Technology

Did the Woman Ordered to Decrypt Her Computer Really Forget Her Password?

Colorado Woman Ordered to Decrypt Computer by Judge Might Have Forgotten PasswordIn January, we reported about the Colorado woman who was ordered by a district court judge to comply with prosecutors’ wishes and decrypt her laptop, a ruling that defense lawyers say violates her Fifth Amendment rights. Now, Wired reports Ramona Fricosu might have conveniently forgotten her password.

Wired writes:

The authorities seized the Toshiba laptop from defendant Ramona Fricosu in 2010 with a court warrant while investigating alleged mortgage fraud. Ruling that the woman’s Fifth Amendment rights against compelled self-incrimination would not be breached, U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn ordered the woman in January to decrypt the laptop.

“It’s very possible to forget passwords,” the woman’s attorney, Philip Dubois, said in a telephone interview. “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.”

But prosecutor Patricia Davies says that Fricosu has never said that she may have forgotten her password in legal documents.

Wired points out that cases where defendants have been ordered to decrypt computers are rare, but the shift with this case is that prosecutors only believe the laptop to contain evidence. In a case of child pornography where the judge ordered a computer to be decrypted, prosecutors had actually seen the evidence on the computer before. Wired reports that prosecutors believe the laptop contains evidence due to a conversation between Fricosu and another defendant while in jail.

Fricosu was given until Feb. 21 to unlock her computer. If she does not open the laptop, the judge will have to determine if Fricosu has actually forgotten her password or if she should be held in contempt:

“The government will probably say you need to put her in jail until she breaks down and does what she is ordered to do,” Dubois said. “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.”

Many civil-liberties groups across the country are opposed to the prosecution‘s call for decryption and the judge’s ruling saying it test of rights against self-incrimination in a digital world.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Comments (134)

1 2 3
  • Choctaw25
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 10:20am

    This lady has the smarts to outsmart the government lawyers because they don’t have anyone smart enough to access her computer?????
    Talk about a brain drain for our government workers. Give it to the Chinese, Russia, Iran they can crack it in a heartbeat. Unless of course this lady is a front for the CIA, with skills we haven’t been told about.

    Report Post » Choctaw25  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 10:29am

      No they can’t. Please study electronic cryptography. This isn’t a transliteration of “well, make the letter ‘a’ into the letter ‘z’, that will fool them!”

      Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
    • smithclar3nc3
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 10:43am

      What is she on trial for?

      Report Post »  
    • Ruler4You
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 11:42am

      Happens to me all the time. You can’t prove malice. Like “lying” it’s a state of mind. (Quote: U.S. D.o.J. A.G. Eric Holder 12-2011)

      Report Post » Ruler4You  
    • TomFerrari
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 11:50am

      A government addicted to RULING its people, not SERVING them.
      A government spoiled by past complacency when it comes to violating the rights of the individual.
      (via such things as the “patriot” Act)
      A government out of control.
      A government with NO bounds.
      A government DESIGNED to have almost NO powers aside from protecting OUR RIGHTS, not abridging our rights, or creating rights, or creating rights for itsself.

      “Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government they can exercise their Constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.” – Abraham Lincoln

      TomFerrari  
    • JRook
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 11:57am

      Oh right her dog ate it. I’d say if she ends up in jail, who did she outsmart. The whole thing is clear obstruction.

      Report Post »  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 12:08pm

      @Jrook

      Of course, you had to come out, yet again, in favor of and anti-rights position.

      You cannot be forced to self incriminate. Period. And if that means “obstruction”, then so be it. Welcome to the notion of individual rights.

      Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
    • Rowgue
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 12:25pm

      She’ll be held in contempt for not complying with the order. She’ll be held in prison until she complies with the order. She didn’t outsmart anyone.

      And sorry GHOST, but encryption isn’t as secure as you like to think it is. There is a reason they’re going about this process in the manner they are, and it has nothing to do with the idea that they can’t possibly access the data without her cooperation.

      Report Post »  
    • KPEdwards
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:09pm

      @ROWGUE

      Oh, most definitely they could break the encryption … in something like a decade. Oh maybe a couple of years if processors have a huge leap, or quantum computing shakes out (there are algorithms that can factor in polynomial time: Shor’s algorithm).

      Don’t just take my word for it. Here is a quote from the Wired article linked above:

      “Full disk encryption is an option built into the latest flavors of Windows, Mac OS and Linux, and well-designed encryption protocols used with a long passphrase can take decades to break, even with massive computing power.”

      Report Post »  
    • Crush_Liberalism
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:36pm

      High school kids who don’t know who fought in the Spanish-American war could probably hack it.

      Report Post » Crush_Liberalism  
    • Pontiac
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 3:05pm

      @Rowgue
      [She’ll be held in prison until she complies with the order.]
      Do you not know what a Hidden Volume is? If this becomes a legal norm then it will easily be defeated by hidden volumes. Unless you plan on locking people up for allegedly decrypting a phony volume, which they would have no evidence for one way or the other.
      Either obtain the evidence through a legally warranted tap or other means beforehand or don’t bother making a legal case on information YOU DO NOT HAVE AND WILL NEVER GET! How inept do you have to be to work in government? Apparently very. Instead of figuring out how to prosecute people suspected of mortgage fraud, figure out how to prevent it from occurring in the first place!

      http://www.truecrypt.org/hiddenvolume

      Report Post » Pontiac  
    • barnsy
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 3:20pm

      Im a law and order guy but im with the defence on this one.These are boarderline police state tactics.Although I dont think the woman forgot her password there is no way to prove it.Im more afraid of these dictitorial judges than a non violent criminal.

      Report Post » barnsy  
    • Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 6:18pm

      @ Pontiac:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deniable_encryption#Detection

      This story is a prime example of my new favourite phrase of the week: “Rubber-Hose Cryptanalysis”
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber-hose_cryptanalysis

      Report Post » Lesbian Packing Hollow Points  
    • Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 6:32pm

      Anyone else notice the keyboard the padlock is sitting on is a Greek UNIX keyboard?

      Report Post » Lesbian Packing Hollow Points  
    • bertr
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 10:41pm

      they can torture her, throw her in prison, whatever they want because they are the government. Just because the constitution says they dont have the authority to do it and ita correct, which they do NOT, doesnt mean they physically cant and wont do it.
      But in the end she is still on the right side of the constitution and the right side of what was endowed upon her by her creator and they are on the wrong side.
      Thats the whole point about endowed rights

      Report Post » bertr  
    • Zipit
      Posted on February 8, 2012 at 9:58am

      Free in a moment! Just use the Hillary defense. I don’t recall!!!!

      Report Post »  
  • itsmyfirstday
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 10:14am

    All they need is a password?? What kind of idiot runs there IT investigations? Send me the laptop and I will unlock the password in 10 minutes.

    Report Post » itsmyfirstday  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 10:32am

      No you won’t. Please, be real.

      First, you have no password hash to work against, so you‘d be forced to use what’s called “brute force”. This isn’t finding a password in Windows at the login prompt by trying to decrypt the password hash, it’s dealing with a password handled at the MBR level where the start and end of any encryption routine is not know. Further, since you’d be forced to use brute force, you’d be stuck in the same quandry as the government, namely, the sheer volume of time it would take to break, say, a 20 to 64 character length random assortment of ASCII characters, which using current and expotentially better computers over time, would take you until about 6 times the age of the universe.

      This isn‘t a kid’s toy hacker L0FTCrack problem guy, it’s technical, and complex.

      Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
    • The Jewish Avenger
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 10:44am

      I remember when XP came out we made a “sniper” disk where you could bypass the password to access the computer. Sadly it meant deleting the administration account. If you didn’t want to delete the administrator account you had to crack the password, usually brutef-orcing.

      One of the main reasons why they suggest to this day to make a user account and not use the original administration account: You can delete the administration and enjoy snooping through the user accounts…

      Or… so I’ve heard…

      But I‘m surprised they haven’t ignored search and seizure clauses and hired someone to brute-force (Brute-force: a program that goes through ALL possible passwords) that laptop already…

      Report Post » The Jewish Avenger  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 11:00am

      If the password is over 20 characters in length, and sufficiently nonsensical, they can ‘brute force’ until they die of old age and they won’t get in.

      Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
    • The Jewish Avenger
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 11:41am

      I agree, the longer the password the less likely brute force can even be used. BUT if she DID make a user account like a knowledgable computer user would, you can bypass the administrative account and just ransack the rest. But this is also from when I was interested in this stuff. Now a days passwords are any length (When 6-8 lower case only alpha-numeric was extremely common) and it is also assuming that this is a windows OS. Now whether its unix, linux, mac’s OS, etc I have no idea, never had to use it then for no one had them unless they were 24-7 hacking. Now people do it as a hobby… any way, if it is a windows OS I say bypass the administration account and have a look.
      Beside if this is a mortgage scam, that means it affects taxes and fees why hasn’t the feds taken over this yet? I thought they hated competition?

      Report Post » The Jewish Avenger  
    • Freedom.Fighter
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 11:59am

      @GHOSTOFJEFFERSON
      You are assuming that they would not use a supercomputer to run through the possibilities. I would hope that they would have better things to do for supersomputers to spend their time on, but it wouldn;t surprise me if the government ends up commissioning one for the purpose of being used for situations like this.
      When the government has quantum computers, they will be able to decrypt pretty much anything they want whenever they want. Out passwords and encryption will be useless.

      Report Post » Freedom.Fighter  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 12:10pm

      @Avenger

      This is whole disk encryption, not simply OS encryption. There’s a difference. Look up TrueCrypt. You don’t even get to the Windows boot prompt until you satisfy the TrueCrypt MBR prompt. You can boot up with a bootable DVD/Flash drive all the live long day and it won’t mean boo.

      Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
    • Nunya.B.Niz
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 12:11pm

      Seriously? You don’t know the difference between “their” and “there” but you expect us to believe you’ll decrypt a password in under 10 minutes? I‘m willing to bet that decoder ring you got out of the ******* jack box isn’t going to help you on this one.

      Report Post »  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 12:15pm

      @Freedom

      No, I‘m actually assuming that they’d use every single iota of processing power, from very computer on earth, at the same time and 100% dedicated to cracking the password, and further, that the processors would be replaced with upgrades, ad infinitum, with an expotential processing power increase algorithm. And with those as assumptions, I can tell you it would take up to 6 times the length of the life of the universe, to crack, if she used a sufficiently lengthy and complex password. Most folks who do whole drive encryption in a serious manner, pick 20+ length passwords of random ASCII characters.

      Folks watch way too much television or movies thinking that somehow the government is omniscient and knew what they were doing. In this case, even if they were, they’d be SOL.

      Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
    • Freedom.Fighter
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 4:01pm

      @GHOSTOFJEFFERSON
      Incorrect.
      My knowledge is not based on tv. It‘s based on the fact that I’m a computer science student doing research into QKD (Quantum Key Distribution) and cryptography.
      Passwords similar to the one they mention have been resolved using inexpensive “supercomputers” that are really a bunch of PlayStation 3s networked together.

      Report Post » Freedom.Fighter  
    • Pontiac
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 5:25pm

      LOL ok guys, feel free to hack into this 10mb encrypted volume I just made with your amazing skills and/or supercomputers.
      http://www.mediafire.com/file/lhb8bl8bl8k5a3v/Test File.crypt

      Post the code I provided in a text file as proof. Good luck.

      Report Post » Pontiac  
    • Freedom.Fighter
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 7:06pm

      @PONTIAC
      Give me a quantum computer and I will oblige you. Until then, I suggest you would have more luck sending it to places like this:

      http://www.dwavesys.com/en/dw_homepage.html

      Report Post » Freedom.Fighter  
  • heavyduty
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 10:13am

    Give it to the CIA, they can break anything.

    Report Post »  
  • Atokaite
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 9:15am

    Encryption in todays world is just that, Secure, Unopenable, except by the P/W.
    As to the 5th Amendment, that is a matter for the Supreme Court, eventually to decide.
    Interesting.
    Sempr FI

    Report Post » Atokaite  
  • DD313
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 8:43am

    An appeal of this judge’s order is in order. The only way it might be valid is if the prosecutor gave the lady full immunity from prosecution in the case being pursued. From what I’ve read the only offer was for limited immunity, meaning that whatever might be found on the hard drive could be used to gather information from other sources which then might be enough for a conviction. Full immunity would have been pursued if the prosecutor thought that the lady was a “small fish” in a criminal enterprise, and that the information would help convict the kingpin. It looks like she is the actual focus of the investigation, so she had better sit tight or suffer a TIA, even if it means being sent to an oubliette until her appeal is successful.

    Report Post » DD313  
  • THX-1138
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 8:41am

    “I don’t recall.”

    If it’s good enough for them, it’s good enough for us.

    Report Post » THX-1138  
    • fukjihad
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 9:27am

      very clever

      Report Post » fukjihad  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 9:27am

      Agreed.

      I think she committed fraud, but I also believe she is covered by the the 5th. It would be similar to a judge ordering a defendant to remember where they put a key to building so the prosecutors could go enter & collect evidence.

      Report Post »  
    • rhettnc
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 9:32am

      Hmm seems like it worked for Clinton and is working for Holder (so far anyway).

      Report Post »  
    • DrFrost
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 11:39am

      Agreed. You can‘t force someone to remember something they don’t want to. Period. End of discussion. Any judge that believes or acts differently should be replaced.

      Report Post »  
  • ColoradoMaverick
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 8:39am

    How does NOT complying with a lawful order to unlock her computer infringe on her free speech? Lawyers are screwing up our country with this non-sense.

    Report Post » ColoradoMaverick  
    • selloursouls
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 8:56am

      Who says this was a LAWFUL ruling? If this is a lawful ruling then ordering her to testify against herself would be a lawful ruling. It isn’t the defendants job to provide evidence to the prosecutor. It wasn‘t today’s lawyers that gave us the fifth amendment. We need to be careful in our zeal to put criminals away that we don‘t inadvertently give the government more power than it’s supposed to have. If they are willing to walk on someone else’s rights there is nothing to stop them from doing the same to us.

      Report Post » selloursouls  
    • Freedomluver
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 8:57am

      You seem to be missing the obvious, the judge is demanding that she testify against herself. This is the kind of insanity one would expect from the old East Germany…not from a judge who respects the Constitution.

      If there case is this weak, they must not have much of a case.

      Report Post » Freedomluver  
    • Mizurax
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 9:19am

      Who said anything about free speech? The lawyer didn’t say it it violates her First Amendment rights. They lawyer said it violates her Fifth Amendment rights. You know? As in, “I plead the 5th.”

      Pay attention.

      Report Post »  
    • golfmom
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 9:27am

      You don’t get it. It can’t be lawfull if you are forced to encreminate yourself.They have the laptop let them decript it.

      Report Post »  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 10:08am

      There is nothing “lawful” about this “order”. You cannot be forced to self incriminate. She’s being told to perform actions that could lead to exactly that result. It’s only “lawful” in the sense that she’s being forced by the legal system.

      Read your constitution.

      Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
    • TrueLibertarian
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 1:18pm

      @ColoradoMaverick

      By your stupid logic we don’t need laws. A judge can simply hold anyone in contempt and put them in jail forever. I can accuse you of murder and then the judge can order you to reveal where the body is. Since you didn’t kill anyone you would be held in contempt of court forever.

      The burden of proof is on the prosecutor not the person being accused. In this case the prosecution has no evidence otherwise it wouldn’t be trying to decrypt anything. In order to hold her in contempt they have to prove her intent to violate the judges order. So they have to prove that she did not forget the password. This order came 2 years after they seized her laptop so it is completely reasonable to forget a password after that time.

      Report Post » TrueLibertarian  
    • psychokittis
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 7:36pm

      It has nothing to do with free speech. It has to do with the 5th amendment guaranteeing that nobody can be compelled to testify against themselves. This is a no ifs, ands or buts amendment to the Constitition. The judge in this case is in violation of said Constitution.
      At this point, whether she is innocent or guilty is not an issue. The issue is an arrogant judge who thinks trhat the Constitution can be ignored.
      Guilt or in nocence will be determined by a jury nat a later date.
      To reiterate, though, It is not a free speech issue.

      Report Post » psychokittis  
  • Ran60
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 7:47am

    “The government will probably say you need to put her in jail until she breaks down and does what she is ordered to do,” Dubois said.

    Und iff that doesn’t verk, vee vill use the rubber hoses and start the unpleasantness.

    Vee haff vays to make you talk!

    You can almost hear the Wagner in the background.

    Report Post »  
    • jasmer
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 8:05am

      No comfy chair, then… :-(

      Report Post »  
    • @leftfighter
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 8:45am

      If I was her, I’d have gone on the computer 10 minutes after the ruling and changed the password to started hitting letters indescriminently.

      What? I like strong password protection. Nothing like a random set of keystrokes to make sure you can never open a file again ER- protect your computer…

      That said, if she’s found guilty, throw the book at her! Just don‘t violate the Constitution while you’re doing it.

      Report Post » @leftfighter  
    • Servant Of YHVH
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 6:20pm

      She just needs to tell them that she’s an illegal alien and then everything will be okay. They will drop the case, give her back her laptop and then give her millions of dollars to spend.

      Report Post » Servant Of YHVH  
  • Arc
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 7:45am

    The current administration’s attempts to marginalize a few of citizens rights as guaranteed by the US Constitution.

    1. Privately owned Talk Radio Broadcasters would be required to give equal time to dissenting
    or opposing opinions held by any organizations.

    2. Use of random acts of violence to justify stricter gun laws. ( Jared Loughner) ( Ft Hood Massacre)

    3. Fomenting illigal weapons situations in order to influence public opinion concerning gun
    ownership.
    Example: Setting up programs such as “ Fast and Furious” that would increase the number of
    iellegal US made weapons being brought across the border

    4. Useing the Presidential “mandate” in an attempt to force people to purchase health insurance.

    5. Selecting “czars ” to oversee programs that are under the auspices of “ cabinet ” appointees,
    thereby diluting the responsibility and accountability of the Cabinet Executive.

    6. Utilizing “executive order” to bypass the legislative process.

    7. The above actions are a surrepticious attempt by OBAMA to deprive the US citizens of their rights
    to representative government

    Report Post » Arc  
  • Mess23
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 7:20am

    If she loses, your Constitutional Rights are next. Look at the attitute of Justice Ginsberg…

    God help this country1

    Report Post »  
    • ishka4me
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 7:44am

      seems simple, the burden is on the government to prove that she forgot password. Every christmas i forget my amazon password and have to have them send it to me.

      Report Post »  
    • momofspawn50
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 7:50am

      Yes, God help this country. Ummm…just throw her in jail until she complies with the government????
      What about Obama not complying with a judges order to show up for court proceedings concerning his citizenship? I guess there ARE those fortunate few who can opt out by
      ignoring the laws of this country.

      Report Post »  
  • grannyrecipe
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 4:55am

    Forcing her to decrypt the computer is exactly like forcing her to reveal hidden information in her brain.

    Report Post » grannyrecipe  
    • Todd P
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 7:17am

      I thought there was a law that said you cannot be made to testify against yourself?!

      Report Post »  
    • BSdetector
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 7:20am

      The Fifth has a wonderful way of making people forgetful. Who’s the judge to say she remembers her pw or not?

      Report Post » BSdetector  
  • proudamerican1990
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 4:12am

    Honestly, I doubt it. I feel if you know how to encrypt a computer, you can remember a password…

    (I am still 100% against this though)

    Report Post »  
    • candcantiques
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 8:17am

      encrypting a computer is no more difficult than installing yahoo messanger. Just answer the questions and click install. remembering the password IS the difficult part. If you are encrypting your computer you DO NOT want to use a password that you have used before. It MUST be something that is only used for the encryption. It should be AT LEAST 20 characters and should look something like this… &FD3@L7g^>Wb=%jF~6b?. Now if you are not using that password EVERYDAY how you you expected to remember it? I promise she has it written down SOMEWHERE. The state is to lazy to look for it, send her home.

      Report Post »  
    • Cat
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 8:55am

      Here’s a little secret folks …
      Data on ANY computer can be accessed

      Report Post » Cat  
    • 12uN3
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 10:04am

      Too bad she didn’t have tech support who would have recommended TrueCrypt. AES still hasn’t been broken (unless there is the fabled NSA backdoor). TrueCrypt could have given her plausible deniability with the hidden container option (hidden encrypted volume within another encrypted volume both sharing the same header). She could have just put junk data into the outer volume and given that password if required to. Couple that with the multi encryption scheme serpent > twofish > aes…yea no one will be getting into that.

      Report Post » 12uN3  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 10:12am

      Here’s the secret to your secret CAT.

      Lots of algorythms are not breakable with any current or future technology.

      Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
    • Cat
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 10:57am

      Ghost >

      I said data …
      Comprehension of the data is another thing
      I’m working around plausible deniability as I write
      Cold boot attack

      Report Post » Cat  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 12:18pm

      Cold boot attack is not possible in this case, the laptop is years confiscated and I can tell you that they probably didn’t dip it in liquid hydrogen when they scarfed it. After a laptop has set for a couple of years, the ram kind of clears out (actually, a couple of minutes normally). They have nothing. Seeing a bunch of random data doesn’t mean squat.

      Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
    • 12uN3
      Posted on February 8, 2012 at 3:32am

      @Ghost…
      Agreed, cold boot attack in this scenario is not possible(they wouldn’t be asking for her password then just convicting her with evidence).
      …
      My guess is since they are requiring her to divulge the password the system has been safely shutdown or dismounted. Most modern encryption applications also have the option to wipe key(s) and/or clear token sessions with wipe modes up to the Gutmann Method. Most FDE methods implemented have preboot authentication to combat such attacks as long as the user isn’t dumb and still using sleep-mode or hibernation(hiberfil.sys = pwned).

      Report Post » 12uN3  
  • Furious American
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 3:55am

    Amendment IV

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Amendment V

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    She should contact the ACLU.

    Report Post »  
    • Sheepdog911
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 6:15am

      @ Furious … It’s so convenient to leave out the important qualifiers in Constitutional Rights. The Constitution was the first “contract” with America, and must be read in it’s entirety and is not subject to arbitrary interpretation and change at the whim of the reader … whther liberal or conservative. The IV and V Amendments do allow the government to do things you may not like, but only if you are violating the law. This woman, based on a finding of Constitutionally mandated probable cause, was …

      Amendment IV – … against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      Amendment V – No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except … nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himslf …

      Report Post » Sheepdog911  
    • momsense
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 6:30am

      Since when do the rights assured to citizens by the Constitution mean anything to activist judges or the Obozo administration?

      Report Post »  
    • CleanUpAisle2013
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 11:47am

      Key words: “unreasonable searches”. Reasoning of rogue judges as to what are “unreasonable searches” is the reason for this discussion.

      Report Post » CleanUpAisle2013  
  • WeDontNeedNoSteenkinBadges08
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 3:42am

    THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN! Not because there is something wrong with America, but that there is something wrong with those now operating America.

    The Founders of America made it hard and slow for government to re-implement tyranny (as Barack Hussein Obama, Kenyan national as President of U.S.A., bewails daily) so that ordinary Americans could push back that natural flow of the tide. But once America becomes tyrannical (yep, the Progressives [communists] took their time, 100 years, to do it), The Founders knew … THERE WOULD BE NOTHING LEFT TO CORRECT IT … except how the nation was born in the first place:

    “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government” -Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers

    “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good” -George Washington

    “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” -Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers

    “I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.” -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Madison

    “This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it

    Report Post » WeDontNeedNoSteenkinBadges08  
    • WeDontNeedNoSteenkinBadges08
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 3:43am

      [continued]
      “This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it.” -Abraham Lincoln

      “Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest.” -Declaration of the Continental Congress

      “The state calls its own violence ‘law’, but that of the individual ‘crime’ ” -Max Stirner

      WOULD YOU LIKE TO KNOW MORE?
      http://catb.org/~esr/guns/quotes.html

      Report Post » WeDontNeedNoSteenkinBadges08  
    • momsense
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 6:32am

      Dam n those pesky Founding Fathers~!

      Report Post »  
  • Naram-Sin
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:42am

    I am attorny as well, but I don’t agree with BYUDABOMB. Assuming that there is a constitutionally valid warrent (and that seems questionable here), it only means that you have to allow the search. You are not required to do the search for the police. The woman must produce the computer nothing more.

    If we start requiring people to do this sort of thing no one will be safe. The government just says “We think you’re hiding something bad”, and we would have to produce it. It wouldn‘t matter if you are innocent or not because you couldn’t prove it without giving up all your secrets, which might get you into trouble for something completely different than what the government was looking for in the beginning. If you don’t turn over incriminating evidence then the government simply throws you in jail. You’re guilty until proven innocent. Do we want to go there?

    This is a violation of the 5th and 4th amendments.

    Report Post »  
  • DaveOregon
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:33am

    As I understand the article – the lady in questions either told someone while in custody taht the information was on her computer – which would validate a warrant. Or, that she was involved. That she stated she was involved does not mean the computer in question has the information- nor does it mean she must give up that information willingly. The State has to prove it’s case and has to find any evidence on her own. The judge is wrong. As to the “I can’t remember defense” – workd for Regan, works for a lot of politicians. Good for the goose-good for gander.

    Report Post »  
  • arvadadan
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:28am

    A few minutes on a water board and I am sure her memory will improve…

    Report Post » arvadadan  
  • Chuck Stein
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:19am

    Any patriotic American would have second thoughts about buying anything made by Toshiba. In the 1980′s they sold state-of-the-art grinding machinery to the Soviets and the Soviets used that to make much quieter submarines. Yup, I hold grudges for a long time.

    Report Post »  
  • piper60
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 12:06am

    She needs to hold her ground.

    Report Post » piper60  
  • lukerw
    Posted on February 7, 2012 at 12:01am

    Government Testimony always starts: “to the Best of my Recollection…” — because they cannot remember anything without a Prompter, Note Book, or Position Statement — so, I say: it is only Fair, that the Public can Forget, too!

    Report Post » lukerw  
  • Epic Fail
    Posted on February 6, 2012 at 11:58pm

    ALWAYS use HiddenVolumes in your encryption. It gives you ‘Plausible Deniability’..

    http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=plausible-deniability

    Report Post » Epic Fail  
    • zorro
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 9:40am

      TruCrypt is a great tool. I use it.

      Report Post »  
  • needmoinfo
    Posted on February 6, 2012 at 11:56pm

    Sodium Pentothal
    What is your password? Did you kill your wife? How? Where’s the body? Why did you do it? Where’s the loot? Are you running away? Are you going to commit suicide? Where do you get your drugs? Who helped you? Where did you get your info? Where’s the weapon? Where were you born? Number and names of victims? You might not make it legal in a court of law but you can make it legal for a judge to order it to be done. Sick of all these missing people when we all know who did it. You could avoid additional victims like the Powell children and Vander Sloot murder in S.A. A vital tool in today’s society. Many too slick to get caught with a body or leave fingerprints or dna. Not traumatic like waterboarding. Could save lives or a whole country. Judge order it, doctor do a physical and administer. Tape it and dig up the bodies.

    Report Post »  
    • Wolf
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 12:36am

      In other words, throw her Constitutional rights out the window.
      Then we can go after yours.

      Report Post »  
    • EricX
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 12:50am

      You must really really miss East Germany and the Soviet Union, huh?

      Report Post »  
    • Abraham Young
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 5:56am

      Only the government has an excellent record of righteousness. The rest of us are guilty as hell.

      Report Post »  
    • objectivetruth
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 9:12am

      Damn Hitler let your parents out and sent them here.Its the only excuse for you.Heres a little news flash for you Mr. Brilliant.Our military stopped using this method as its unreliable.When people are unconcious they may very well confess to murders they haven’t commited.These may be murders they may have wasnted to commit.In some cases murders they should have commited.You ever deal with someone who has been tortured.Especially an innocent one.They want their captors dead.Its quite obvious to me you haven’t.if you had ,you wouldn’t come on this board spewing your drivel.so callously.

      Report Post »  
  • MCDAVE
    Posted on February 6, 2012 at 11:54pm

    Hand this one over to anonymous people..

    Report Post »  
  • TyrannyNoMore
    Posted on February 6, 2012 at 11:48pm

    Why should anyone cave to the rule of law anymore. The president has proven, all you have to do is ignore it and obfuscate. But then again, I guess the average American citizen can’t ignore a subpoena and thumb his, or her nose at the court.

    Report Post » TyrannyNoMore  
  • byudabomb
    Posted on February 6, 2012 at 10:44pm

    I am a criminal defense attorney, but disagree with the assertion that there is a fifth amendment privilege against getting the password to her computer. It would be no different than being ordered to open a safe. If the search is constitutional, then the defendant needs to provide access to the evidence.

    Report Post »  
    • EugeneJ
      Posted on February 6, 2012 at 11:30pm

      I am not an attorney, but there is one important fact being left out. The hard drive could be encrypted in just the same way that a safe can be cracked. Working in IT, I know they could make a “bit-for-bit” copy onto an unlimited number of drives, and therefore have an indefinite number of “tries” in case the drive self-destructs the data. It only takes money, and if they are right, then they can add that to the damages against her, right? If they are wrong, then they’re out the dough. I don‘t care if she’s guilty or not. The prosecutors haven’t SEEN any incriminating evidence on it, as was stated in the article. Police can’t violate your fourth amendment rights to search your vehicle during a traffic stop. But they can gain legal entry if they see contraband in the back seat.

      This is 4th and 5th amendment violation and is something to fear.

      Report Post »  
    • EugeneJ
      Posted on February 6, 2012 at 11:33pm

      this is 4th and 5th amendment violation, folks.

      a state trooper cannot search your vehicle on a whim during a traffic stop. They have to see something illegal in order to violate your 4th amendment rights. The same should apply to encrypted drives.

      As for the 5th amendment, a hard drive can be cracked with enough money. Working in IT, I know you can make a bit-for-bit copy of the data on the platters onto an infinite number of drives, for an infinite number of tries. Plus, you know the DOD has contractors that can break any freebie or commercial encryption. If it’s that important, they can get it, and if they’re right, tie it to the damages against her.

      Report Post »  
    • GrumpyCat
      Posted on February 6, 2012 at 11:38pm

      I completely disagree. The only reason to comply with a court order demanding the combination of a safe is to prevent damage to the safe. A locksmith will get it open with your cooperation or not.

      The self-incrimination clause must apply when *potentially* damaging questions are posed because if it only applied when *certainly* damaging questions are posed then “invoking the 5th” becomes a confession and the whole self-incrimination protection is negated.

      Prosecutors are only fishing for evidence. They have the hard drive. If they can’t make any sense of it then they have no reason to compel the defendant to aid in their own prosecution.

      Report Post »  
    • justangry
      Posted on February 6, 2012 at 11:41pm

      Considering the Supreme Court Justices often disagree on the constitutionality of things, I’d like to know which school of thought you, as a defense attorney, subscribe to. Are you with Scalia and Thomas?

      Report Post » justangry  
    • Maji
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 12:31am

      Here’s the difference,
      forget the combination “crack the safe”!
      Try cracking the computor with a hammer.

      I’m sure the goverment has someone to de-crypt this computor!

      Report Post »  
    • EricX
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 12:52am

      “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
      What part of that do you not understand?

      Report Post »  
    • Abraham Young
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 5:58am

      Some attorney you are. We should all give up our own opinions and bow to the almighty LAWYER clan. Only they have the correct perspective on the correct laws. The rest of us are guilty as hell.

      Report Post »  
    • KPEdwards
      Posted on February 7, 2012 at 2:35pm

      @BYUDABOMB
      I would say that analogy doesn’t quite fit. What about this angle:
      Yes, when you are ordered by court you are to give them access to a safe. However, if they find a letter containing a seemingly random assortment of letters, number and symbols – they cannot order you to tell them what that piece of paper means. It could be a confession written in code – a detailed description of the crime, but you are not forced to give them the information they would need to read it.

      Likewise, they can look up phone records, but they cannot force you to tell them what was said on them.

      The courts have complete physical access to anything that could be evidence, but it is their job to make sense of it all.

      Report Post »  
1 2 3

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love