Re: Judge orders defendant to decrypt PGP-protected laptop - CNET News

["0x90" <secbasics () spam gagspace com>]

Okay... so one side says it's 5th amendment rights, the other side says it's 
just like searching a house.

To point out something clearly obvious: they can search your house, get your 
blood & do DNA testing, take your stuff away etc without your interaction.
Asking for a password is asking for _information_. It's kind of like asking 
for your offshore bank account number or something.
Exactly what the 5th amendment right is about, if i'm not mistaken.

On a side note: I have crypt containers lying around on different HD's that 
I may have not even used, or did - but for benchmarking purposes, or even 
used it and temporarily and haven't opened it in years... following the 
court's logic, i'm a criminal if i don't remember the password to them (and 
i seriously don't). I don't think this is okay.

0x90


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <chmod1777 () invalid-host name>
To: <security-basics () securityfocus com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 10:49 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Judge orders defendant to decrypt PGP-protected laptop - 
CNET News


> I agree with the others on this. If it was that simple, then a person could 
> deny a search warrant on their home, using the 5th ammendment. By not 
> giving them the password, I would even see that as obstruction of justice.
>
> Of course all this could have been avoided had they followed basic 
> forensic methods.