Crime

Update: Judge Rules Woman Must Decrypt Her Laptop for Prosecutors

Ramona Fricosu Ordered to Decrypt Hard Drive inIn early January, we brought you the story of Ramona Fricosu, the Colorado woman who was fighting prosecutors who were trying to get a judge to force her to decrypt her hard drive. Prosecutors who wanted to find and retrieve evidence against her. And now the judge’s decision — which some have have called “precedent-setting” — is in: he’s forcing Fricosu to decrypt.

“I conclude that the Fifth Amendment is not implicated by requiring production of the unencrypted contents of the Toshiba Satellite M305 laptop computer,” Colorado U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn said Monday in his ruling.

Fricosu had been arguing that being forced to do so infringed on her right against self-incrimination in a case revolving around mortgage fraud.

But what makes this case concerning to civil rights monitors is that prosecutors are not sure if there is, for sure, evidence on the computer — they simply suspect it. “The judge in the Colorado case said there was plenty of evidence — a jailhouse recording of the defendant — that the laptop might contain information the authorities were seeking,” Wired reports.

ZDNet has more on the recording:

The laptop in question, Blackburn said, more likely than not belonged to and was used by Fricosu. The one piece of damning evidence was a jailhouse conversation Fricosu had with her ex-husband, Scott Whatcott, who also was arrested in the case. Blackburn’s ruling included a transcript of the conversation, which he said proved Fricosu owned and had access to the computer.

Blackburn also noted that the defendant had been granted immunity and that federal prosecutors would not use her act of producing the laptop’s contents in the case against her.

Fricosu has until Feb. 21 to produce an unencrypted hard drive.

Phil Dubois, Fricosu’s attorney, will seek a stay in the ruling, according to Engadget, and hopefully appeal the decision.

“I think it’s a matter of national importance,” he explained. “It should not be treated as though it’s just another day in Fourth Amendment litigation.”

Comments (142)

1 2 3
  • SgtB
    Posted on January 24, 2012 at 9:01am

    I agree. Also, how is it that this woman knows how to encrypt a hard drive in such a fashion that the state bureau of investigation cannot decrypt it? I suspect that they aren’t doing their jobs right. Maybe the judge is just mad that the hard drive will make his state and local LEA’s look like mall cops.

    Report Post » SgtB  
  • 13th Imam
    Posted on January 24, 2012 at 9:00am

    The article never mentioned what she was accused of , beyond fraud. Dodd- Fwank legalized mortgaga fraud by the Fed Gov. They should be the first two slammed into prison. Butt I feel Fwank might like it.

    Report Post » 13th Imam  
  • OuttheSocialist
    Posted on January 24, 2012 at 8:58am

    I’m sorry. I forgot the password your honor. I have been so traumatized by this whole matter that I can no longer function in my former capacity, I honestly can’t remember the thing.

    Report Post » OuttheSocialist  
    • mike o
      Posted on January 24, 2012 at 10:23am

      worked for hillary right?! “i’m sorry, i don’t recall”, “i have no specific recollection of that”

      Report Post »  
    • jb.kibs
      Posted on January 24, 2012 at 11:04am

      and Reagan. “i don’t recall”…

      Report Post »  
  • ares338
    Posted on January 24, 2012 at 8:57am

    She probably has midget porn on it.

    Report Post » ares338  
    • SoupSandwich
      Posted on January 24, 2012 at 9:09am

      So who doesn’t? What is wrong is if afro-americans, latinos, goats and bipolar peeps are not represented in that midget porn. Then that sir, is very wrong. Shame. Shame. Shame.

      Report Post »  
  • alina.bolero
    Posted on January 24, 2012 at 8:52am

    First, the state came for their labor (1913). Few resisted.
    Next, the state came for their children (1918). Few resisted.
    Then, the state came for their minds (2012). Few resisted.

    Report Post » alina.bolero  
  • SpankDaMonkey
    Posted on January 24, 2012 at 8:48am

    .
    Decrypt it with a hammer…..

    Report Post » SpankDaMonkey  
    • guido.cavalcanti
      Posted on January 24, 2012 at 2:20pm

      Agreed, physically damaging the HD will make it nearly impossible to retrieve date.

      Report Post » guido.cavalcanti  
  • DD313
    Posted on January 24, 2012 at 8:48am

    The last sentence in the ZDNet quote is most interesting for its phrasing. Supposedly granted Immunity, the potential defendant is told that her “act of producing” the contents of her laptop will not be used against her. This does not explicitly exclude using the content itself against her. If this offer has been accurately reported, she’d better stand firm. Once given true full immunity, she’d better pack her toothbrush if she persists in her recalcitrance.

    Report Post » DD313  
  • addie
    Posted on January 24, 2012 at 8:45am

    If it was me, I would start saying “with all the PTSD of being thrown in jail and forced to violate my 5th amendment right, I have forgotten the password.” What are they going to do? Waterboard her for it? If they want the evidence on the laptop, get a warrant and get an IT expert to crack it. There are plenty of ways around a password. However, if she has it as encrypted my my laptop though,…..good luck with that.

    Report Post »  
    • LLATPOH
      Posted on January 24, 2012 at 9:03am

      Too right, Addie. You want it decrypted? Have at it.

      Report Post »  
  • Dinkiecb
    Posted on January 24, 2012 at 8:45am

    “Make me” comes to mind….

    Report Post »  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on January 24, 2012 at 8:53am

      Yep, same thought here.

      Who cares what the judge said, he’s not SCOTUS and he is not the final word on the Constitution (in fact, neither is SCOTUS, we are the final word when you get down to it).

      Saying “This requirement to forcefully provide potentially incriminating evididence against yourself does not violate your right to not be forced to provide incriminating evidence against yourself” is idiotic on its face.

      Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
    • Ran60
      Posted on January 24, 2012 at 2:15pm

      Of course its contempt of court…when the court acts contemptibly.

      Three hots and a cot “your Honor”…and let the NSA boys figure it out.

      Report Post »  
  • ThePostman
    Posted on January 24, 2012 at 8:41am

    When money is involved, judges and DA‘s and AG’s will sell their own soul.

    Report Post »  
  • Gonzo
    Posted on January 24, 2012 at 8:41am

    Who made the “jailhouse recording” and how did prosecuters get it?

    Report Post » Gonzo  
    • SoiledDove
      Posted on January 24, 2012 at 7:17pm

      I’m guessing the cops made it and then handed it to prosecutors. You think she had a right to privacy while talking to a cell mate in JAIL?

      Report Post »  
  • Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
    Posted on January 24, 2012 at 8:37am

    This won’t survive SCOTUS review. Just like in U.S. v Jones, they will find, as many Circuit Courts have in the past, that extraction of any information in the way of verbal or textual data from a suspect (which finger prints, DNA, and voice recordings are not) is a violation of their 4th Amendment rights against self incrimination.

    The authorities have every authority (not rights, authorities, not liberties, powers, narrowly defined, enumerated, and limitted powers) to subpoena, seize, and search the defendant’s laptop and its hard drive… if they can. Their subpoena and warrant power means they may. Physical reality determines if they can.

    This is no different than a warrant to search the Titanic. The warrant may give the police the authorization to conduct such a search, but if no non-party to the case is willing to take them down in one of their DSVs, then I hope the police can hold their breath for a long time.

    They are entirely free to search the defendant‘s laptop to their heart’s content. Copy the bits, poke and prod them, and if they are physicly capable, hack and decrypt the HD themselves. What they may not do is coerce her to TELL them or TYPE her passphrase for them. If she put her cryptographic keys on a piece of removable media, and possession of said media is sufficient for anyone to gain access to that hard drive, then they can issue a new warrant for the seizure of that removable media. They can’t issue a warrant for the seizure of a passphrase

    Report Post » Lesbian Packing Hollow Points  
    • Baddoggy
      Posted on January 24, 2012 at 8:46am

      5th ammendment is self incrimination
      4th is illegal search and siezure…

      Both do apply here. Judge is absolutely wrong in this case.

      I do not like defending crooks, but I will not stand by and see my Civil Rights taken away by a judge. If she decrypts, she is a fool…

      Report Post » Baddoggy  
    • Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
      Posted on January 24, 2012 at 8:50am

      Right you are. I stand corrected.

      Report Post » Lesbian Packing Hollow Points  
    • drago
      Posted on January 24, 2012 at 9:52am

      @baddoggy aka encinom.
      Thats the second most intellegent thing i have seen you say on here, stay on those meds bud…..

      Report Post »  
    • USPATRIOT101
      Posted on January 24, 2012 at 10:25am

      Dogg – I agree with you. I would sit quietly and wait for their next move.

      Report Post » USPATRIOT101  
  • UnicroN
    Posted on January 24, 2012 at 8:35am

    Two words,,,, search warrant!

    If they can‘t get a search warrant for the computer then they can’t see what’s inside!

    Simple

    Report Post » UnicroN  
    • Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
      Posted on January 24, 2012 at 8:52am

      They got a search warrant for the computer. They got the computer. They can’t get INTO the computer. That’s their problem, not the accused’s.

      Report Post » Lesbian Packing Hollow Points  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on January 24, 2012 at 8:56am

      They can only search the laptop with a warrant, they cannot force you to “give” them evidence with it. When they bust down your door with a warrant in hand, and search your abode for items listed on the warrant, you are under *zero* obligation to help them search or show them where the items may be. Your entire duty in the matter is to stop aside and stand quietly. Same here. Nobody can be forced to provide a means to potentially incriminate themselves. That applies here as elsewhere.

      Personally, I’d grin and give them the finger and say “No thanks”.

      Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
    • JRook
      Posted on January 24, 2012 at 11:48am

      @GhostOfJefferson Not sure what you mean by force. But you cannot use the fifth amendment in refusing to provide the combination for a safe that the court has approved a search warrant for. This is really not a unique position or legal argument. The combination in and of itself is not incriminating. Having said that, you would think there would be more than enough of a paper trail to prove mortgage fraud.

      Report Post »  
    • Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
      Posted on January 24, 2012 at 12:03pm

      Actually, you’d be entirely within your rights to refuse to divulge the combo to a safe the authorities have just seized from you. It just means the authorities will have to obtain access to its interior by alternative means, if by alternative means you mean blowtorch and jack hammer.

      Report Post » Lesbian Packing Hollow Points  
    • JRook
      Posted on January 24, 2012 at 1:20pm

      @Lesbian Packing Hollow Points I stand corrected you are partially right in that they cannot compel you to provide the combination. However, the courts have ruled consistently that they can compel you to open the safe to comply with the search warrant. The courts have based this view on the determination that the safe does not possess those rights enjoyed by the individual. While an individual is protected from self incrimination they cannot openly block or resist the collection of evidence.

      Report Post »  
    • Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
      Posted on January 24, 2012 at 1:33pm

      It wouldn’t be blocking or resisting the search. They are free to search all they want by whatever means they have, blowtorch and jack hammer included.

      Report Post » Lesbian Packing Hollow Points  
    • JRook
      Posted on January 24, 2012 at 3:26pm

      @Lesbian Packing Hollow Points Unfortunately at that point you are charged with obstruction of justice and/or contempt of court depending on when you refuse, so probably both. And OoJ usually carries penalties equal or worse than the offense.

      Report Post »  
  • 2GodBeTheGlory
    Posted on January 24, 2012 at 8:35am

    Another idiot put in by big government Bush. No, I’m not a Dem., I’m a libertarian. I would press the issue all the way up. It’s just like a safe, if you cannot compel someone to open a safe so then how can you compel someone to put in your security code. Another big government “you have no expectation to privacy” in the US mentality. This goes along with the same argument of “I‘ve nothing to hide so I don’t care”, however if I wanted to live in communist china or communist russia, I would have moved there.

    Report Post » 2GodBeTheGlory  
    • Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
      Posted on January 24, 2012 at 8:58am

      Did you see The Davinci Code? Could you imagine a court stupid enough to file a warrant for the contents of the cryptych? Just like the cryptych contained a vial of acid that would destroy the data on the paper if any attempt is made to open it without the correct code being entered, many hard drive encryption tools have the same feature. Enter the wrong password three times and the software starts eating the hard drive. Such a feature needs to be made universal.

      Of course, if the government’s people are smart and following computer investigation best practices, one of the first things they do is extract all hard drives from the suspect machines, hook the HDs up to their trusted machines, and make bit for bit copies, and then conduct their investigations on the copies, leaving the original intact. Still, it would definitely raise the bar for the cops.

      Oh well.

      Report Post » Lesbian Packing Hollow Points  
    • 2GodBeTheGlory
      Posted on January 24, 2012 at 2:46pm

      Bit by bit copy is fine for the uninformed, however, I’ve seen and used systems that are much more advance, such as hardware force bios bit placement (i.e. placing extra bios code within computer main bios or other devices like modem, video, nic) that the decrypted looks for then if the code is incorrect wipe the drive key and extra bios info. If you did not have the drive in the same system then it would wipe the key as well on boot and since your required to boot into the decrypted in order to view the contents you are toast. I’ve seen some that the main bios was hacked so that if you did not press and hold specific key sequence then the drive platters would be toast. BTW, the above examples where used in systems over 20 years ago so just imagine what can be done now if you know what you are doing. All this is just like safes that use acid to destroy information if the safe is not properly accessed.

      Report Post » 2GodBeTheGlory  
  • spirit of freedom
    Posted on January 24, 2012 at 8:35am

    i would like to know what the specific charges against these people are. reason i ask is that there seems to be ALOT of illegal loans out there perpetrated on the public by the banks. remember when the freddie and fannys were playing the shell games with motgage co.s most are missing paperwork that has to filed at the local and county level that make them legitimate. therefore they are illegal. maybe they have such a loan and are fighting it. details details details.

    Report Post » spirit of freedom  
  • Dannytheman
    Posted on January 24, 2012 at 8:34am

    Easy for all of us to tell her what to do, but the judge can keep her in jail. I think this is another travesty of our rights as citizens. Yesterday the SCOTUS unanimously voted that GPS tracking is against the 4th amendment protection, and that was a case from 2005 if I remember correctly. I sure hope the woman doesn’t have to sit in jail for 6 years why this runs through the system.
    I am encrypting my hard drive info tonight, might as well, huh?

    Report Post » Dannytheman  
    • Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
      Posted on January 24, 2012 at 8:49am

      The police misconduct that was spanked in Jones happened in 2004, actually. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-jones/ . And Jones was even more manifestly guilty of that of which he was accused than is Mrs. Fricosu.

      This is tantamount to a person building an “impenetrable” fortress protected by a lock and key for which only they have the only key and which only they can pick the lock. If they suspect they are about to be arrested, they can destroy the physical key while the fortress is locked, before the authorities arrest them. At that point, without the physical key, all of the government force in the world will not penetrate the walls of the fortress for the foreseeable lifetime of the accused.

      There are two options: jail the accused for the rest of their lives without trial, ostensibly while waiting for trial, or attempt to coerce them into picking the lock for them. In a Constitutional Republic, neither is permissible.

      Now, in reality, we have lots of nifty explosive devices that could breach even the deepest built and most thickly walled physical structures, so the analogy breaks down there, but these are walls of information, not concrete, digital bits, not hardened steel. These walls of encryption are even easier to build by the common person than are those of a fortress. This ease of employment, however, is moot in the terms of the analogy outlined above.

      Report Post » Lesbian Packing Hollow Points  
    • robstoddard
      Posted on January 24, 2012 at 8:53am

      It would probably be best to have a hard drive encryption software that also has a hard drive nuking password. That way, if the judge says “decrypt it” you can enter the nuking password and say “oops.”

      Report Post » robstoddard  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on January 24, 2012 at 9:02am

      Truecrypt is your friend. From the dot “org” site. I don’t trust Windows 7 Bitlocker (no access to the source for independent 3rd party verification of algorithm nor verification that no back doors exist, let alone the testing of the actual security level in any case). With a sufficiently long password (20+ characters, up to 64), all the governments of the world have been able to do against it to date has been to gnash their teeth and curse. Get it while you still can, it’s a great setup.

      Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on January 24, 2012 at 9:07am

      @Rob

      The better/best whole drive encryption systems let you install a decoy Operating System. So if you’re forced to give up a password, you give them the one to the decoy system. There is no way to determine if a decoy OS is installed, and it provides plausible deniability under a set of easily followed protocols.

      That said, except for “rubber hose cryptographic extraction techniques”, I’d give them the bird and let them stew in their own hatred, personally. Our rights come before “ease of investigation”, always.

      Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
    • Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
      Posted on January 24, 2012 at 9:22am

      Actually, there are techniques to interrogate TrueCrypt volumes to determine if there is an encrypted filesystem at both ends of the crypttext file/partition. TC allows you to start a volume from the bottom or the top of the crypttext. Most people start from the same place as cleartext data would, out of intellectual inertia. That leaves the bottom free for another, hidden, encrypted volume. Provided the bits of the two volumes never clobber one another (grow together), you’ve fine. As soon as one grows into the other, the other is clobbered and can’t be decrypted again.

      But as I said, it’s now possible, and has been for some time, to discern if the “random” padding at one end or the other of TC crypttext hosts a phantom volume.

      Report Post » Lesbian Packing Hollow Points  
    • NotJimbo
      Posted on January 24, 2012 at 9:35am

      Good idea RobStoddard. However, they probably have already imaged the drive several times over, so if she nukes a drive, they’ll just slap an imaged drive in and tell her to do it right the second time.

      Report Post »  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on January 24, 2012 at 10:41am

      Only if you don‘t use both OS’s and only if you, as I understand it, have access to one of the booted OS’s for a few passes. From a cold boot perspective I doubt they’d be able to either tell definitively enough to deal with it.

      That said, a simple “no” thwarts the governments of the world at this point, so a dual OS is really pointless. A smile and a “no” suffices.

      Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
  • KangarooJack
    Posted on January 24, 2012 at 8:33am

    a matter of National Security???? Have I missed something here?

    This case is NOT a National Security case-setting a precedent to suspend the 5th Amendment IS!!

    Report Post » KangarooJack  
  • southerngal
    Posted on January 24, 2012 at 8:32am

    I have 3 words to comment. Ctrl, alt, del.

    Report Post »  
  • CryptoCop
    Posted on January 24, 2012 at 8:25am

    All she has to do is say “You know what, it’s been so long that I forgot the password!” Then what? You can‘t prove that she DIDN’T forget it, so what do you do then?

    Report Post »  
    • ThePostman
      Posted on January 24, 2012 at 8:39am

      Put her in jail for contempt until she remembers.

      Report Post »  
    • copatriots
      Posted on January 24, 2012 at 8:42am

      Indeed, politicians always seem to have selective memory when they are brought up for hearings before Congress.

      Report Post »  
  • Joisey
    Posted on January 24, 2012 at 8:22am

    And if she refuses, then what? Are we going to bring back the rack too? Might as well, this decision makes a mockery of the 4th Amendment.

    Report Post » Joisey  
  • Gary S
    Posted on January 24, 2012 at 8:21am

    Simple; 4th ammendment. Tel the “judge” ES&D!!

    Report Post »  
  • smithclar3nc3
    Posted on January 24, 2012 at 8:21am

    The Judge is violating her 5th amendment rights asking her to decryot is asking her to testify against herself……..Just say NO……And get a civil rights attorney or become your own Civil rights attorney.

    Report Post »  
  • lukerw
    Posted on January 24, 2012 at 8:19am

    A violation of the V Amendment: no one can be compelled to be a “witness against himself”!

    Report Post » lukerw  
    • smithclar3nc3
      Posted on January 24, 2012 at 8:23am

      Maybe she should open it for them so she can then have the entire case dropped later for civil rights violation. And also sue the city for violating her Constitutional protected rights.

      Report Post »  
    • Shasta
      Posted on January 24, 2012 at 8:40am

      @smithclar3nc3, if we could trust the court system we would not be in this mess in the first place

      Report Post » Shasta  
    • lukerw
      Posted on January 24, 2012 at 10:57am

      Contrary to American Law… the Prosecutor seems to think that you are Guilty… until you prove yourself Innocent… and the Judge thinks that way, too. What a bunch of Fascists!

      Report Post » lukerw  
  • let us prey
    Posted on January 24, 2012 at 8:18am

    They have gone after this person because of a mortgage scam. The same kind of people that caused the housing crisis are still not in jail. Hmmmm.
    “Justice without force is powerless; force without justice is tyrannical”

    Report Post » let us prey  
    • Baddoggy
      Posted on January 24, 2012 at 8:24am

      So…You think she should give up her Constitutional rights? 4th ammendment and 5th ammendment. They can find some other way to prosecute her I will be. they want the easy road. The easy road is the one that tramples our rights. What if they get in and find NO evidence?

      I am sure you are one that likes the TSA putting thier hands down you pants too.
      Wake up America!

      Report Post » Baddoggy  
    • let us prey
      Posted on January 24, 2012 at 8:44am

      Bad doggy
      Pointing out the fact they are going after this person and letting their own crooks slide. No rights should be given up in my opinion. You jumped the gun on my character. Force without justice is tyranny. Read post next time.

      Report Post » let us prey  
  • Baddoggy
    Posted on January 24, 2012 at 8:13am

    Easy…Use a sledgehammer. It’s my 4th ammendment decryption process…

    Report Post » Baddoggy  
    • Pontiac
      Posted on January 24, 2012 at 9:09pm

      [Magnets, Hammers, Microwaves]
      None of these things will do a damn bit of good when they already have your hard drive in their possession. Also, they make COPIES.

      [Authorities just want to save themselves the trouble]
      Of spending the next thousand years using a room full of computers devoted to decrypting your properly encrypted hard drive.

      [Search Warrant means you must decrypt.]
      Nope. Even if you did, a simple hidden partition will completely obliterate this legal avenue.

      Read up.
      http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=hidden-volume

      Report Post » Pontiac  
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