In Child Porn Case, a Digital Dilemma

[slgrieb]

This story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/15/AR2008011503663.html) in today's Washington Post revolves around whether the suspect can be forced to reveal the password to view encrypted files suspected to contain child pornography, or if it would violate his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.

[constructor]

This story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/15/AR2008011503663.html) in today's Washington Post revolves around whether the suspect can be forced to reveal the password to view encrypted files suspected to contain child pornography, or if it would violate his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.

If it will incriminate him he will suffer from memory loss.
In the UK the courts would then arrange to crack the drive unless of course he was a foreign national or immigrant in which case the case would be dismissed on the basis his Human Rights would be infringed.
Pity nobody cares about the victims.

[CCT]

I find it strange that the border inspector was looking at programs/material on the guys' laptop during a search for (what?) illegal goods to enter the US.

If he had had sealed envelopes in the car, would the border patrol open them too?

The US, Canada and Britain have entered the police state envisoned in '1984' without much ado. Spot checks for paperwork (drivers licences and insurance forms) and for signs of alcohol intoxication (they don't know how to test for drugs yet).

Certainly, AFTER a suspect is charged (based on presentable and acceptable evidence) the suspect should be liable to have person and possessions checked for further evidence, but not in a case of suspicion.

[constructor]

I find it strange that the border inspector was looking at programs/material on the guys' laptop during a search for (what?) illegal goods to enter the US.

If he had had sealed envelopes in the car, would the border patrol open them too?

The US, Canada and Britain have entered the police state envisoned in '1984' without much ado. Spot checks for paperwork (drivers licences and insurance forms) and for signs of alcohol intoxication (they don't know how to test for drugs yet).

Certainly, AFTER a suspect is charged (based on presentable and acceptable evidence) the suspect should be liable to have person and possessions checked for further evidence, but not in a case of suspicion.

Ahh - no problem these days. They arrest you first then rattle up a charge

Here is a UK example hot off the press

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/15/nhate115.xml

1984 is here

[Matridom]

This story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/15/AR2008011503663.html) in today's Washington Post revolves around whether the suspect can be forced to reveal the password to view encrypted files suspected to contain child pornography, or if it would violate his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.

To me, it's catch 22, if you do have illegal materials, then your refusal is an indication of supposed guilt, they'll then crack it and go to town on you. Some would say 'If you have nothing to hide, why hold out on the encryption?'

A few people with strong ethics will refuse based on the principle and when their systems get cracked, the enforcement body will look silly, but those people are few and far between.

Personaly, i think there are easier ways to traffic in illegal content then carying it across a border on a notebook.

As for the people who exploit these children, i think that what happens to them in prison is almost, not quite, but almost as awfull as to what they did to those childern.

[CeeBee]

As for the people who exploit these children, i think that what happens to them in prison is almost, not quite, but almost as awfull as to what they did to those childern.
The downside is that it may be enjoyable for them as well..:eek:

[geoscomp]

Then again, there are a number of perfectly legal reasons why files may be private, and why you wouldn't want law enforcement or anyone else to have access to them without a warrant and their own forensic people (and btw, why isnt this work being done by a police forensic expert? it's fairly easy to bypass encryption in a case like this)

[houseisland]

There is also the fourth ammendment: Probable Cause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause)

Encrypted files in and of themselves, coupled with a refusal to reveal the password, probably does not meet the requirement of probable cause.

____________________________________________

http://i1.tinypic.com/n5ngxw.jpg

It is my pure and virtuous heart that
gives me the strength of ten!

[Platypus]

I find it strange that the border inspector was looking at programs/material on the guys' laptop during a search for (what?) illegal goods to enter the US.

Sadly it has to be done these days. A good inspector develops an instinct for something suspicious. Without being able to act on that suspicion, situations like this (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/german-tourists-child-porn-abhorrent/2008/01/16/1200419863854.html) could well go undetected.

They can't let a situation like denying inspection slide, any more than they could just wave someone through who had a locked lead lined box with them,and refused to let it be opened. It mightn't have ampoules of neurotoxin in it, but they and everyone else is in for big trouble if it has and it's not found.

You know things can be searched at Customs. If there is a legitimate reason for material to be protected from inspection, arrange for it not to be in the position to have inspection demanded.

[slgrieb]

For me at least, my biggest revelation here is that a defendant can be compelled to surrender something like a physical key to a safety deposit box, but not a combination to a safe or an encryption key. This seem to be splitting a hair just a bit too thinly.