Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sandman on May 25, 2005, 12:59:44 PM
-
http://news.com.com/Minnesota+court+takes+dim+view+of+encryption/2100-1030_3-5718978.html
I guess this is something to consider before using personal encryption software.
:eek:
-
So now anyone using encryption software is a child molester or other typr of criminal?
This is the sort of conclusions that will be drawn by law enforcement.
-
I've read as much around here.
If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear.
-
Better start using it just for the hell of it.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I've read as much around here.
If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear.
I hate it when the government starts
thinking like that. Sounds like Germany cicrca 1930's-40's..or USSR.
-
Why not make people to file a travel plan each time they leave their home.
I mean.. if they're just going to their job or to grocery store.. or anythign like that, they got nothing to hide and its all ok. right?
The airplanes usually have to file a flightplan.
One thing is that if the plane goes down, then the SAR teams can try to search for the downed aircraft from around its flight path.
Filing a travel plan would be for the persons safety in case of accidents and also to make it easier to catch criminals.
A honest person has no reason to hide his destination and it would only make his daily life even safer.
-
...and while we're at it, why do you need to put your letter in an envelope? If you've got nothing to hide, a postcard will do.
-
You know, camera technology has dropped so much in price, I bet it would be feasible to place them as safety monitors in our homes.
Think of all the people it would save! Spouse abuse, drug use, all of these things would be abolished. And CHILD ABUSE!
We could have a network of people who watch others to make sure that everyone is safe. Worried about grandma alone in her big house? Don't worry, neighborhood watch officer Johnson has his eye on her!
Please, think of the children!
After all, it's not like you have anything to hide...
-
Checkpoints at every city, county and state boarder too! Can't forget those..and throw in some random ones also.
Cameras in every house, on every street..think how many people we could EMPLOY just to watch...I guess we can catch married couples in illegal sex acts like oral and anal too.
We could also carry around ID card that have your fingerprint..a copy of your retina pattern and a DNA sample on em..this all a supplement to the GPS tracking chip implanted in ya and barcode tattoo'ed on ya.
-
yes, while the conviction is not based on the ecryption evidence (according to the article) the courts are basically saying if you lock the front door to your house you're hideing something with the INTENT to commit a criminal act?????
makes no sense to me.
-
CAVITY SEARCHES! DONT FORGET THE ANAL EXAMS!!
-
Maybe you guys didnt actually read the article, But it says it was a factor only in combination with his searches and the testimony of the nine-year old girl. Not just because he had encryption.
-
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0471117099/counterpane/002-7182535-3610422
and btw...
free shipping.....
DoctorYo
Read here for the real story:
http://www.minnlawyer.com/opinions/050509/a04381.htm
this guy is the girls uncle.. (wtf..) and he had the very legal laws being used against him on his machine I guess from a prior research etc.. (wtf)
this guy seems unsavory I think the testimony was accurate from the computer cop... But i also think the keystone use of pgp as precursor to criminal intent was a blunder to such that we now see this scumbag exploiting the appeal process wasting tax dollars.. (the judges also open the door for him to appeal again becuase their response is screwball at the end of the legal brief..)
I think pgp is default on all macs, and about everylinux distro out there; if this guy or his lawyer get clever then he may get off on technicality and push for a new trial..
-
It's setting precidence based on connecting the dots. It's still a slippery slope depending on the judge who presides. The girls testimony probably was only to the acts she performed with him. They traced his internet activity to looking for Lollita sites. So ergo the encryption software must be for hiding the pictures. They are leaving out that he may have declined to give them the password to decrypt a block of picture files which would have given them reason to suspect he was hiding illegal pictures. Also they did not mention if he took digital photos of the girl and had them encrypted on his PC. A noval approch to hiding the evidence.
The slippery slope here is if you have personal finacial or medical records encrypted and the police are questioning you as a person of interest to a case to start with. The case would have a internet and computer slant. Then they ask if you would let them look at your computer if you don't have anything to hide. You say no because your encrypted records not being criminal still could have emberassing repercussions to your carreer. No to the police is always a red cape to a bull. Now its lawyer and search warrent time because in the Lollita case the incriminating files were encrypted. Only a criminal encrypts their personal files on their home PC because they have something to hide.
The presidence is just one more area in which the police camel can stick it's nose under the tent and claim judicial precidence to streatch your 4th A rights away from you. The logic that if you have nothing to hide, you will freely allow the government to rummage around in your private papers is bogus, because it places the burden of automatic guilt on you the moment you say no to the government. Once the government starts rummaging, you are at their mercy to interpret what they think your papers represent about your guilt or innocence.
-
Regardless of what this guy did...to assume just because you don't want someone to see something, that you have criminal activity to hide is just wrong.
-
Thank God they replaced the liberal judge that used to sit on the bench with a law and order conservative. Why would you want to hide anything unless you are clearly guilty. All that people use computers and the internets for is child porn anyway. We should start kicking in the doors to those people on the internets and do some searching. Think of the children!
-
Better yet...Think of the sheep!
-
Id imagine Sandman or MT encrypt their love letters for eace other
-
Id imagine Sandman or MT encrypt their love letters for eace other
I take it they use the blowfish algorithm...
:lol :eek: :rofl
DoctorYo
-
What about those people that are in a profession that requires encrypted messages to their business partners to avoid the leakage of trade secrets or industrial espionage? Hackers and social engineers can be quite a problem without the proper amount of paranoia.
-
I need to go encrypt my past 2 fast food transactions.....don't want anyone knowing where the cash I paid for it came from.....
-
If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide!
-
Originally posted by bustr
Only a criminal encrypts their personal files on their home PC because they have something to hide.
That is possibly the most ignorant and stupid statement I've seen in some time. I have encrypted files on my PC and my PDA. The contain confidential information such as passwords and account numbers. If the police asked me to unlock those files and give them the information I would tell them to take a running jump unless they had a court order.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
That is possibly the most ignorant and stupid statement I've seen in some time. I have encrypted files on my PC and my PDA. The contain confidential information such as passwords and account numbers. If the police asked me to unlock those files and give them the information I would tell them to take a running jump unless they had a court order.
Ah but to the local Gestapo..oops I mean police..the fact you are unwilling to share without a court order..makes you guilty in their eyes.
-
In more "right to privacy" news...
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,67674,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_7
Again, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
-
A little sense, please.
It's a given fact that the mere use of such software doesn't automatically mean you have something to hide--but at the same time, it can in fact mean that you are indeed hiding something. This is nothing new and is not a new precedent. If you are pulled over for a traffic stop and refuse to consent to having your vehicle searched, that is usually taken in the same light--you may well be hiding something.
In this particular case, it's pretty damn obvious that the accused did in fact have something to hide--so why shoudln't his use of that software be used as evidence? Remember, the software isn't on trial, the man is. If you stab someone with a knife, nobody is going to want to ban knives--but the knife will sure as heck be used as evidence against you.
J_A_B
-
"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," Judge R.A. Randall wrote in an opinion dated May 3.
What the Judge said and how this thread is portrayed by the original poster and by the author of the article when he states:
A Minnesota appeals court has ruled that the presence of encryption software on a computer may be viewed as evidence of criminal intent.
doesn't rise to level of hysteria shown in this thread.
What the Judge says is that the use of encryption, while not a crime in and of it self can be considered 'relevant' to the case against the accused. The accused was convicted two counts of attempted use of a minor in a sexual performance, his search engine history also contained search entries for "Lolita's".
Its perfectly logical for the prosecution to 'bring up' the encryption software while presenting his case.
This is no different then say when some one is charged with planting a bomb and investigators find a particular book about bombs or 'bomb making' ' or watching a movie whose theme is similar to the act. Would you cry and whine about 'Now books or movies = criminals'?
The guy was not charged or convicted of anything related to encryption software, no search or arrest warrant was obtained based on the the fact he had encryption software on his cpu etc...
The defense mostly likely claimed in their appeal that the introduction of encryption software was prejudicial and should have been excluded from the prosecution's case.
My opinion is 'big deal'.
Any assumption made was left up to the jury. They were perfectly capable to ignore the whole encryption testimony and there's no indication that the encryption testimony had any impact on the verdict at all.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
That is possibly the most ignorant and stupid statement I've seen in some time. I have encrypted files on my PC and my PDA. The contain confidential information such as passwords and account numbers. If the police asked me to unlock those files and give them the information I would tell them to take a running jump unless they had a court order.
Vulcan,
I'm glad that got you going. How you are feeling about the connect the dots presedence from my earlier post is relevent to how our 4th amendment rights in the U.S. are being slipped away from us by non elected judges using judicial precidence and personal activism rather than strictly measuring the case against the 4th Amendment.
Basicly if one judge sets a presidence that in the case its a "child" being violated, the constitution can be set aside. Then down the road another judge can go presidence shopping for the latter judges unchallenged unconstitutional precidence to violate the constitution one ripped stich farther. A fabric has a finite amount of thread in it.
-
I think its nuts. Especially as being an atheist it is my intention to teach our kids about a variety of religions and their beliefs (which I think is a very important thing for people to be aware of in todays world).
-
Originally posted by GREENTENERAL
What about those people that are in a profession that requires encrypted messages to their business partners to avoid the leakage of trade secrets or industrial espionage? Hackers and social engineers can be quite a problem without the proper amount of paranoia.
SHHHHhhhh that makes too much sense.
-
(http://www.foothilltech.org/rgeib/english/orwell/bb.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Wotan
This is no different then say when some one is charged with planting a bomb and investigators find a particular book about bombs or 'bomb making' ' or watching a movie whose theme is similar to the act. Would you cry and whine about 'Now books or movies = criminals'?
But what if they find a trashbag full of shedded paper? do we say "we claim its a bomb making book" why else would he shred that paper?
shamus
-
This is what happens when a Democratic Governor appoints a liberal judge.
-
Originally posted by Shamus
But what if they find a trashbag full of shedded paper? do we say "we claim its a bomb making book" why else would he shred that paper?
shamus
What did the prosecution claim in regards to the encryption software?
Do you even know?
How did the jury interpret the encryption software?
Do you even know?
You all are a bunch of chicken littles.
No warrant was issued based on the software. The investigation into that guy didn't start based on him having encryption software on his cpu. That was found after the fact.
The issue is whether the prosecution could 'bring up' the fact the defendant had encryption software on his cpu during the trail.
Its up to the the jury to interpret that evidence. They can ignore it all together if they so chose.
There's no claim that the guy was convicted on the encryption software. I would agree with the 3 judges and the trail judge that the encryption software 'at least somewhat relevant to the state's case against him'. It certainly doesn't prejudice the defendant to the point where he should get a new trial.
Some of you better go hide, I think I hear black helicopters...
-
Here is some more info on the case.
The Guy was a third grade teacher.
The case involved former third grade teach Ari David Levie, who had been convicted by a lower court on two counts of soliciting a child to engage in sexual conduct when he offered his nine-year-old niece $50 to pose naked for photographs.
The evidence of PGP was used to show criminal intent.
There were no encrypted files found on his compueter.
During court proceedings, the prosecution presented as evidence the fact that Levie’s computer contained a PGP, or Pretty Good Privacy, utility. The court in its finings said that it used this evidence in reaching its verdict.
However, a forensic investigation by police showed that there were no encrypted files on Levie’s computer.
http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?cat=2&id=8903
Sorry but siding with the courts on this one. The appeals court ruled that submitting the PGP as evidence was minor compared to the testimony of the girl and his searches of "lolita's" on the net. He's a third grade teacher what is he doing with the best encryption program out there? That is what (I think) the prosecutors were pointing out and the Appeals court agreed.
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," Judge R.A. Randall said.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
He's a third grade teacher what is he doing with the best encryption program out there? That is what (I think) the prosecutors were pointing out and the Appeals court agreed.
Ahem... PGP is free. As for being the best, maybe it is, but I doubt it. What it does have going for it is software integration with typical desktop apps.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Ahem... PGP is free. As for being the best, maybe it is, but I doubt it. What it does have going for it is software integration with typical desktop apps.
Like I said the best. Free only crackable by NSA computers...What does a third grade teacher need it for? He's not some CEO or Security guy. He's a friggin third grade teacher.
-
The appeals court ruled that submitting the PGP as evidence was minor compared to the testimony of the girl and his searches of "lolita's" on the net.
Exactly as I thought...
He's a third grade teacher what is he doing with the best encryption program out there?
Who cares what he was doing with it. The prosecution probably used it to imply something like 'What does he have to hide..?.
Its up to the jury to take that bait if they choose. However, the appeals court judges made it clear in that introducing such evidence is not grounds to over turn the guys conviction.
That's a far cry from the court stating:
Only Criminals Encrypt
or any of the other conspiracy kook, 4th amendment crap being thrown about in this thread.
The guy preyed on a 9 year old, as part of the investigation the government searched his cpu for possible evidence, found he had encryption software.
He wasn't charged with anything related to encryption software, he wasn't rounded up or targeted for investigation because he used encryption software.
The prosecution while presenting its case 'brought up' the encryption software and the rest was left up to the jury.
The appeals court decided the rest. As it should.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Like I said the best. Free only crackable by NSA computers...What does a third grade teacher need it for? He's not some CEO or Security guy. He's a friggin third grade teacher.
Well... I'm not a CEO or a security guy, but I've used PGP. I know plenty of people that do. At the very least, it's a useful tool to digitally "sign" your emails.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
You know, camera technology has dropped so much in price, I bet it would be feasible to place them as safety monitors in our homes.
Think of all the people it would save! Spouse abuse, drug use, all of these things would be abolished. And CHILD ABUSE!
We could have a network of people who watch others to make sure that everyone is safe. Worried about grandma alone in her big house? Don't worry, neighborhood watch officer Johnson has his eye on her!
Please, think of the children!
After all, it's not like you have anything to hide...
hey thats great idea... and it could solve problems with unemployment :D
-
where there any pictires found ?
It says he offered 50$ if she posed.
Now, if he did, it's screwed up, however some kids do make up crap. And if that's the case, and then existance of PGP is enough to convict, that's plain wrong...
As for internet searches, i bet most of you would be locked up as deranged sex maniacks and would be rapists if all your search histories were pulled in over the years...
-
Is it illegal to ask a underage girl to pose naked for pictures? How do you prove in court, that somebody asked thing like that? Is there any other thing that is illegal to verbally propose if you do not insult?
They are unable to get hard facts on the table, so they start grasping straws. I bet they could grasp all sorts of unrelated "questionable" features from archives i YOU were the suspect. I'm pretty sure there is actual legal term for this kind of garbage stacking, where a lot of nonsense is piled up to make it look like evidence.