is also having an affair. then in court the police/fbi/cia or whoever is giving the evidence and gave that he was having an affair and so was his wife as evidence even though it had nothing to with the case.

then law enforcment crossed the line bring in personal matters into a federal court case. it wasnt part of the case so why should do they sat it. to make the man seem like a bad person saying that he had gone and cheated on his wife.

[Andomis]

umm... i dont think goc knows what you said lol... What the question was, is:

Person A has a harddrive passwords, standard encryption + password, and a linux password on their computer for physical security, but doesn't wanna give out his passwords.

Person B needs access to the hdd for information on a sexual encounter with a minor - premeditated and activated over the internet so there is some evidence already.

Person C is the minor and says that there were nude pictures taken of him/her and placed on the person A's computer against their will.

Who gets their way? Person A or Persons B and C? Should A have to give over his passwords? Or is this all private information.


Secondly,
If the police/fbi/cia/nsa/whoever found out you were having an affair while they had a warrent for something else, - they cannot use that or state that in a court of law. The warrent is only for what is written on the warrent and nothing else. So as far as I know, what you stated above is invalid.

Alive,
Andomis

[myhexhax]

No, you should not be required under law to divulge your encryption keys. The police/whatever are the ones that are charging you with a crime, and it is their job to gather the relevant evidence needed to persecute you. In the U.S., under the 5th amendment, you are not required to divulge information that would be self-incriminating. Unfortunately, with recent events, in the U.K., law enforcement (with a warrant) is able to utilize RIPA to force you to give away your encryption keys (and if you do not, you can be charged for not releasing them.) http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/ripa/encryption/disclosure-of-keys/?version=2 and http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/14/ripa_self_incrimination_ruling/ If the police cannot crack the encryption on my hard drives, that is too bad. They do not know if there is or is not illegal information/bomb plans/whatever, then they should not be searching that media.

Warrants are to be issued for specific items, (e.g. "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized") You are protected against unreasonable search and seizure. You are not required to divulge information that may or may not be self-incriminating. These are not my opinions, but one of the very core ideals of what the United States was founded on. (of course, that makes this post only relevant to the US regarding the actual legal fact, but my opinion holds true for all private citizens, that you should not be vulnerable to self-incrimination and only the evidence that the police are capable of gathering in whatever they are charging you with is what should be utilizable in court)

[i_fallenhero]

i believe that if other non-encrypted files are found which relate to the court case then the accused should be made to give out their passwords, because that is after all evidence.

[novalyphe]

The laws in the UK do make this a bit of an issue. As has already been said the right to not incriminate oneself seems to be infringed by the powers granted by RIPA. The way the law currently stands is that similar to a warrant, the police/security services/customs & excise must inform of of exactly what they are looking for. It is only in exceptional circumstances that they can request a key, rather than just the data they require, given in an intelligible form.

I personally feel that this is little more self incriminating than to allow a search of your property because a warrant was issued for it. I do feel however that it is very near the fringes of what would begin to undermine people's human rights.

The way I see it, if you are innocent of what you are accused you have nothing to worry about in handing over unencrypted data, much like an ordinary warrant, the authorities can only use specific data for which the initial request was made in court. Much the same as a phone tap to gain information about a terrorist act cannot be used in court as evidence of any other offense.

It is worth mentioning also that the act which allowed these requests to be made was passed in 2000 and yet the first major invocation of it was not until 2007, suggesting it is indeed being used sparingly.

[htomeht]

The way I see it, if you are innocent of what you are accused you have nothing to worry about in handing over unencrypted data, much like an ordinary warrant, the authorities can only use specific data for which the initial request was made in court. Much the same as a phone tap to gain information about a terrorist act cannot be used in court as evidence of any other offense.

According to what logic? Why would I not have to be worried just because I havent done anything wrong?
Bad things happen to good people. People in power abuse that power. Lifes a bitch.
These are things that cannot be ignored and regardless of how innocent I am giving up my freedom due to some old cliche thrown out by those same people who want to fuck me over is just stupid.

If I havent done anything wrong I shouldnt HAVE to give anyone anything.

[novalyphe]

The way I see it, if you are innocent of what you are accused you have nothing to worry about in handing over unencrypted data, much like an ordinary warrant, the authorities can only use specific data for which the initial request was made in court. Much the same as a phone tap to gain information about a terrorist act cannot be used in court as evidence of any other offense.

According to what logic? Why would I not have to be worried just because I havent done anything wrong?
Bad things happen to good people. People in power abuse that power. Lifes a bitch.
These are things that cannot be ignored and regardless of how innocent I am giving up my freedom due to some old cliche thrown out by those same people who want to fuck me over is just stupid.

If I havent done anything wrong I shouldnt HAVE to give anyone anything.

If a person had done nothing wrong, then no warrant would be requested or authorized and the issue does not apply. The authorities cannot randomly demand data/keys in the same way they cannot search your property without the necessary warrant. As the legislation stands at present you are not being asked to give up any of your "freedom". I'm not particularly worried about these powers in the same way I'm not worried about the police having the power to get a warrant and search my house.

Therefore, my logic is, if you are worried, you either believe that the government is out to get you, or you have something to hide.

[myhexhax]

If a person had done nothing wrong, then no warrant would be requested or authorized and the issue does not apply. The authorities cannot randomly demand data/keys in the same way they cannot search your property without the necessary warrant. As the legislation stands at present you are not being asked to give up any of your "freedom". I'm not particularly worried about these powers in the same way I'm not worried about the police having the power to get a warrant and search my house.

Therefore, my logic is, if you are worried, you either believe that the government is out to get you, or you have something to hide.

I hope that you never sit on a jury. You assume because the police obtained a warrant or are monitoring someone that they are guilty or have done something wrong? Actually, you will never sit on a jury if that is true. You are innocent until proven guilty. The warrant is only to gather evidence to try to prove that guilt. They have the burden of proof. You do not have to prove you are innocent.You *are* innocent, until the jury of your peers (who hopefully do not have the same view as you), determine unanimously that you are guilty. Full stop. End of story. None of this "but if you have nothing to hide" hogwash. If you have nothing to hide, go live in a glass house.

[thedotmaster]

If a person had done nothing wrong, then no warrant would be requested or authorized and the issue does not apply.
...
Therefore, my logic is, if you are worried, you either believe that the government is out to get you, or you have something to hide.

Right now you are posting on a so called 'hacker' website. That labels you as a potential terrorist. It is quite possible that the authorities have got you - and me, and the rest of us, for that matter - on a watchlist as someone who is interested, or perhaps knows, just a little too much about computers. Something that could be construed as terrorism.

I ask people about censorship and whether we should have access to information on making bombs, etc. They say "well why do we need that?". The reason we need that information is because we do not want to have the people in power to have all the knowledge and capabilities to fight. If we have no guns, no bombs and no way to communicate (Silly me, we've always got the internet.. right?) then where do we stand?

The whole encryption thing is not about charging people as guilty without evidence, it's closer to the perverting the course of justice charge. That doesn't make it acceptable however, I think it's a shocking law that will the seed of even more shocking and intrusive (and down right orwellian) laws.