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: Send the wrong message?
By Schrag4 on 1/24/2012 1:53:50 PM , Rating: 2
It is not really illegal per say. If you are held in contempt for a reason they can hold you until you are no longer in contempt. Say you keep disrupting the court proceeding, the judge can send you back to lock up and bring you back the next day. If you keep doing it your case will not get anywhere and you spend most of your time in county.

Are you saying they would bring you back day after day, indefinitely? I really doubt that, but to be honest I don't know. Anyone have some insight?

I'm not saying I agree with it I am just saying how it currently is. I would hate for child porn people to be able to get away with it just because of bitlocker =(

We all would hate for criminals to go free. But some of us would hate EVEN MORE for the state to have the power to make sure everyone they prosecute is convicted, whether they're guilty or not. Just like we'd all hate for another terrorist to hijack a plane in the US, but I think most of us would be willing to take the risk if it means our kids won't be groped by TSA employees.

"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner

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