backtop


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 TSS on 1/25/2012 7:50:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
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.


"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki