On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 05:12:23PM -0500, David Shaw wrote: > It's an odd case. Law enforcement *knows* what is on the laptop in > this case. They saw it there before the computer was powered down > (thus locking the drive). They are arguing over whether the > protection against self-incrimination (part of the US Bill of Rights, > for those who don't live here) even applies - after all, if law > enforcement already knows what is there, revealing the contents does > not incriminate.
I don't quite grasp the nuances of whether entering a password is or is not in itself testimony. But one interesting aspect here is that, until the drive is decrypted, its contents cannot become evidence, and the government is left with only the testimony of the border control officers as to what might be contained in the defendant's property. If the drive cannot be examined by the court, the government's case is somewhat weaker. So that's one non-ulterior motive for wanting the password entered. It matters less, in court, what LE know, than what they can demonstrate. This of course does not dispose of other possible motives. -- Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer mw...@iupui.edu Friends don't let friends publish revisable-form documents.
pgpHYgmyxtgQU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
