"Robert J. Hansen" <r...@sixdemonbag.org> writes: > To repeat what I told you earlier: *there was no such trial*.
When did you tell me this? > This is an urban legend in the community. No one has ever been able > to produce a citation for me. I've asked, quite a lot of times, and > I've done my own digging in Westlaw trying to find it. To the best of > my knowledge, it doesn't exist. What exist instead are different > trials for evidence spoilation and related charges, in which the > defendant's possession of those tools is directly related to the > charge. http://news.cnet.com/Minnesota-court-takes-dim-view-of-encryption/2100-1030_3-5718978.html "We find that evidence of appellant's Internet use and the existence of an encryption program on his computer was at least somewhat relevant to the state's case against him," The Internet use might be, but "the existence of an encryption program on his computer", considering there was absolutely _no_ evidence of encrypted imagery, was certainly not relevant to the case. The guy was convicted, and for the right reasons, but the encryption software shouldn't have been allowed. -- PGP: A0E4 B2D4 94E6 20EE 85BA E45B 63E4 2BD8 C58C 753A PGP: 2C23 EBFF DF1A 840D 2351 F5F5 F25B A03F 2152 36DA
pgp7Mvbu1iiJ7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
