US woman is ordered to decrypt her hard drive

Obviously anyone who understands the Constitution knows passwords are not protected. She tried a Hail Mary and lost. Boo Hoo.

... to remember to use the hidden volume feature in Truecrypt for plausible deniability even if the order to reveal a password is, in itself, a violation of the Constitution.

I wonder if there is any limit on what the police can ask you to do.

Can they ask you to decipher your handwriting if they can't read it on a document?

If they record a phone conversation, can they ask you what you meant by "fix the problem with Fat Tony"?

This will make electronic surveillance much more useful. If you try to encrypt or disguise anything, they can ask you to decrypt it.

Why is it that judges are making up the law in this case? I think it would be good to clarify whether Big Brother can collect information then ask you to explain it to them after the fact.

You can't fix stupid but they make good shark bait.

Their request is based on the "fact" that they overheard her and her husband mentioning that potentially incriminating data "existed" (i.e. maybe it doesn't exist anymore) on "a laptop" (maybe not the one they seized?).

Problem with this is the following:

1. They don't actually know whether any usable data is in there, they are just hoping they will find something incriminating

2. They don't know if they have the right safe. Maybe in this one she has her personal diary which has other and unrelated self-incriminating data?

What we store in our computers is an extension of our mind and we should be not forced to disclose it.

I agree with Bubba.

The feds would not be able to tell if she gave them the wrong password or if the data was accidentaly corrupted. right?

Claim the passphrase is in the form of a personal statement that could be self incriminating.

Incompetent juddge is incompetent.

When will this be applied to Apple and Google? Never.

Wow,,,guess she may have needed to do a volume encryption, presidents use this all the time. It's called Plausible Deniability, someone get the 2x4
http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=plausible-deniability

Woman: password is abra-cadabra
law: no, that doesn't work.
woman: damn that data corruption! I had this same problem a while back and had to reformat.

To protect one is clinical in derailing the postulation of reality, yet inconceivable in the realm of reality. How does such an ergophile deliberately subject themselves to outlandish behavior. The very nature of the article is subjective to argument of a trivial decision which does not concern the masses of law abiding citizens. But emphases the insignificance of one individual.

I doubt the report that the combination for a combo lock on a safe does not have to be disclosed but it that's the case it should not be. Authorities can still just cut the safe open however.

The protection afforded is to not incriminate one's self via oral answers to questions. It has absolutely nothing to do with documents or other items that may be incriminating.

I have opinions of my own –strong opinions– but I don’t always agree with them

Supposedly the US supreme court has ruled that if you have a key lock on a safe, you have to give up the key, but if you have a combination lock, the combination is protected by the 5th amendment.

They've got to get it right once in awhile when it comes to computers and the Constitution.

"The criminal material was seen by law officials prior to the computer become locked, so it's all fair."

Well then, they can testify as to what they saw. But just because someone claims to have seen *something* doesn't strip away her constitutional rights.

Judges like this need to be removed.

This being about financial fraud, the turning over of this sepcific password seems the equivalent of handing over the key to a locked file cabinet. I could be wrong, but it would seem to be quite straight forward. Any judge given probable cause would issue the warrant that require said key to a locked cabinet be produced. If one is stupid enough to document criminal activities to a written file, be it physical or digital, they will probably get busted.

Mahhn, the case where the information was seen by the police is a different one (from 2007). The judge was only mentioning it as an example.

After reading the judges reasons, I don't think the 5th comes into this. The criminal material was seen by law officials prior to the computer become locked, so it's all fair.

Here it is, 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.

Freedom in America is an illusion. What other countries give poor people the choice to vote for either of two parties of the Rich. America is a country ruled by the Rich for the Rich and stuff the working class. A Socialist revolution is long overdue, but the working classes are too doped up on cheap beer, cheap gas and even cheaper religion that they don't care. The American rich will trample over the rights of anyone who happens to get in their way.

I BET SHE HAS STOLEN RECIPES. I BET SHE HAS THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR MAKING AN ILLICIT BIG MAC SANDWINCH.