Judge says defendant must decrypt files, Fifth Amendment not at issue
Summary: A federal case that may have helped define constitutional law in the digital age turns not on the defendant's rights in regard to her encryption password, but on the fact that evidence clearly showed she owned a laptop in question and had access to its contents.
In what was thought to be a precedent setting case in the digital age, a federal judge ruled Monday that a woman arrested in a mortgage scam must give authorities access to her encrypted hard drive.
The defendant, Ramona Fricosu, argued that exposing the contents of the hard drive by entering her password and decrypting the files would violate her Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.
The judge in the case, which was heard in U.S. District Count in Denver (Colo.), found that was not the situation and gave Fricosu until Feb. 21 to produce an unencrypted hard drive.
"I find and conclude that the Fifth Amendment is not implicated by requiring production of the unencrypted contents of the Toshiba Satellite M305 laptop computer, " wrote U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn.
The laptop in question, Blackburn said, more likely than not belonged to and was used by Fricosu. The one piece of damning evidence was a jailhouse conversation Fricosu had with her ex-husband, Scott Whatcott, who also was arrested in the case. Blackburn's ruling included a transcript of the conversation, which he said proved Fricosu owned and had access to the computer.
Blackburn also noted that the defendant had been granted immunity and that federal prosecutors would not use her act of producing the laptop's contents in the case against her.
The case drew interest from civil rights groups who argued that current law needs to evolve to meet the nuances of the digital age. The case, however, did not turn on the question if Fricosu's encryption password was something she had or something she knew but on the jailhouse conversation with her ex-husband. If the password was found to be a key, she would have been compelled to give it up. But if it was ruled something she knew, she was protected by the Fifth Amendment.
That password question as it relates to the Fifth Amendment will have to be tackled head-on by future cases.
The Denver Post reported that Fricosu's attorney, Philip Dubois, told the judge in an earlier hearing that if the password is treated like a key "the meaning of 'search warrant' will be stretched and the rights to privacy and against self-incrimination shrunk."
The Post also reported that Patricia Davies, an assistant U.S. attorney, told the court during the same hearing that allowing Fricosu to hide behind a password will signal that "encrypting all inculpatory digital evidence will serve to defeat the efforts of law enforcement officers." She said such a situation would make prosecution impossible.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a brief in the case arguing that if the government forces people to turn over their encryption passwords that it is forcing people to be witnesses against themselves in a way that violates the constitution.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
The moral of the story
RE: Judge says defendant must decrypt files, Fifth Amendment not at issue
Given the different forms and sophistication of encryption, it's possible to hide not only the data itself, but the very nature of the data. This presents a problem that has yet to be addressed.
Just because you BRAG about committing a crime .....
Look at all the high school kids bragging about their imaginary conquests!
True .... but when you are were already on trial for the same crime ...
Sorry, but the excuse that all he was doing was bragging is completely ridiculous and cheap.
RE: Judge says defendant must decrypt files, Fifth Amendment not at issue
In essence, handing over this password would, in itself, be an act of self-incrimination, thus, you have a protected right not to do so.
The hard drive does not exist in a tertiary domain, it's right here.
This isn't complicated. The data on the drive is the same as papers in a safe. The hard drive is subject to a warrant. Just because you plug in a computer doesn't mean it exists in a different realm of reality. No one would argue she shouldn't have to open a safe, and it's rather pinheaded to say that a hard drive is any different. Making your password "I am Guilty" sounds like something my five year old niece would say. From her, it's cute. From an 'adult', it just sounds stupid.
If your going to operate a criminal enterprise, don't keep records where they could be found.
RE: Judge says defendant must decrypt files, Fifth Amendment not at issue
This is the same as turning over stuff in a bank safe
There is plenty of precedence to support the decision ....
RE: Judge says defendant must decrypt files, Fifth Amendment not at issue
As for "plenty of precendence...", why have you not included one reference? Being that this case is just breaking this ground, I am of the opinion that your statement is not fully based in fact.
RE: Judge says defendant must decrypt files, Fifth Amendment not at issue
RE: Judge says defendant must decrypt files, Fifth Amendment not at issue
Comment removed after OP change.
RE: Judge says defendant must decrypt files, Fifth Amendment not at issue
RE: Judge says defendant must decrypt files, Fifth Amendment not at issue
RE: Judge says defendant must decrypt files, Fifth Amendment not at issue
Everyone's missing a crucial legal weasel-wording here
The judge made no decision about password and the fifth amendment at all!
RE: Judge says defendant must decrypt files, Fifth Amendment not at issue
I think the wolf has it right
If the prosecutor chose to repudiate the immunity deal and go after her anyway, then any evidence gathered under the auspices of that deal (and the judge was very specific about that, apparently) becomes 'fruit of the poisonous tree' and would be unavailable in the later prosecution. The prosecution can't simply say "well now we know this fact so we will use it" without having to face a 5th Amendment ruling at that time. Self incriminating is self incriminating. If the information is only available because the 'witness' is not to be prosecuted, then prosecuting the witness changes the situation.
RE: Judge says defendant must decrypt files, Fifth Amendment not at issue
RE: Judge says defendant must decrypt files, Fifth Amendment not at issue
Judge says
So if the privilege exists to spare the accused from having to reveal, directly or indirectly, his knowledge of facts connecting him to the offense --- how does her refusal to divulge the password not fall under the 5th right against self-incrimination. The requirement to help in a search warrant does not trump the constitutional right not to self-incriminate. This is going all the way to the Supreme Court, imo.