| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Warrant needed for GPS tracking: US Supreme Court |
| 2012-01-24 |
| Snip, duplicate from yesterday. |
| Posted by:DarthVader |
| #6 "American citizens can be ordered to decrypt their PGP-scrambled hard drives for police to peruse for incriminating files, a federal judge in Colorado ruled today in what could become a precedent-setting case. Judge Robert Blackburn ordered a Peyton, Colo., woman to decrypt the hard drive of a Toshiba laptop computer no later than February 21--or face the consequences including contempt of court." 1. Colorado has amazingly awful judges. Inbred hillbillies would be an improvement. 2. Fifth Amendment says you can't be required to self incriminate. This judgment will never survive appeal. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2012-01-24 22:02 |
| #5 They already thought of that. It started with a freeware encryption program called TrueCrypt, some years ago. Using it, you can encrypt your real files with one password, and fake files with a different password, a "duress password". Thus, if you are compelled to decrypt, all they will see are the fake files. And such technology never sits still, even for a moment. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2012-01-24 20:55 |
| #4 On the other hand, there is this: American citizens can be ordered to decrypt their PGP-scrambled hard drives for police to peruse for incriminating files, a federal judge in Colorado ruled today in what could become a precedent-setting case. Judge Robert Blackburn ordered a Peyton, Colo., woman to decrypt the hard drive of a Toshiba laptop computer no later than February 21--or face the consequences including contempt of court. What's the penalty for simply not remembering one's decryption key? Paging Jon Corzine, etc. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2012-01-24 17:52 |
| #3 There is a reason that law enforcement requires a warrant and not carte blanche. The issue was not GPS surveillance, but rather that the authorization was needed to do it. This is a good thing. It is relieving to know that SCOTUS does respect due process in this case. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2012-01-24 15:31 |
| #2 Other surprises in this decision was that in addition to the Scalia written main decision, there was also a concurring decision written by Alito and joined by three other justices, *and* an individual concurring decision written by Sotomayor. This latter one, by Sotomayor, had what could be called "foreshadowing". She noted that the police has "usurped" his property, for surveillance purposes, for which there is a lot of 4th Amendment case law. But then, and this is the zinger, she noted that many searches today, warrant-less electronic searches, should also be called into scrutiny, even though they do not involve the usurpation precedents. But that there is very little case law on the books about many of them. This is actually a very good sign from this new justice, that her future inclination might be strongly pro-privacy in the face of intrusive government surveillance. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2012-01-24 13:20 |
| #1 I like this result. Also glad it was 9-0. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2012-01-24 12:14 |