Fed. Judge to Decide if Gov’t Can Force Defendant to Unlock Encrypted Laptop
- Posted on January 6, 2012 at 8:28am by
Liz Klimas
- Print »
- Email »
In 2010, authorities took Ramona Fricosu’s Toshiba Satellite M305 laptop with a warrant in a case investigating real estate fraud. But the laptop really couldn’t provide authorities with any information: it was encrypted.
Now, Wired reports, a U.S. District Court Judge is set to rule on whether Fricosu should be forced to open up her computer. It’s the first time such a case will be decided in federal court.
Here’s what both sides are saying on the issue, according to Wired:
The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Marcia Hoffman said (.pdf) in a court filing that the very act of requiring Fricosu to input her password into the laptop would be incriminating “because it might reveal she had control over the laptop and the data there.”
Assistant U.S. Attorney Patricia Davies said(.pdf) said there is no Fifth Amendment breach, and that it might “require significant resources and may harm the subject computer” if it tried to crack the encryption.
Hoffman cites the Fifth Amendment, which states “no person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself[.]” The EFF believes that in compelling Fricosu to enter or provide her information, it would be violating this right.
According to Davies, Fricosu should be ordered by the Colorado U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn to open up her laptop in order to comply with the warrants that merited the computer’s seizure believing evidence pertaining to the case exists on the device. In response to Hoffman stating that unencrypting the computer could be incriminating in itself, Davies writes in her statement that Fricosu is already tied to the laptop because it was found in her bedroom sitting on her laptop case.
Davies writes that the government is only asking Fricosu to unlock the computer herself under court watch, not provide her password in written or oral form, though she could choose to do so.
As Wired notes, the feds also called to mind that in a decision in this case not to force Fricosu to unlock her computer would appear as “to a concession to her and potential criminals (be it in child exploitation, national security, terrorism, financial crimes or drug trafficking cases) that encrypting all inculpatory digital evidence will serve to defeat the efforts of law enforcement officers to obtain such evidence through judicially authorized search warrants, and thus make their prosecution impossible.”
Wired includes that full disk encryption is an option service for many of the latest laptops. EFF covers many of the personal and business related reasons for encryption. Wired states that it could take decades to break into an encrypted computer.
Wired reports that a ruling could come any day.
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 688 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 537 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 466 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 374 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 334 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 308 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 316 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 216 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 301 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 308 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (190)
drmda
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:55pmThis is no different than the police asking you to tell them the account number and password to your swiss bank account. “We know the money is there, but we need you to let us get to it.”
Report Post »deac0n
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 4:00pmso you know there is damaging evidence in that computor?
like there was wmd’s in Iraq?
Report Post »RIGEL_ORION
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 4:33pmGreat post Deacon.
Report Post »Wolf
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 4:49pmDoesn’t matter if there is damaging evidence or not- it’s her private property, and she has the right to not allow anyone onto her property, as well as the Fifth Amendment. The government does this every day when not allowing citizens access to material even afte FOICA requests, so what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Report Post »nmgene
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 6:43pmThe police, prosecuters, and the courts are all crooks right along with the feds and most state governments. The wyoming Mich. police went in to my laptop with out a warrant and tried to say I was a phsycho stalker because I had a picture of my ex wife on it. The Detective put 10 outright lies in his Police report and disposed of evidence that I gave him proving my ex lied to them and set me up for the stalking charge. What he was too stupid to realize was that I had everything saved on my laptop and on an online back up. Of course they did nothing to him even though I proved he had lied in his report even though that is a feloney. Never ever talk to the police they will twist what ever you say to make there case. They dont give a damn wether or not you are innocent.
Report Post »The-Monk
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 8:51pm“The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Marcia Hoffman said (.pdf) in a court filing that the very act of requiring Fricosu to input her password into the laptop would be incriminating “because it might reveal she had control over the laptop and the data there.”
I’ve heard of cases where people left the scene of an accident they caused, were caught later, charged with leaving the scene of an accident and had that specific charged dropped because of the 5th Amendment. The basis of having that charge dropped was that if a person stays at the scene they are incriminating themselves. Sounds strange but, I have heard of several of these cases and many won that argument.
Report Post »theaveng
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 10:35pmThis violates more than just the 5th amendment (right not to testify against oneself). It also violates the 1st amendment (right to free speech… including not speaking at all).
The judge may order you to type or speak your password.
That doesn’t mean you have to comply. Just as you don’t have to comply if a cop order you to unlock the front door of your house, and let him ransack it.
.
Report Post »IronSights
Posted on January 7, 2012 at 11:32amWhen they have a warrant to search your home it doesn’t stop them from busting down your door and ransacking your home. I don’t see this as being any different. Their more concerned with losing the information when the screw up trying to break the encryption than damaging her notebook.
She may be a crook and deserve everything she has coming to her, but if I was her I’d have to tell them to go pound sand I mean respectfully decline :-) .
Report Post »skitrees
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:44pm“…the feds also called to mind that in a decision in this case not to force Fricosu to unlock her computer would appear as “to a concession to her and potential criminals (be it in child exploitation, national security, terrorism, financial crimes or drug trafficking cases)….will serve to defeat the efforts of law enforcement officers to obtain such evidence…”
Gasp!!! You mean…the laws (and constitution) might LIMIT government from seizing freedom from individuals…it might actually PROTECT people from a tyrannical government?! You mean, the law MIGHT (just MIGHT) be interpreted in such a way that a person ISN’T required to testify against themselves?! Wow – stop the presses, Marg, stop the presses! I hear freedom actually has a chance to returning…well, not really, but hey, we can all dream.
Report Post »merchantsailor
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:03pmFreedom return? Hah when? I’m afraid it will take more than the 2012 election to change things around.
Report Post »jzs
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:22pmIf the police can get a warrant to search your house, they can certainly do the same with your laptop.
Report Post »Silversmith
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:08pmBut they can’t make you search your own house JZS. Their problem is that they can’t manage searching her computer. The 5th amendment is a compelling argument here. I’ll be curious to see what they rule as this is one of those dilemmas that new technology is regularly delivering these days.
Silversmith
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:41pmAnd you are entirely free to secure your house with latches, locks, and keys, and even armour your house with concrete and steal to make breaking in harder, and upon being served with a search warrant by the police, lock your house and toss the keys into a smelter to melt them down. The police still have every authority (not right) to search your house. You’ve simply made it impossible for them to do so in the usual or normal ways. That only leaves the unusual ways, such as using breaching charges on your front door to gain entry.
The problem the authorities have for such an endeavour in the hard encryption sphere is that while breaching charges might take a couple of hours to get to the scene, set up, and employ so that they can start to perform their searches, a properly encrypted hard drive volume can take longer to decrypt than the life of the universe if the algorithm was well vetted by experts, properly implemented by programmers, and used with strong keys.
There is no legitimate authority that can keep a person locked up indefinitely while the authorities, even the NSA, use the digital equivalent of physical lock picks to try to decrypt your data.
Report Post »thorkyl
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 3:20pmThe ******* Judge will force her to open it up.
If I was her I would take the contempt charge and still refuse to do so and make it go to SCOTUS.
The if SCOTUS finds in her favor, file charges against all involved for a violation of civil rights and official oppresion
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 3:40pm@James
Yes, there is a scenario you haven’t thought of. The one that states that you have no obligation to incriminate yourself. You can’t stop them from taking the laptop, but you have no duty to provide them with anything that might be used against you in a court of law. Providing a password gives them access, potentially, to incriminating evidence against you.
The law is in place to protect us all, and not necessarily to make cops’ jobs easier. The founders were pretty clear that it is better that a few guilty go free, than innocents be imprisioned by an over zealous government.
If you want self incrimination, too bad.
Report Post »JamesWest
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 5:32pmGHOSTOFJEFFERSON writes: “Providing a password gives them access, potentially, to incriminating evidence against you.”
So does turning over the laptop in the first place. You are essentially arguing that people in general are not obligated to comply with search warrants. No?
Like I said in another post… the cops are not ALWAYS trying to trample folks’ rights… that is the mentality of the OCCUPIERS
Report Post »Protoham
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 6:30pmThe answer is not only an encrypted hard drive, but entering the password incorrectly twice and specific files are scrubbed.
Report Post »DirkPitt
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 6:39pm@Jameswest. The scenario where law enforcement has the right to come into your home and search it is identical to the laptop. They can come into your home with a warrant and search it. Law enforcement has every right to get a warrant to search your laptop. You don‘t have to help them search your home and you don’t have to help them search your laptop.
Your arguement is a whole lot of crazy sauce.
Report Post »the_ancient
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 7:51pm@JamesWest
The difference is that a password is in your MIND, meaning you must be forced to give TESTIMONY that would incriminate you, that is unconstitutional
Search Warrants cover physical property not the contents of your MIND, if the password was written down, or stored in a physical manner, then the police could get a warrant to access that stored data, they do not have access TO YOUR MIND nor can they, or should they be able to, compel you to revel knowledge IN YOUR MIND.
Report Post »The-Monk
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 9:03pm@jzs
“If the police can get a warrant to search your house, they can certainly do the same with your laptop.”
You are correct JZS except for one small item. They already have permission (a warrant) to search the laptop. They, the authorities, just can‘t see what’s on/in the laptop. It’s not the responsibility of the person being searched to help in the search in any way. Usually, the suspect is not allowed anywhere’s near the search or the investigation. It’s not a defendant’s responsibility to help in prosecuting themselves.
There is a program (and I’m not going to give you the name) that has been around for a long time that will completely delete all data from a HDD if a password in not entered before a set date. It does a DOD wipe as long as there is power to the HDD.
Report Post »WeDontNeedNoSteenkinBadges07
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 9:57pmEVERYONE … ENCRYPT YOUR COMPUTERS!
Report Post »Because … we don‘t need no stinkin’ badges!
theaveng
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 10:42pm>>>”You are essentially arguing that people in general are not obligated to comply with search warrants. No?”
They are obligated to comply, but they are not obligated to unlock the door. Or provide the combination for the safe in their basement. It’s up to the police to crack the safe, if they want to see what’s inside there.
Ditto for the laptop. If the police can‘t crack the laptop’s combination number, well too bad. The right to remain silent remains inviolate. You are not obligated to provide combinations to safes or laptops or anything else
.
Report Post »Rowgue
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:37pmThe fifth ammendment doesn’t apply here. That protects you from volunteering information that could be incriminating to you. They aren’t asking her to volunteer anything. They already know the laptop and it’s contents belong to her, and they already had a search warrant for it.
This is the equivalent of there being a locked suitcase and the police asking her to use her key to open it rather than having to open it themselves. You don’t have a right to refuse to cooperate with a legally obtained search warrant.
Report Post »skitrees
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:48pm@Rowgue
I do not think you are correct. She MUST offer information (her password). Whether she types it in by herself, or she is forced to give it to someone else doesn’t matter. The only place the data exists is IN HER OWN MIND – thus, she must offer information, and thus, her 5th amendment is violated. A key is a physical thing – a password is a mental thing that lives and dies as PART OF THE PERSON/BODY. This is a big difference.
Report Post »Pontiac
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:09pm[and the police asking her to use her key to open it ]
Oops. I forgot the key.
[rather than having to open it themselves.]
Report Post »Good luck with that. Maybe next time they‘ll build a case that doesn’t require the laptop or seize it while they’re still logged in. Government is way behind the times. No one is going to decrypt their computer to incriminate themselves. If they do decrypt their computer it will be a the fake volume while the hidden volume remains untouched. Even a police state cannot do a thing about this other than execute or jail people just for being suspect of a crime.
Rowgue
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:30pmWrong. They have a legally obtained search warrant for the laptop and it’s contents. A physical object for the slower kids in class.
Just to show you how stupid your “it’s all in her mind” logic is, put an electronic lock on that suiticase that only she has the password to. It’s the exact same scenario. The fact that it‘s an electronic lock rather than a physical lock doesn’t protect it under the fifth ammendment.
She can certainly refuse to open it, not that it means anything. They’ll just proceed to do it themselves. It just would have saved a lot of time and taxpayer money if she would have just done it herself.
Report Post »bw3249
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:30pmI think you’re wrong. You can’t refuse to let them search. But you’re not required to assist them with the search. Let’s say, for example, that the police obtain a search warrant to search my home for Obama’s Birth Certificate. I am required to allow them into my home to perform the search. But I am under no obligation to tell them that it is hidden under the floorboards, under the carpet, under the hutch in the living room. If they find it they find it, they find it. But if not, it’s their problem.
Report Post »Thoth
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:52pmWith a warrant, they seized the laptop. Fine. They know have possession and are welcome to examine the 1‘s and 0’s to their heart’s content. If they cannot understand it (due to encryption) that is on them. They cannot compel a citizen to decipher or decrypt it. It is EXACTLY like asking someone to testify against themselves. If the seized a bookie’s notebook, can they compel him to decypher his clever shorthand to incriminate himself?
Besides, I have forgotten encryption passwords on dozens of files… ohh well. I tried to help the law… guess I forgot this one too.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:50pmActually, if you are out of your house and it is secure at the time you are served with the warrant, you also have no obligation to open the door for them, or even hand over your keys. It’s THEIR job to gain entry, not YOUR job to make that entry easy.
Also, while gaining access to a physical container to perform a physical search may be tricky, even arduously difficult, gaining access to a digital container to perform an information search may be impossible within the existing lifespan of the universe with present day technology.
Oh, but don’t get served with a search warrant and THEN secure your home from the outside and destroy the key like I said above. Then they can get you for hindering the investigation, since it was obvious you DID something to prevent access by the authorities AFTER you were served.
Report Post »JamesWest
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:51pmI hope you anti-law enforcement folks (skitrees, pontiac, bw3249, thoth) all realize that if this lawsuit fails, all criminals will immediately go out and purchase a laptop and full disk encryption software, and thereby insure that the records of their criminal activity will forever be safe from the cops. Way to go you freedom crusaders!!!!
I could understand if you think the search warrant was obtained fradulently. I could understand if you have evidence that the Colorado authorities are corrupt and engaging in harrassment of a private citizen without having any evidence to justify it. Outside of that, you are basically arguing that law enforcement has no right to search ANY property of ANY private citizen, regardless of what evidence there might be against the person I.E. you are against the very idea of search warrants.
Either clarify yourself or grow a brain.
For the record… I’d like to see Romney be the nominee because (unfortunately) he has the best shot of beating Obama. Ideally Romney will pick Chris Christie as his VP, and as VP Christie will use the “bully pulpit” to great effect. Then President Romney picks Ron Paul as Treasury Secretary, and we will be back on the right track as a nation. Then after 8 years of Romney, Christie will be prepared to succeed him. At least, at this time, that‘s what I’m hoping for.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:57pm@ West:
Report Post »You realize if they lose, then anyone who secures anything with hard encryption can be thrown in prison for life without the possibility of parole for any reason because the authorities could demand the keys to encrypted data which they CLAIM is vital to their investigation, but where the keys are lost and irrecoverable.
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:57pmKPHP is exactly correct in her legal and technical summary.
Report Post »JamesWest
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 3:19pmLPHP: so you are concerned about the situation where a citizen has an encrypted laptop and COINCIDENTALLY “loses” the password just after a warrant is served.
Cry me a river over that one.
Or is there another “reasonable” scenario that I haven’t thought of?
Report Post »bertr
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 3:40pmWhat happens if they order her to volenteer the password and she’s forgotten or claims to have forgotten it? what will try try next to force the information out of her. Could get pretty intresting
Report Post »JamesWest
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 4:07pmBERTR, I certainly wouldn’t incarcerate her, but I could tolerate something like an “open ended warrant” where she gives up her right to digital privacy for X number of years; i.e. any desktop or laptop that she owns is subject to seizure and search at any time, without an additional search warrant. Reading her emails and tapping her phone would be extreme, but I’d probably consider that as well, depending on the strength of the original evidence against her.
Moral being: if you lose or forget the password to your encryption, it sucks to be you (regardless of whether law enforcement is investigating you or not)
Again, if the law enforcement officers involved here are behaving corruptly, give me the evidence of that, and it will be a lot easier for me to empathize.
Report Post »Thoth
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 4:24pm@JamesWest, criminals are already out there with encrypted drives, phones & internet connections. I’m sure you realize this is not new technology and the terrorists have been using it for a lot longer than private citizens.
Besides, a search warrant gives law enforcement the right to enter your private ‘area’ and look for and seize physical evidence. It does not give them the right to steal information which is not available physically.
Imagine if they had a device to read your mind, and you had secret information they wanted. Would a search warrant give them permission to hold you down & steal the info from your head? How does allowing that create more freedom for the population? How is that not to be abused by the government?
I‘m not willing to give up my personal liberties ’in order to make society safer’. We all bought that line when they passed the Patriot Act and the TSA took away our shoes & toothpaste! And do we think all of this extra government intrustion into our privacy makes us safer? When will it end?
Report Post »~Thoth
GRusling
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 4:25pmNothing “voluntary” about being REQUIRED to give authorities information which might incriminate you, WHATEVER that information might be and WHEREVER that information might be found!
This is PRECISELY what the 5th Amendment is all about…
Report Post »SFsuper49er
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 4:39pmLet’s get to the real issue here… What they need to open it isn’t physical like keys ! If it was, they would have already had it open… What’s driving them nuts is….. What they need is in her head and they can’t get it….
Report Post »JamesWest
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 5:24pmTHOTH says “criminals are already out there with encrypted drives, phones & internet connections”
That’s my point, you seem to be making the case that those items should be off-limits to law enforcement, unless they can “trick” the owner into giving them up voluntarily (by sharing the password to the encryption). I don’t see how turning over an encrypted laptop, but not the password, satisfies the terms of the warrant, just because the laptop is a “physical entity” and the password (without which the laptop is of no value) is not.
“I‘m not willing to give up my personal liberties ’in order to make society safer’.”
But are you willing to provide law enforcement with the REASONABLE tools that are necessary for them to conduct legitimate criminal investigations? I think it’s quite a stretch to claim a “personal liberty” right allows one to interfere with the intended purpose of a (legitmately issued) search warrant, using what amounts to a “loophole” (i.e. a password is not physical evidence and therefore can’t be “confiscated”).
C’mon guys, cops are not ALWAYS trying to infringe on people’s rights; that’s the Occupier mentality :-)
Report Post »Protoham
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 6:33pmClaim that the password, in itself, might provide incriminating evidence.
Report Post »Rowgue
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 6:40pmOh my god what a bunch of morons. They will break this encryption and it will be done fairly easily. All they were doing was trying to avoid the wasted time and expense of having technicians do that. Encrypted data is not any more secure than simple password protected files.
You can throw around BS all day long, it’s still not a fifth ammendment issue.
Report Post »DirkPitt
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 6:52pm@Rowgue. OMG! You’re just as big a fool as Jameswest. Chrisrobbinson has a great comparison in his post. He writes “I think the defense is right on this. If a safe was seized, the government would have to open it on their own”
They have the right to seize your safe when they have a legal warrant. They also have a legal right to seize your laptop with a legal warrant. The don‘t have a legal right to force you to open the safe and they don’t have legal right to force you to open “figuratively” the laptop. Simple as that!
Report Post »Pontiac
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 8:21pm@Rowgue
[They will break this encryption and it will be done fairly easily.]
You really don’t understand encryption do you? If done right, you’ll be well in your grave before they can crack it. No semi intelligent government is going to waste those resources.
You people also seem to be grossly unaware of Hidden Volumes. I can have one password that decrypts stuff I want to keep hidden and another password that decrypts stuff that I do not care if it is seen. IOW law enforcement will have NO IDEA the stuff I want to remain hidden is still hidden! How do you press charges with that?
@JamesWest
[I hope you anti-law enforcement folks (skitrees, pontiac, bw3249, thoth)]
I’m not anti-law, I’m anti-stupid.
[you seem to be making the case that those items should be off-limits to law enforcement, unless they can “trick” the owner into giving them up voluntarily (by sharing the password to the encryption)]
If they can get a warrant to tap the computer so they can capture the password then that is their ONLY viable option. Unless you want this to be a police state where the very existence of owning encryption software is illegal, you’re not going to get anywhere with prosecution.
In short, EVERYONE will start using Hidden Volumes if they are required to disclose or decrypt their data making this legal avenue a worthless endeavour.
Report Post »rich66
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 8:43pmYou just blew your own argument. Let them open it themselves.
Report Post »Pontiac
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 8:54pm@rich66
Report Post »Who blew what argument? Let who open it themselves?
ertdfg
Posted on January 7, 2012 at 5:31amI hope you pro-law enforcement folks (jameswest) realize that what you’re proposing is a legal requirement to assist in a search for property, and legal repercussions if you don’t. If this passes and the police have a warrant; they can then simply command you to locate and give them what they ask for without doing a search themselves. You’ll be required to give them every assistance in incriminating yourself as you must assist them with their search. Way to go, if your goal was removing Constitutionally protected freedoms!!!
One question, do the three exclamation points make the argument somehow better James?
Is there any limitation you’d accept for a civilian not to incriminate themselves? Or are you ok with any requirement for a civilian to incriminate themselves? Why bother with police; just force everyone to give up all the information on all their crimes; and imprison anyone who has committed a crime, claims they haven’t (liars, clearly they’re trying to trick you), or refuses to assist in the investigation.
Hey, just put everyone in jail; it’s much easier that way. We’d rather put everyone in jail than let one criminal go free… Guilty until proven innocent is a much easier system for the Government and people in control… and that’s who we need to worry about.
Normal people? Screw them, they don’t deserve any rights. Force them to submit, to incriminate themselves, or arrest them for not helping.
Right James?
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on January 7, 2012 at 10:00pm@Rowgue:
The longer the key you are trying to generate, the longer this takes. Randy is trying to generate one that is ridiculously long. He has pointed out to Avi, in an encrypted e-mail message, that if every particle of matter in the universe could be used to construct one single cosmic supercomputer, and this computer was put to work trying to break a 4096-bit encryption key, it would take longer than the lifespan of the universe.
“Using today’s technology,” Avi shot back, “that is true. But what about quantum computers? And what if new mathematical techniques are developed that can simplify the factoring of large prime numbers?”
“How long do you want these messages to remain secret?” Randy asked, in his last message before leaving San Francisco. “Five years? Ten years? Twenty-five years?”
After he got to the hotel this afternoon, Randy decrypted and read Avi’s answer. It is still hanging in front of his eyes, like the afterimage of a strobe:
I want them to remain secret for as long as men are capable of evil.
– Excerpt from “Cryptonomicon”, by Neal Stephenson
Do you know something about breakthroughs in quantum cryptography or number theory that are unknown to me? If so, I would be delighted to look up any citation you would care to give.
Report Post »JamesWest
Posted on January 9, 2012 at 4:04pmERTFG, all I can say is, your distrust of the police is about the equivalent of my distrust of politicians. The difference is that IMO 90+% of law enforcement members are decent and honest people who are trying their best to protect the citizens. You obviously disagree.
The only argument that I could buy, that would change my mind, is one that makes the case that original search warrant was somehow obtained or issued fraudulently. In the absence of that, you seem to be arguing that even compliance with legitimately issued search warrants should be resisted with all means possible. IMO that makes you an anarchist. But of course, that’s only my opinion.
I still say your attitude on this issue gives you a lot in common with the Occupiers.
Report Post »skitrees
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 6:40pm@Jameswest:
Anti-police?! You have discredited yourself with that categorization. Open your eyes now, otherwise, freedom will be gone by the time you do.
Report Post »Captain Crunch
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:04pmALWAYS use encryption. I travel in my work, take my laptop always. Had one stolen once. In that laptop I had a list of all my usernames and passwords for every website, including bank account and credit card numbers and all online banking passwords. EVERYTHING was encrypted. I can imagine the thief is still trying to crack the encryption password. IN many laptops it’s possible to lock the hard drive requiring a boot time password. The hard drive is also unrecognised by the operating system even if the drive is placed in a different computer. I’m not a computer expert but I know these two methods will prevent the average thief and possibly the gestapo from gaining access to your information.
Report Post »m5th
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:16pmSo how do you encrypt the computers?
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 2:52pmIt’s called whole-disk encryption. Look it up.
Depending on the computer architecture, you can even encrypt the boot drive and the CMOS. No thumb drive with the decryption keys at boot time, the whole thing is the digital equivalent of a boat anchor.
Report Post »JMorcan
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:16amI fear that this government no longer cares about the rights of its citizens. Perhaps the court will rule correctly just the same.
Report Post »JeremyB
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:54amI don’t know about the rest of you, but I have a new project this weekend: encrypt all my computers.
Report Post »chips1
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 10:26pmWould the government be permitted to hypnotize her against her will, either by normal or drug means, and get the code that way? It can be done. Don’t fool yourself.
Report Post »Athinkerinaseaoflibs
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:08amThis is just an indication of where the government is going. At first we had the right against self incrimination and that has slowly been chipped away. About 10 years ago there was a senator from Oregon who had to give up his written journals so they could convict him on sex charges, Essentially he was forced to give up his thoughts. This laptop is a record of this person’s thoughts as well. Soon they will be prosecuting a person on what they are thinking or what they are perceived to think–Wait a minute; they already do, it is called Hate crimes.
Report Post »AhLeahIris
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:14amJust four little words solve this problem: “I do not recall.”
Worked for Hillary….
Report Post »Athinkerinaseaoflibs
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:20amI loved Limbaugh spoof song on Miss Hillaries lack of memory – It’s Jello
Report Post »Caniac Steve
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:32ami would agree the feds are “pushing and pushing hard and ruthlessly” to get what they want..just part in partcial of the Obama/Holder DOJ program!! it does seem that Our Current president is or has become a dictator..more so than FDR was turning out to be..see history is repearting it’s self..and i too have a a laptop that is totally encrypted..and if someone LEO tries to undo it ..it eats all the data & programing…not that i have anything worth investigating mind you..but the information/programs are mine and none of anybodies business..and i feel the Judge will order her to submit..but i hope she don’t…
Report Post »Captain Crunch
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:17pmThought Police. That’s the idea behind “lie detectors”. Never talk to the police. Never think you are innocent therefore you have nothing to fear by “helping” them. It’s their job to take anything you have, do, and say and use it against you. Ask any criminal lawyer. Now they are trying to develope technology which will read your mind. There was an article on the Blaze about it a short time back.
Report Post »Watchout, soon they will be trying to suck out our brains and analyzing them under a microscope.
Welcome to the invasion of the brain snatchers. You will be assimilated…resistance is futile!
Athinkerinaseaoflibs
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:29pmI am not quite so much in fear of my local police as I am of the federal government and all of the unconstitional behavior they have been running a muck with. Local police are MUCH more answerable to the local populus when compared to the Feds. The Feds use the Constitution as bird cage lining . I would prefer to take my chances with my local Joe Friday than I would with Eric Holder and his twisted view of the Constitution
Report Post »2GodBeTheGlory
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 10:37amTo compel a person to release information that may or may not incriminate themselves is what the 5th amendment states. The amendment does not differentiate or dictate the communication method so thus this would be mute as the intent was to prevent any method to get a suspect to do anything that would/could incriminate themselves. Or founders where wise in include this so that we would not become a England, Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, or a China.
Report Post »Ruler4You
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 10:50amThis should determine that it’s not really your property.
According to the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States if anything you purchase or economically ‘move’ makes it federal jurisdiction, then it would also seem that such property itself belongs to the federal government. And in fact, that may be the reason for some of the most insane laws we see being exercised around us every day, without coming right out and saying that “YOU” are federal property and nothing you do, therefore, can NOT be considered the same.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:01am@Ruler
That’s legalistic dissembling (not pointed at you personally). The abuse of the Interstate commerce clause doesn‘t mean that it’s right or Constitutional.
Our rights are inalienable ergo they cannot be taken away. No self incrimination. Case closed.
Report Post »AmazingGrace8
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:23amObama’s health-care-bill? Huntsman says this country is screwed, well might add, WITHOUT A KISS.
Report Post »2GodBeTheGlory
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:53am@ Ruler4You
I agree that the Commerce Clause is being utilized in ways that the founders never intended. When Courts disregard the Constitution, we as a nation where doomed (i.e. see “regulation” in courts preventing guns in the court room – I submit that it’s not ligament, as there are other ways of preventing or responding to a potential attacker – I know that it appears off-topic, however look at the history)
Report Post »Randyrocker
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 10:26amIf the Govt. can force you to unlock your passwords, why have them in the first place. For that matter ‘we the people’ should be able to easily walk into any Govt. Agency on the internet and take a look around, for how dare they demand that we must know their passwords, as they should be unlocked too. Justice for all, or no justice for anyone. Since Obama loves dictatorships he might object and only want the law to be a one way street of which he’s the directing dictating policeman.
Report Post »BetterDays
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 10:17amDear Mr. Government men.
Report Post »NO.
As in what bothers you most the “N”, the “O”, or the abrupt termination of future consideration of your request?
If any judge, a I’m certain at least one somewhere will, orders any defendant to comply with such a ludicrous order I hope and pray the defendant just smiles and does no such thing. Contempt of any court is righteousness when the courts have become wholly contemptible . Refusal to comply or contribute to a theft upon your own self an act of patriotism. What power then does the court or the federal government then have, the same power as a common street thug, the power of leaden abuse. And when a country has decayed so low that it‘s tyrannies have contemptuously enslaved it’s citizens then compliance and non compliance lead to the same place, only the noncompliance trip is shorter and in the end much better for the enslaved. Have we arrived at that era in America, GOD forbid, but it is written in Holy Scripture, America shall indeed get there. And it’s perfectly logical for Christians to desire that time to be other than the one they live in, but I say can a “watchman” truely be watching if he’s wishing the danger too bay?
As for me and my house we shall serve the Lord . So if I breath in such an era, perhaps I will chose the short way home in noncompliance. By mid June 2012 the tale will be known as to wether we do or not live under such tyranny. For that will be 3.5 years of Obama.
neidermeyer
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 10:26amToo bad there isn’t a security option that after “x” many bad password attempts that the drive would be scrambled.
Report Post »BetterDays
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:09amOr an additional password that starts a triple DOD overwrite/ wipe of the entire disk.
Report Post »Really though, sounds to me like the Government didn‘t cross it’s “t”s or dot it’s “I”s, and is left looking like simpletons.
dnewton
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 10:16amIt is too bad the government does not spend an equal time and effort trying to convict the original and most toxic of all real estate frauds, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac along with Dodd and Frank. How can this woman even believe that there is such a thing as real estate fraud? Apparently she knows that you have to be a politician or it is illegal.
Report Post »Jerley
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 10:06amI say she should wait till they exhaust all legal appeals and efforts then when the government say she has to give up the password. Tell them “It was on 24 hour lock that scrambles the password if not used for 24 hour. I have no idea what the code is now.”
Eat dung, Big Brother.
Report Post »Big Charlie
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 10:00amMy answer to them would be, “It’s been 2 years since you seized the computer. I forgot the password. Sorry!”
Report Post »davidwjohnson
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 9:39amIn the dictionary, one of the meanings of the word “act” is “the process of doing”.
If the “act” of speaking can be incriminating, then the “Act” of typing could also be incriminating.
Don’t forget, as Bill Clinton said, “it all depends on what the meaning of the word ”is” is.
Report Post »TROONORTH
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 9:58amHow about – ” Jeez! It’s been twi years since I last unlocked that computer. I’ve forgotten the password. Sorry. Bu-bye!”
Report Post »heathalot
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 9:34amRemember how John Galt had his workshop rigged so that if anyone tried to open it without the correct password everything inside would be destroyed? Galt didn‘t recognize the government’s ability to use force to take what was rightfully his. Its too bad this woman can’t do the same. Go Galt sister.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 9:38amWords != force I’m afraid. (does not equal)
They can order until they’re blue in the face, there’s still no way they can get inside that laptop without her providing the password. :)
Report Post »termase
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 9:11am@hidden_lion Yes, the police can hire a hacker but, the encryption type is military style. It would take decades to crack the security especially if the password is 8 or more characters in length and in complete state.
Report Post »Try this link out to test your password strength.
http://www.passwordmeter.com/
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 9:30amMore than decades, by most estimates the length of time necessary to decrypt a highly encrypted PGP style algorythm, using all the computers on earth AND accounting for a geometric increase in computing power over the course of the decryption attempt, with a properly long password, is somewhere in the realm of “to the end of the universe” to “several lengths of time longer than the existence of the universe”. While I don’t like to assume, my guess is that anybody who has whole disk encrypted is probably savvy enough to have chosen a sufficiently lengthy and complex password.
Report Post »randy
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 9:32amGreat site!
Report Post »Just tried out my password ************************** and scored 100%
Ooooops, Just gave out my password.
jado1981
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:44amMy password of 1 2 3 4. didn’t score very well, it’s the same combination as on my luggage.
May the schwartz be with you.
Report Post »ares338
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 9:11amGovernment stay out of the computer!
Report Post »ozchambers
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 9:06amThat must be a pretty sweet encryption program!
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 9:12amThere are plenty of encryption systems that the government cannot break. Fact of the matter is, the government is becoming more and more impotent in the realm of cyberspace. Why do you think they were so gung ho to put a switch on the internet after all.
They’re outclassed technologically, and outgunned cryptologically. I love it! :)
Report Post »Hans Moleman
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 10:34amTruecrypt (http://www.truecrypt.org/) is a free program that will give you this level of security for full disk encryption and file container encryption. I use it for both. It is totally free (they do accept donations) and open source – and no, I do not work for them.
Report Post »EqualJustice
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 8:44amI would say I forget the code. How can you FORCE someone? Seems like they should have a strong enough case without the computer inofrmation in the first place before they bring charge?
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 9:26amDing! Exactly. If they don’t have a strong enough case in the first place, then there is clearly a Constitutional precedent here against the right to not self incriminate.
In the laptop owner’s shoes, I’d smile and flip them the bird when they “ordered” me to provide the password/unlock the system. Contempt of court alone, does not get you thrown into maximum security Federal prison.
Report Post »Joisey
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 8:43amThis ought to be a no brainer. Of course compelling the defendant to unlock the laptop violates the 5th Amendment, for the reason cited. Notice that the Federal government’s argument boils down to a whining complaint over its own logistical burden: It costs alot and it might not work. Boo Hoo, the government might actually have to do its job and do honest police work.
That the issue is in doubt at all is just another signpost on the road to a post-constitutional America.
Report Post »randy
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 9:18amHoffman cites the Fifth Amendment, which states “no person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself[.]” The EFF believes that in compelling Fricosu to enter or provide her information, it would be violating this right.
Exactly right!
Report Post »I would never unlock it. I’d take my chances with contempt of court charges.
This country is becoming to feel like NAZI Germany.
encinom
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 10:10amHow is this any different than using a defendants key to open a safe? The Government has a proper warrant for the contents of the computer, she is attempting to use the 5th Amendment to justifiy her standing in contempt of a lawful search warrant.
Report Post »ferdnerkel
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 10:21am@randy you stated “This country is becoming to feel like NAZI Germany.”
If you look into it you might be surprised to discover that Hitler rose to power in germany with the support and admiration of many prominent Americans including the progenitor of the Kennedy clan Joe Kennedy, a major hero and figure in the aviation community Charles Lindbergh, the President of the U.S. Roosevelt and many other politicians.
So if you can see the similarities between NAZI Germany and modern USA it is surely related to the shared ideologies between America‘s current political class and the ruling party of 1930’s and early 40′s Germany.
That you noticed this is a good thing. We the people need to band together to fight these ideologies in all their various forms. Any ideology which allows the government to have power beyond the basic need to protect and defend its citizens from external invaders (NOT threats) and punishing evildoers must be fought and removed from the political process.
Report Post »REALID 239823749828-HIF
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 10:36am@ENCINOM
And they have the contents of the computer. It‘s nobodies problem but their own if they can’t use said contents due to encryption.
If this woman is guilty as sin I’d rather see her get off scott free than make one more concession to our overpowered, overreaching, greedy, corrupt, useless, bloated, nazi-like government. Enough is enough. A post above me had it exactly right. What does a contempt of court charge really when when the entire justice system is, in fact, contemptible?
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 10:48am@Realid
Enicom is here to disrupt and fling poo, and has no other purpose regardless of what forum handle he chooses for the day. If the article were about the government going out and slaughtering teenagers for no reason, he’d be for it, simply because we’d be against it. He has no independent intellect and posts progressive boilerplate as if it were delivered religious dogma. Honestly, I personally have found it much more pleasant to simply not read his posts. He enjoys when people get riled up by his screeches, which is why he’s consistently statist and contrarian. That kind of person is futile to try to communicate with.
Report Post »REALID 239823749828-HIF
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 10:53am@GHOST
Yeah, I know this, but I’m the kind of person that believes no one is beyond hope, Encinom and JZS included. Perhaps one day I‘ll make a post that’s so logically sound, so well thought out, they even they will begin to see the light.
I know that’s not likely, as they both tend to ignore logically sound, well thought out responses. However, I have to try. It’s my nature. :D
Report Post »evilhatemonger
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:23am“How is this any different than using a defendants key to open a safe?”
The government is essentially saying that the suspect must not only provide the key, but to open the safe for them. While a person must allow a proper search, they are under no obligation to do the searchers work for them.
Report Post »Lamarr01
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:12pmThe computer could contain incriminating evidence of child exploitation, national security, terrorism, financial crimes or drug trafficking. There COULD be evidence not related to the search warrant that COULD reveal an international terrorist plot.
Assuming she is an American citizen, the military is authorized to place her under arrest and she doesn’t need to told the charges. Telling her what she is charged with and presenting the evidence against her might impede the investigation of similar investigations.
Water boarding is NOT torture and is NOT cruel or unusual punishment. Since she is not an enemy combatant she is NOT protected by the antiquated Geneva convention.
The obvious solution is to pour water down her nose until she relinquishes the password or is brain dead!
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:27pm@Lamarr
I hope your chains rest on you lightly.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on January 7, 2012 at 10:04pm@Lamarr01:
Report Post »“…and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”
justangry
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 8:43amThe defense if right on this one as far as I’m concerned, however our governement isn’t really acting within the confines of the Bill of Rights lately, so I’m guessing the prosectution will win. It sickens me that judges these days rely more heavily on presedence rather than the Constitution and Federalist Papers themselves. Liberal law professors are condidtioning our new lawyers to think this way.
Report Post »Clownshoes
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 8:42amDid I miss something here? Did IQ’s drop ever more substantially as I slept last night? It’s like you have a key to your front door to your house, but you refuse to open the door because there maybe evidence inside you were innocent (I say innocent because you are supposed to be until proven guilty). That being said, the only reason you would refuse is because you know there is evidence inside to prove you guilty as sin.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 9:00amIs the reason you use an envelope when you send in your bills through the mail, because you’ve got something to hide?
Maybe the reason somebody won’t unlock something, is because they have a right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Further, there is no way to “force” somebody to reveal a password if they do not wish to, short of torture. Even then, well, you probably aren’t going to get what you were looking for.
I encourage folks to look into encryption methods that cover your whole disk AND provide a way to make 2 full operating system installs, one “real” and one a decoy, each unlockable by a different password. There are open source and validated across the web programs that do this (TrueCrypt, for example).
Force schmorse, go pound sand, you unconstitutional dictatorship style government.
Report Post »SLARTIBARTFAST
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 9:04amPerfect police state logic. Thanks for clearing his up!
Report Post »TheVoice1
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 10:09amGhostOfJefferson
Well said…
Report Post »Just A Private
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 10:32am@ClownShoes,
Report Post »That is backwards thinking. Your thought should be, “because I have nothing to hide, I should not allow a search”.
encinom
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 10:41amThe government has a warrent, you guys have drunk the Paul crazy koolaide and lost all common sense. The encryption is no different than a key or the combination to a safe. The only difference here is that the State needs to key for entry, they can not break down the door.
Report Post »TxSon
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 10:50amIf the police have a warrant to search your house and the door is locked, they don’t beg you for a key, they simply pick the lock (read, crack the encryption) or break down the door (read, hack). The property owner can not be compelled to supply the key.
Report Post »Captain Crunch
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:33pm“I don’t remember” Sorry I’d really like to help you boys but I lost my memory last time I blew a fart.
Report Post »ertdfg
Posted on January 7, 2012 at 5:38am“The government has a warrent, you guys have drunk the Paul crazy koolaide and lost all common sense. The encryption is no different than a key or the combination to a safe.”
Right, and you’re compelled by law to tell them of your secret stash of illegal contraband hidden beneath the false floorboard in your basement, and provide every assistance in their search.
Oh, you aren’t? But you’ve just said this woman must give the police assistance in gathering the evidence to prove her guilt… why isn’t everyone compelled by law to provide all assistance to the police to prove their guilt? I mean once you’ve decided people are required to incriminate themselves and help the police to arrest and jail them; why are we stopping at passwords?
Report Post »Chris Robinson
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 8:39amI think the defense is right on this. If a safe was seized, the government would have to open it on their own. Lets see them use a govenment sponsored hacker to open it. It falls under the “Mr Suspect, would you please provide us with your secret Swiss Bank account numbers and passwords so we can see what kind of money we think you’ve been laundering.” idea…
Report Post »hidden_lion
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 8:50amThat is why the police unit should hire a hacker to break the encryption. They should already have them in their force, if not let the FBI do it. No need to force the girl and violate her 5th amendment. The cops are just being lazy.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 9:04amThere are whole-disk encryption programs that you cannot “hack”. It’s not as easy as it seems, if you go by movies and television. To be honest, there are freely available methods for anybody to use that can utterly thwart an entire army of “hackers”, or better even, cryptological specialists (hackers get into networks, not encrypted drives). In fact, combine the world‘s computing power into one giant parallel computer and I guarantee you that you still wouldn’t be able to break into, say, my encrypted drive laptop.
But yes, the onus is on the government to “crack the safe”, there is absolutely no constitutional way to force somebody to make themselves a criminal simply because “waaa, it’s too hard for us” according to the government.
Go. Pound. Sand.
Report Post »Hans Moleman
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:02amHidden_Lion: You really don’t understand encryption do you? Full disk encryption uses well tested and tried algorithms like AES (Advanced Encryption Standard). You see, that is the standard approved by the government for use by the government – it actually uses the Rijndael algorithm. So if they could just use a “hacker” to break into it then anyone could break into their (the government’s) encrypted data. If a program has a back door then it is vulnerable to not just the government but to anyone and therefore it is very unsafe to use. As soon as said back door is discovered, good-bye customer base.
Report Post »I do believe that the government could break into the computer if they really wanted to. After all, encryption strength is measured in time to break vs. resources available. The main issue is that the gov’t probably does NOT want to use the resources that would need to be brought to bear to unlock this – which would probably be very large and expensive (not to mention time consuming). This is why there are export restrictions on encryption products to other countries. Some countries don’t allow greater encryption then they can brute force into.
DirkPitt
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 6:47pmExcellent! The safe comparison is even better than the warrant on your home comparison. You have to give them your safe, you just don’t have to help open it.
Report Post »BlackCrow
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 8:38amFifth Amendment!
Report Post »Stuck_in_CA
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 8:37amHolder will fight for this one.
Report Post »Impeach the whole mess of ‘em, before it’s too late.
TXPilot
Posted on January 6, 2012 at 8:35amAh, this must be the “new” American justice system, where you are guilty, until they prove you guilty.
Report Post »1776_2012
Posted on January 24, 2012 at 1:38pmBingo!!!
Report Post »1776_2012
Posted on January 24, 2012 at 1:38pmExactly!
Report Post »Joanne
Posted on January 25, 2012 at 2:31amUnfortunately it‘s not ’new’. The ‘old’ assumption of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ along with pretty much everything else concerning what is and isn’t legal has been upside down for many years now. It‘s just more apparent with this blatantly corrupted administration which seems to have emboldened those who think it their right to ’make laws’ rather than legislate according TO the law.
Report Post »