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

["J. Oquendo" <sil () infiltrated net>]

On Thu, 05 Mar 2009, Shailesh Rangari wrote:


> fact and also because possession of ones own fingerprint is an  
> undeniable fact.

Really?

Brandon Mayfield is an Oregon lawyer who was identified as a
participant in the Madrid bombing based on a so-called
fingerprint match by the FBI. The FBI Latent Print Unit ran the
print collected in Madrid and reported a match against one of
20 fingerprint candidates returned in a search response from
their IAFIS . Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification
System. The FBI initially called the match "100 percent
positive" and an "absolutely incontrovertible match". The
Spanish National Police examiners concluded the prints did
not match Mayfield, and after two weeks identified another
man who matched. The FBI acknowledged the error, and a
judge released Mayfield after two weeks in May 2004. 

...

On 29 November 2006, the FBI agreed to pay Brandon Mayfield
the sum of US$2 million. The judicial settlement allows Mayfield
to continue a suit regarding certain other government practices
surrounding his arrest and detention. The formal apology stated
that the FBI, which erroneously linked him to the 2004 Madrid
bombing through a fingerprinting mistake, had taken steps to
"ensure that what happened to Mr. Mayfield and the Mayfield
family does not happen again."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint#Brandon_Mayfield_and_Madrid_bombing

> 1) Self Incriminate - by providing the password that is known to Mr.  
> Boucher which in turn would turn testimonial of his knowledge and  
> control over the said laptop and its contents
> 2) Perjury - by lying on oath that he does not knows the password that  
> can be proved otherwise by the ICE Agent for he found the laptop sans  
> the encryption
> 3) Contempt of Court - by rejecting both the options mentioned above

Firstly, no one on here can do anything other than speculate
anything. Until some caselaw is definitively made on the issue,
it's all speculation. I see no lawyers answering this question
with a "fool"proof answer. Kind of pointless to keep see-sawing
with "5th Amendment!" stuff that has been argued for years on
end. This is not the first time this issue has come to light
and it will not be the last.

Secondly, they have enough to nail him with the testimony of
the agents as is so any rambling is kind of moot. This talk
can go on for days, months, years. Let the scholars and legal
beagles figure this out. The interpretations of law and what
many perceive it to be greatly differ, again no one here is a
lawyer. At least for those who have answered.

Thirdly, perjury isn't something anyone has to "prove". If you've
never been on trial, the moment you lose (and you likely will
going against the government who has a track record of 99.8%
wins and unlimited pockets), the moment you lose you are found
guilty of perjury. Irrespective of you telling the truth or not.
It's the jury's determination you were guilty, therefore anything
you said is deemed a lie. Period. Many who've answered this have
never been on trial or even been to one. There are a lot of
variables involved with trials.

Contempt of court - again, see the perjury answer. Even if the
guy truly forgot what the password is/was. This would be a very
hard charge to pin on him. Why should they when they'd likely
hit him up with so many other charges this one wouldn't mean
nothing at all.


=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
J. Oquendo
SGFA, SGFE, C|EH, CNDA, CHFI, OSCP

"Enough research will tend to support your
conclusions." - Arthur Bloch

"A conclusion is the place where you got
tired of thinking" - Arthur Bloch

227C 5D35 7DCB 0893 95AA  4771 1DCE 1FD1 5CCD 6B5E
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x5CCD6B5E