Print 125 comment(s) - last by Iketh.. on Jan 27 at 12:41 AM

Colorado U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn said the Fifth Amendment does not protect her from the order

A Colorado woman was told to decrypt her laptop in court on Monday in order to aid prosecutors in her bank fraud case.

Ramona Fricosu, the defendant who was accused of bank fraud in 2010, had her laptop seized by authorities during the investigation. However, authorities stumbled upon a big problem while attempting to search her hard drive -- it was encrypted.

Full disk encryption, which prevents unauthorized access to data storage, is an option found in operating systems like Mac OS and Windows. The encryption can take decades to break, and if authorities tried to crack it, it could damage the computer.

That's why Colorado U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn ordered that Fricosu decrypt her hard drive and return it to the court so prosecutors can use her files against her in the bank fraud case.

Fricosu used the Fifth Amendment to protect herself. She argued that the Fifth Amendment protects her from compelled self-incrimination, and that the judge's order violates this. However, Blackburn didn't agree.

"I conclude that the Fifth Amendment is not implicated by requiring production of unencrypted contents of the Toshiba Satellite M305 laptop computer," said Blackburn.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Patricia Davies backed Blackburn's order, saying that allowing encrypted content to defeat authorities would send the wrong message to other criminals. In her words exactly, it would be a "concession to her [Fricosu] and potential criminals (be it in child exploitation, national security, terrorism, financial crimes or drug trafficking cases) that encrypting all inculpatory digital evidence will serve to defeat the efforts of law enforcement officers to obtain such evidence through judicially authorized search warrants, and thus make their prosecution impossible."

Blackburn has ordered Fricosu to return the unencrypted hard drive by February 21. Civil rights groups are keeping a close eye on the case.

Sources: Wired, Fox News

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: No explanation?
By fic2 on 1/24/2012 12:04:46 PM , Rating: 2
What if the person in question had a hard drive full of child porn? Are they allowed to hide behind a password?

What if the hard drive is full of pictures of puppies and kittens?

RE: No explanation?
By MrBlastman on 1/24/2012 12:23:30 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly. What if they didn't?

Women were burned at the stake is Salem, Massachusettes because people assumed they were witches without any proof.

Fear can not be allowed to override the balanced system of justice. The rule of law must be kept level. Innocent until proven guilty should always be a guiding mantra for our courts.

Just because someone has shifty eyes, a pot belly and grubby, undersized hands doesn't mean they are automatically a pedo. I think they're filth just as much as the rest of society but you get the idea. This concept can apply to any type of criminal.

*gasp* What if they are a controversial author or scientist that wrote somewhere the Earth orbits the Sun instead of the other way around?

Ostracization is easy to justify under the guise of context, yet easy to be condemned under the same, indentical means.

RE: No explanation?
By TSS on 1/25/2012 7:50:30 PM , Rating: 2
shifty eyes, a pot belly and grubby, undersized hands doesn't mean they are automatically a pedo. I think they're filth just as much as the rest of society but you get the idea.

That's prejudice and it's very dangerous. Not so much in the way that you mean, but it allows for the other extreme as well, that you're more trusting of people who look better.

Speaking of dutch courts and pedo's we've had lots of cases lately in the news about swimming instructors and day care people molesting children, and some big cases too. One even had a huge number of mentally handicapped children molested.

Point is people won't trust a person who looks as you're describing with their kids. I doubt anybody who looks like that works in a day care center or as swimming instructor. It's the ones that look normal who are the real danger.

Ideally, you should approach everyone with equal caution. There are exceptions on both sides of course, but when concirned with strangers that should be the general rule. It doesn't mean everybody's supposed to be a pedo. Doesn't mean everybody gets trust automatically either. It's something you earn, and very slowly. Nobody's not worthy of not being able to earn my trust, not even a pot belly, grubby with small hands looking guy. But he'll have to work for it, and it's certainly not going to start off big like letting him take care of my kids. And that goes for everybody.

RE: No explanation?
By Fritzr on 1/24/2012 6:35:55 PM , Rating: 2
IF the hard drive is full of child porn AND the defendant is required to display the contents THEN it is a clear case of self-incrimination.

IF the hard drive is full of puppies and kittens AND the defendant refuses to display the contents THEN it is assumed that the disk will incriminate.

If the defendant is required to hand over the laptop for the purpose of having it searched, that is permissible. It is now up to the court to conduct the search :D Further assistance in accessing the information, other than surrendering other objects needed for access, would be self-incrimination by providing testimony used for the purpose of obtaining a conviction.

The court does have the option of cloning the drive and using a supercomputer to decrypt the contents if they really need the laptop information for a conviction. The defendant can not be required (legally) to provide testimony that will assist their conviction. This assistance is requested routinely though and is occasionaly backed up by contempt of court proceedings.

The lay assumption is that if the defendant refuses to display their photos of cute little puppies and ktittens, they are admitting to be guilty of the crime they are accused of.

That may be true. But there could be other reasons. The defendant may be completely innocent of the child porn charge that is being used to justify the search and simply protecting the photos that would prove he is the serial killer the police are still searching for. This would then definitely be a 5th amendment case :P

RE: No explanation?
By YashBudini on 1/25/2012 2:29:13 PM , Rating: 2
Try driving drunk and saying you won't take a breathalyzer test based on the 5th Amendment. Watch what happens.

"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken

Latest Headlines
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
The Samsung Galaxy S7
September 14, 2016, 6:00 AM
Apple Watch 2 – Coming September 7th
September 3, 2016, 6:30 AM
Apple says “See you on the 7th.”
September 1, 2016, 6:30 AM

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki