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

By tayb on 2/7/2012 1:25:25 PM , Rating: 2
I know the judge did not and that is why I mentioned the appeal throwing out the whole trial. Lower judges want convictions and make rulings like this all the time hoping that the defendant will either cave or settle. I've been wrong often (who hasn't) but the combination-lock precedent that is already set seems pretty strong here.


By lagomorpha on 2/7/2012 1:36:12 PM , Rating: 3
I don't disagree with your reasoning that this is a violation of her right to not be forced to testify against herself, but there is no reason to think the appeals court will see it that way. They're not THAT much less retarded than lower courts.


By vol7ron on 2/7/2012 1:56:58 PM , Rating: 2
You also have to keep in mind that just because there's a precedent, doesn't mean that the judge has to enforce it - many times there's precedence that follows both ways. "Precedence" is a term movies like to throw out there to create some sort of drama.

What you're talking about is something that is made unconstitutional, which would escalate this to the Supreme Court (if denied in appellate court).


"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein














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