Encryption
Dissenting: In a court case, individuals
should not be forced to provide passwords to
decrypt and access files relevant to the case.
“[Encryption is] really the only way you can secure information
against prying eyes. If it's too easy to compel people to produ
ce their crypto keys, it's not much of a protection.”
--Tien, attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation
Charlie Koba, Nicola McEldowney, Carol Lee, Serena Qiu
Terms
Encryption: The process of converting information into a form unintelligible to
anyone except holders of a specific cryptographic key.
Decryption: The act of restoring an encrypted file to its original state through the use
of a key.
Cryptography: Transforming information into an enciphered, unintelligible form using
an algorithm and a key; the art or science of keeping messages secret, deals
with all aspects of secure messaging, digital signatures, electronic money, and
other applications
Fifth Amendment: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury…nor
shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…nor
shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Hoffman vs. United States
Declared that “the privilege afforded not only extends to
answers that would in themselves support a conviction . . .
but likewise embraces those which would furnish a link in
the chain of evidence needed to prosecute.”
Meaning that under the Fifth Amendment, a defendant
doesn't have to give testimony that can incriminate
himself, but he also is not required to give any testimony
which could lead to evidence against himself. A computer
password is testimony that could be linked to evidence
that would incriminate the defendant and is therefore
protected under the Fifth Amendment.
Quote from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=341&invol=479
Privacy is Protected by Law
The spirit of American law is built to provide the
maximum freedoms for an individual until their
actions infringe on the freedom or well-being of
others.
Therefore, unless it can be proven that the withholding
of the password will actually cause harm to others,
the defendant should not be required to reveal it.
The Boucher Case
Suppose you have assigned one password to all your
private documents. By divulging your password in
court as Boucher was told to do, you could ostensibly
be providing the password to your bank account,
school or work files, or other sensitive documents
which might have nothing to do with the article(s)
under fire.
The Boucher Case
Articles about the case suggest that, per the Fifth
Amendment, Boucher had already relinquished his
rights by showing the police the computer in the first
place. However, the Fifth Amendment states that no
person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be
a witness against himself". Boucher did not provide
the border police with his password. Therefore, he
had not already incriminated himself, which is what
invoking the amendment seems to suggest he did.
The Boucher Case
Another debate the Boucher case has touched off,
being the first of its kind, is that of whether a
password constitutes material or merely an "idea". In
rejecting the subpoena to make Boucher say the
password, judge Jerome Niedermeier made the point
that "the password is not a physical thing. If Boucher
knows the password, it only exists in his mind" and
therefore should not have to be produced like a
tangible key.
Quote from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/07/tech/main3804858.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3804858
Other contents in Z Drive
• The government has only seen and knows about SOME
of the files
• Z Drive may have had other incriminating materials
• What does your Z Drive have? (ex. music, movies,
software, etc.)
• Whether illegal or not, the contents in Z drive must have
been encrypted for some personal reasons- protection of
privacy.
Password is NOT tangible
• Only existing in one’s mind (cannot be physically
seized and documented)
• Dangerous precedent of gov. having access to our
thoughts and minds
• One could easily say that he has forgotten the
password while another provides the password and
thus punished--how would this be justified?
Resources
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=341&invol=
479
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/07/tech/main3804858.shtml?sour
ce=RSSattr=HOME_3804858
http://www.pgpi.org/doc/pgpintro/
http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9834495-38.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Boucher
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/