First they came for the sex offenders
Technology has put a damper on some constitutional protections. You see, the automobile has made it so that searches are reasonable as long as you search everyone. And indoor plumbing means that it is not longer necessary for the police to knock on your door. Now, technology takes a bite out of the fifth amendment as a judge orders man to decrypt his protected laptop.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:52 am
Duress passwords, people! Plausible deniability!
Most quality encryption programs offer this feature, and it’s silly that people who are hiding stuff from “the man” don’t attempt to use it.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Duress password? Is that the password that wipes or randomly encrypts all protected data?
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:01 pm
My quick search of the Internet says a duress password wipes the computer or at least the data.
This doesn’t work in the law enforcement scenario because they will have made copies (bit by bit images) of the entire hard disk.
I’ve been thinking of doing this for years but have never gotten around to it but I think the proper solution is to have two sets of encrypted data in the same file. One set is something you won’t mind being seen and the other is the “real stuff”. You put in the duress password and they get the “get out jail free” version.
March 3rd, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Good idea!
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Sorry, I fail to see what your objection is here. Beginning with the heading, aren’t they supposed to come for the sex offenders? If not, who the hell are they supposed to come for? Anyone at all? And if no one, then WTF do we even have a government for?
Equally puzzling is your suggestion that technology is to blame for this supposed constitutional encroachment. Without it, there would have been no encryption, and no need for the judge to order the pervert to unencrypt anything; they would have had ready access to the files (or pictures) already.
Lastly, while a duress password is not necessarily a bad idea in and of itself, I fail to see how it would have helped the pervert whose cause McCullagh is championing now. Spoliation of evidence is misconduct, and generally entitles the opposing party to a presumption that the evidence in question was adverse to the party that spoliated it. What would the perv argue, that the files weren’t incriminating but he had destroyed them anyway just to prevent his own attorneys from proving his innocence?!
March 4th, 2009 at 1:46 am
Joe,
Look at Truecrypt…it allows you to do exactly what you are talking about.
March 4th, 2009 at 9:36 am
I thought my objection was pretty clear and it is a semi-recurring theme here that sex offenders are a pretty reviled group and the state seems content to rely on the general view by the people that it’s OK to strip these people of legal protections.
And I’m not blaming technology. I’m blaming the legal system’s justification that some things are OK because of technology.
March 4th, 2009 at 11:43 am
I guess if you use the word pervert enough it will give your self absorbed righteous self the delusion that the Constitution of the United States is printed on toilet paper. Do you mind if someone takes your mail out of the mailbox and reads it? Fox news is on, better log off and zombie out now.
March 6th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Uncle: Sex offenders are indeed a reviled group, and for good reason: THEY’RE SEX OFFENDERS, for Christ’s sake. Actually not for Christ’s sake. I can’t imagine JC put them up to that, so scratch that last part. But still, they’re friggin’ sex offenders. We’re supposed to revile people like that, and we sure as hell aren’t supposed to compare them to people who were exterminated in mass because of their religious and ethnic heritage. Besides, what the hell legal protections do you think they’re being stripped of? No one in the history of the U.S., or any other country I’m aware of, has ever had a “right” to refuse to hand over evidence just because it happens to be incriminating. The only thing that approaches testimony here is that the pervert can’t provide the password without revealing the fact that he knows it. That fact can be repressed easily enough: don’t tell the jury how the prosecutors got to the files, only that they did, and here’s what they found. No need for the jury to know they were ever encrypted to begin with.
George: since you’re all big on the Constitution and stuff, perhaps you’d care to point me to the part of it that says pedophiles are not perverts, or that everyone (perverted or otherwise) has a right to refuse to hand over any potentially incriminating evidence that may be in his possession. I know a fair bit about the Constitution, but I must have missed that part. Would that be the 28th Amendment, perhaps?
March 7th, 2009 at 10:19 am
‘Sex offenders are indeed a reviled group, and for good reason’
But, in the legal system, they should be treated as other criminals.
‘what the hell legal protections do you think they’re being stripped of?’
In this case, self-incrimination. In other cases, various searches were questionable. And there’s that whole notification/database thing SOs have to comply with.
And there’s, of course, all these laws that everyone wanted that are now causing other problems, such as the underaged kid who was arrested and charged with child porn for taking nudie pics of his underaged girlfriend.
Heck, they’re like terrorists now.
And that’s not counting some bills that are in the works in some states, like forcible castration.
March 8th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
There is no privilege against “self-incrimination” in the sense of refusing to hand over any evidence that might incriminate you. Not for sex offenders, not for murderers, not for speeders, and not for anyone else. If it worked that way, O.J. wouldn’t have bothered playing high stakes poker with the bloody glove; all he’d have needed to do is claim ownership of the same, demand that the state return his property to him, and then refuse to hand it over to the judge because it incriminate him. When in doubt, consult the source, i.e., the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (the supreme law of the land in every state except Montana):
Oh crap, I libertooned it. Here’s what it actually says:
Did anyone call Sebastien Boucher as a witness to testify against Sebastien Boucher in a criminal case against Sebastien Boucher? I didn’t think so.
Sex offender databases are a totally separate issue. If you want to remain blissfully ignorant of the sex offenders living in your neighborhood who may have their eyes on your kids, no one is challenging your right as a citizen to remain in the dark: just don’t click this link and you’ll be none the wiser. If you do want to know who to watch out for, then perhaps you should click that link, as I did with North Carolina’s equivalent before moving into this neighborhood. Either way it’s your choice, not Leviathan’s.
March 8th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
I know. It’s a right.
March 8th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
It is neither. There is no meaningful distinction between “privileges” and “rights” when it comes to the government. Both work equally well, and equally poorly. If opposing counsel asks you what your attorney told you, he can’t compel you to answer on the grounds that the attorney-client privilege is “a privilege, not a right.” Conversely, if you assert a right to keep kiddie porn on your laptop when no such right exists, simply calling it a “right” won’t make it so.
Seeing as the Fifth Amendment privilege/right only covers the privilege/right not to “be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness” against yourself, kindly explain how either (1) handing over a laptop in the first place or (2) providing the authorities with the information they need to find out what is on it makes you a “witness” against anyone.