backtop


Print 66 comment(s) - last by jamesd1234.. on Feb 22 at 9:23 AM


  (Source: zeeshan.netai.net)
Ramona Fricosu's attorney says she may have forgotten the password

Last month, a Colorado woman was ordered to decrypt her laptop in order to help prosecutors obtain evidence in the bank fraud case against her. Now, Ramona Fricosu's attorney is saying that the defendant may have forgotten her password, further prolonging the case and getting prosecutors nowhere with the hard drive.

"It's very possible to forget passwords," said Philip Dubois, Fricosu's attorney. "It's not clear to me she was the one who set up the encryption on this drive. I don't know if she will be able to decrypt it. The government will probably say you need to put her in jail until she breaks down and does what she is ordered to do. That will create a question of fact for the judge to resolve. If she's unable to decrypt the disc, the court cannot hold her in contempt."

Davies said Fricosu has not said in any court documents that she has forgotten the password. They are waiting to see what position she takes in court.

Fricosu was accused of bank fraud in 2010, and had her laptop seized by authorities for investigative purposes. When attempting to search her hard drive, authorities found that it was encrypted using full disk encryption, which prevents unauthorized access to data storage. The option can be found in operating systems like Mac OS and Windows, and if authorities tried to crack it themselves, they could damage the computer.

Colorado U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn then ordered Fricosu to decrypt her hard drive and return it to the court so prosecutors could use the files against her in the bank fraud case. Fricosu tried using the Fifth Amendment to protect herself, arguing that it protects her from compelled self-incrimination.

However, Blackburn concluded that "the Fifth Amendment is not implicated by requiring production of unencrypted contents of the Toshiba Satellite M305 laptop computer." Assistant U.S. Attorney Patricia Davies backed Blackburn's decision, saying that encryption cannot be a sure way for criminals to bypass the system.

Source: Wired



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: I forget now...
By bebimbap on 2/7/2012 1:10:13 PM , Rating: 2
After this case, all users have to do is set encryption on their hard drives so when the FBI comes you can just "forget" your crimes


RE: I forget now...
By tayb on 2/7/2012 1:11:01 PM , Rating: 5
It's no different than locking a fragile document in a combination safe. The US Government would bear the responsibility in this particular example of cracking the safe and stealing the documents. The act of cracking the safe would pose a danger to the documents just as attempting to crack an encrypted drive poses a danger to the documents. You can't get around this by demanding the defendant open it for you.

It is not impossible to decrypt a drive just as it is not impossible to crack a safe. At some point the US Government invested in tools to crack safes. They'll have to do the same for encrypted drives.

Sorry but I'm not willing to waive my rights or anyone else's rights even if it means one or ten guilty people being set free.


RE: I forget now...
By Iketh on 2/7/2012 3:51:53 PM , Rating: 1
The manufacturer of safes are consulted to aid in opening them. I'm curious if Microsoft or Apple could/would be consulted in cracking their encryptions.

Also, wouldn't the password have to be buried somewhere within the OS accessible by Microsoft/Apple?


RE: I forget now...
By Gondor on 2/7/2012 4:46:04 PM , Rating: 2
With any decent encryption you don't actually store the passphrase; you only store encrypted data and need that specific passphrase (or one that fits exact same criteria for decryption !) to access the data, otherwise you're just looking at a set of scrambled bytes.

And it is trivial to increase the passphrase length and algorithm complexity compared to the amount of time required to brea the encryption.

This whole story is absurd anyway: if she had indeed commited bank fraud, there are bound to be some bank records of it , plus other records (of communication and such). I'm not sure what the dumbphuck investigators are doing there but obviously not their job, otherwise the prosecution wouldn't have to cling on her self-incrimination to win the case.They are looking for her "black book" diary of bank frauds (?!) ... idjits.


RE: I forget now...
By Strunf on 2/8/2012 7:47:30 AM , Rating: 2
Cracking a safe (any safe) is possible within a reasonable amount of time and without any risk for the papers, you just need the right tools.
In this case it's nearly impossible to decrypt the hard drive regardless of the tools you use, I think there's no real reason a person should be allowed to not give her password to the law enforcement authorities, if everyone would be encrypting their hard drives including on a business level our judicial system would be seriously handicapped.


"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher














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