LatiosXT

January 25, 2012 at 9:06am

Now I know this isn't the most reliable place, but when I also saw this on that image board website that shall not be named, some posters said that the woman basically admitted that there was evidence on her laptop at some point.

Now if someone could pull that up, then we can put this to rest because herself saying that means there is no incrimination of 5th amendment rights and her Miranda Rights were clearly in play.

tkid124

January 25, 2012 at 7:01am

warrant was issued for her house to be searched
House was searched
Laptop was found
She called her hubby who was in jail/prison on 'state charges'
During that conversation they talked about her laptop, and they (cops) finding 'it'.
"Scott: OK (pause) and did you have any something like anything
on your computer to protect it or something
Ramona: yeah"
Since only 1 laptop was encrypted, and was named "RS.WORKGROUP.Ramona"
They got a warrant to search said laptop. (This is a new warrant, in the same way a new warrant would be issued for a safe that was found in a house.)
In the original laptop warrant they asked for the password, the judge said that a password was knowledge in her head and protected by the 5th amendment.
They issued a new warrant for access to an un-encrypted copy of the hard drive.

The judge ordered: (1-4 paraphrased)
1. The search warrant is granted
2. Her Motion for Discovery is granted
3. The government will give her lawyer a copy of the hard drive, by Feb 6th
4. She shall then give the government an unencrypted copy of the hard drive, by Feb 21st
"5. That the government SHALL BE precluded from using Ms. Fricosu’s act of production of the unencrypted contents of the computer’s hard drive against her in any prosecution?

This entry is made in good faith, if I misplaced or overlooked a fact, I'm sorry.

pcjunklist

January 24, 2012 at 10:05pm

don't post responses if you don't read the full 10 page report from the judge. The judge stated:
1:The agents scanned the pc image and retrieved her name on the workgroup
2:She stated in a taped conversation from jail that she had incriminating evidence on the that specific laptop and that she had taken steps to protect it.

So the judge ruled that the prosecution has proved that it's her laptop and that it contains the documents that are illegal. The judge also has stated that she HAS IMMUNITY from anything found on the laptop and nothing found on the laptop can be used against her. It's not self incrimination if you have immunity!

aarcane

January 26, 2012 at 1:25am

There are a number of issues here. First and foremost is the right to freedom from self incrimination; the fifth amendment. The information she may or may not be hiding is documents, written by her, therefore her speech, and protected under the constitution.

The second amendment also applies. Strong Cryptography is classified as a weapon in the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_in_the_United_States ). This woman has a right to bear arms. Denying her the use of cryptography before she's convicted is a direct violation of her second amendment rights.

Fourth amendment doesn't really come into play. The prosecutors have access to what was warranted: The contents of the hard drive and laptop. If this is nothing but encrypted data, so be it. When this happens in baseball we use the term "Swing and a miss". Using the gangster analogy from below, if you crack open the mobster's vault, and there's nothing useful inside, the investigators are simply out of luck. They cannot force the gangster to tell the location of their secret stash.

A cunning lawyer may also be able to spin the first amendment into this. The court is trying to control what she can, or rather, what she HAS TO say.

If her lawyer is bold enough, he might try to petition for a dismissal with prejudice on the grounds of failure to provide a speedy trial, forcing them to brute force or proceed without the encryption key.

Ultimately, in no case should ANYONE EVER provide the decryption key to an encrypted device, NOR should they EVER provide decrypted copies of files on demand. It's the digital equivalent of throwing your change at a bully and thanking him for lightening your load.

EthicSlave

January 24, 2012 at 5:48pm

or have a doctor friend declare she has temporary amnesia from that hit and run she walked in front of a few days back

I mean cmon "people are gonna lie in court. The police do it all the time. All the time. Yes they do. It’s part of their job to protect, to serve, and to commit perjury whenever it supports the state’s case." [George Denis Patrick Carlin (May 12, 1937 – June 22, 2008)] R.I.P.

HiGHRoLLeR038

January 24, 2012 at 2:09pm

Just run DBAN and say, okay the decryption is running, this could take a while. problem solved lol

phrank47

January 24, 2012 at 2:07pm

To me she shouldn't have to provide the info. How could they say that it is not the same as forcing you to tell them something. How could this be okay but if you knew where a kid was and didn't want to tell them. I think the supreme court will reverse this when it reaches there if it does.

bloodgain

January 24, 2012 at 1:20pm

Oh, hey, on another note, this is intriguing.

Apparently, in the Sebastien Boucher case, the magistrate judge's ruling that Boucher's release of the encrypted key was self-incriminating was overturned for 2 reasons. First, the request was changed from turning over the encryption key to producing the files unencrypted to the grand jury. Second, it was declared not to be self-incriminating because the existence and location of the documents were already known.

When the existence of the subpoenaed material is previously unknown to the government or where production would implicitly authenticate the documents, the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena can be considered incriminating (slight paraphrase from the ComputerWorld article here: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9128920/Judge_upholds_efforts_to_compel_individual_to_decrypt_drive_in_child_pornography_case).

So this could play out differently. Turning over the encryption key could be protected under the 5th Amendment, and since the prosecution does not know what they will find yet, it could still be protected. It might be akin to the prosecution saying, "we know you have evidence against you hidden in there -- hand it over!"

I haven't read the judge's full decision, but the circuit court could very well see things differently. I'm curious to see how this turns out.

I'm also curious how "Law & Order: SVU" will use it in an episode this season.

bloodgain

January 24, 2012 at 1:02pm

I find the several cases where this has come up laughable:

"I'm sorry -- in the stress of these proceedings, I seem to have forgotten the password."

Go ahead, stick me with a contempt/obstruction charge. You just have to prove that I actually do know the password. Even if it sticks, I'll take that over whatever other crime I'm trying to hide.

I plan to avoid being in that situation by *not* committing fraud or downloading child porn, so this is all academic. But if I did, I'm with Biceps -- I think I'd try to do better than hide incriminating evidence on an encrypted laptop.

Bullwinkle J Moose

January 24, 2012 at 12:33pm

Hmm

It is my understanding that the closed source encryption sold by U.S. Corporations are ALL backdoored for Gov't use

Of course the Gov't and Corporations will not respond to such claims and those who know nothing about such concerns quickly dismiss them without giving them a second thought and without any proof of their existence

Since the Gov't and Corporations would not be allowed to discuss such a possibility if it were true, and would need to make the public believe that they cannot break the encryption or access the encrypted data even if they already know what was encrypted and already have access to it, they must make you believe that you are required to decrypt the data to keep their back door secrets "SECRET"

She should not need to give up her password or decrypt the data unless the Gov't can show that the encryption is NOT backdoored by releasing the sourcecode to any encryption they are now demanding a password to..

Untill the sourcecode is released to the public, the Gov't has not shown an actual need for her password!

If they refuse to release the sourcecode, then what are they hiding?
Obviously not copyrights, patents or intellectual property because that is what the courts are for

Biceps

January 24, 2012 at 12:22pm

Perhaps people should stop keeping incriminating things on their computers, or should install programs that wipe the drive if their PC is tampered with.

tony2tonez

January 24, 2012 at 12:06pm

I hope she doesn't comply and continues to fight the case. This is big for everyone out there, as the government continues to trample over the constitution.

If you read the article and messages boards that follow on Wired.com. You will read some points, by complying with the court order she will incriminate herself under the 4th amendment.

Its up to the state to crack and decrypt her computer. They issued a warrant to search her home and took the laptop. Now its on them to get the evidence they need to indite her. So, they can't the necessary evidence to indite you but they will try to strong are you into it.

Time to get my Samsung PM810 SSD (FIPS 140-2) as reviewed here on MAXPC. Too bad they didnt get FIPS 140-3.

Peanut Fox

January 24, 2012 at 11:57am

"The takeaway is that a court has ruled the Fifth Amendment doesn't always apply to encrypted computers, and in this case, the judge stated it could "require significant resources and may harm the subject computer" if authorities tried to decrypt the laptop on their own."

I thought this was kind of the point of encrypting a device in the first place?

angryrocker4

January 24, 2012 at 11:54am

This is forced self incrimination, it's not like an email that's sent out to other parties who can turn things over willingly. If the laptop is considered evidence and they're unable to decrypt it, that's their problem and legally it is their burden. Forcing her to do it is the same logic as a forcing a confession (if she is guilty), which also happens all the time.

Presumption of innocence means this should not ever happen. Its just like how circumstantial evidence alone gets people convicted when it can only be used to support physical evidence, legally that is. But cops, judges, and prosecutors only care about their arrest/conviction rates and jurors think it's their job to convict, thanks tv.

praetor_alpha

January 24, 2012 at 11:54am

What she should have done is encrypted it, then put the only copy on Megaupload. Whoops! Guess we will have to go after the FBI for destruction of evidence.

Eoraptor

January 24, 2012 at 11:51am

It will be interesting to see how these cases turn out. I personally hold to the Lockbox theory, that materiel on an encrypted laptop is not equivalent to speech and self-incrimination(because most of it is not infact the user's speech, but stuff they have downloaded) but instead is evidenciary, and no different that contents held in other hidden locations such as lock boxes and safe deposit boxes for which a warrant for a key can be obtained, but which are covered under the fourth, not the fifth, amendment.