The power of III

Summum ius summa iniuria--More law, less justice

25 July 2011

Third American revolution, reasons to fight: .gov violations against Bill of Rights

You have rights given to you by your creator and ackowledged by the Bill of Rights amendments to the Constitution.  Would you fight for these rights as they are taken away from you, or would you shrug, and say, "not my problem"?

Below is a pure and simple example of a federal government entity attempting to erode 5th Amendment rights. 

Just because it's not you sitting in the chair, doesn't mean it couldn't be you sitting there next year, or your kids in 15 years...

Encryption = Privacy = protected under the Bill of Rights.  Prosecuter and DOJ make themselves domestic enemies to the Constitution by pursuing this line, and having a judge back it up.  It shouldn't even be on their radar, if they respected the Constitution.


If the government obtains a search warrant to seize your computer and later finds that it cannot get into the device because it is encrypted, does that search warrant require you to produce your password and allow access to investigators?

That is the crux of a case currently being fought between the Department of Justice and a Colorado woman accused of mortgage fraud.

Ramona Camelia Fricosu and her husband, Scott Anthony Whatcott, were indicted last year for preying on people in the Colorado Springs area who were about to lose their homes to foreclosure.

In the course of the investigation, the FBI executed search warrants on Fricosu's home and seized her Toshiba Satellite M305 laptop. Upon inspection, however, they discovered that the device was encrypted, barring the agents access to its contents.

On May 6, the FBI asked a Colorado district court to compel Fricosu to enter her password into the computer. She did not actually need to tell the government her password; she "could enter the password without being observed," according to the filing.

Her lawyers, and now the Electronic Frontier Foundation, however, argued that that would be tantamount to self-incrimination. In a Friday filing, the EFF pointed to the Fifth Amendment, which says that "no person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."
"Decrypting data on a computer is a testimonial act that receives the full protection of the Fifth Amendment. This act would incriminate Fricosu because it might reveal she had control over the laptop and the data there," EFF attorney Marcia Hofmann argued. "The government has failed to show that the existence and location of the information it seeks is a foregone conclusion."

Link here.

1 comment:

  1. I never read whole articles but the way you wrote this information is simply amazing and this kept my interest in reading and

    I enjoyed it, thanks for sharing. || Cheap Dissertation Writing