Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:26AM EST
See Comments (17)
This came to my attention via a colleague who forwarded a Washington Post story. It's another one of those modern day Internet dilemmas that may ultimately become legislative turf.
Here's the story:
Sebastien Boucher, a 30-year-old dry-wall installer from New England, is a Canadian by birth, but a legal resident of the U.S. He was driving from Canada to Vermont when he was stopped at the border. A laptop was discovered in the back seat.
According the report, Boucher admitted to the border authorities that he owned the laptop. The officers inspected it and found thousands of images on his PC, some pornographic. They also found some files with very graphic names containing references to child porn.
That's where the story gets a bit complicated. Those file names pointed to a part of the disk partitioned as Drive Z. A special agent was then called in to examine the computer further and found that the drive that the images pointed to, Drive Z, was encrypted and inaccessible without a password. Boucher used Pretty Good Privacy, one of the most popular, low-cost encryption programs on the market, to keep Drive Z inaccessible. Next, the agent asked Boucher to type in his password and, according to the court reports, Boucher complied. Some images of graphic child pornography were seen. The computer was confiscated; Boucher was arrested. That was in December 2006.
The Department of Corrections made a mirrored image of Boucher's disk, but of course they couldn't access the images in question without his password. This time Boucher refused to comply, pleading the Fifth Amendment. Compliance would constitute self-incrimination. The password would create an undeniable link to him and the images on the PC.
Today the FBI still wants to force Boucher decrypt the drive. The FBI's POV, paraphrased from a press quote, is that you shouldn't be able to refuse to give up a password to the authorities since this would encourage criminals and terrorists to encrypt their data, too. But a local U.S. District Court in Vermont ruled that compelling the man to enter his password into his laptop would violate his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
What a sticky wicket. To my mind Boucher already incriminated himself when he accessed the images for the first agent. I might try taking the files back to Pretty Good Privacy, which may know enough about their key combinations (the root of encyrption softeware) to help decrypt what it encrypted.
So how would you rule? Does taking the Fifth make it safer for others—pornographers, pedophiles, crooks, and terrorists—to do the same? If the government rules to force you to decrypt your data, are they violating your right to privacy?
For other perspectives:
A more detailed report of the arrest is available from Computerworld.
An article in the YaleGlobal Online weighs the legality of searching a person's laptop.
For the serious geeks who want to know more about how Pretty Good Privacy works.
Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.
This story is strange to say the least. However, it is possible to crack the encryption on that drive partition and I'm sure federal agencies- oh wait, there is no mention of the FBI in the ComputerWorld article. Upon a bit of research on the topic though, I realize that PGP encryption really is Pretty Good (PGP is short for Pretty Good Privacy :D ). A brute force password attack (guessing all possible ones) is doable but not efficient. This case will likely turn into a battle of legal wits and the poor man is likely entrapped.
Since he voluntarily provided his password at the beginning, my guess is he waived his 5th amendment right. Yes, it was probably an illegal search, but when he rolled over at that point, he screwed himself. Best bet would have been to refuse to allow them to search his laptop, get arrested, lawyer up, and it would have been over. No probable cause to search it. Unless he was doing something really stupid at the time to make them suspicious. Worst case scenario is they confiscate it and have the government experts crack it. If you're stupid enough to have kiddie porn you deserve what you get.
I'm not sure that probable cause is the MO at border crossings. Anyone?
At the time he first complied, the officers SHOULD have made a full backup of the unlocked drive. Preferably with witnesses. Basically, they goofed.
I agree, take it to the company who made the product if a crime was commited they are obligated to help the police(in a perfect world maybe. If he already put in the password the first time..who is the dumb a** agent who shut it down without cloning it the first time..he should be written up or fired. What a moron! They had the guy dead to writes but hey if the agent and the people involved were to stupid or lazy to clone it right away, then he shouldn't have to put it in again..even if he is a dirty pervert scumbag! Guys like this always make more mistakes, in fact why didn't the police just put a sniffer on his pc and give it back to him. Duh!
If a valid search warrant was produced, he needs to give up the password. Not doing so would be like trying to refuse to unlock the door to an officer who has a search warrant. However, if no warrant, no access.
It is completely wrong for someone to plead the fifth about a password that would affect a criminal case.
This is clearly in violation of the 5th Amendment. Kenmaze, the 5th protects you from self incrimination all the time, not just when testifing against another person. But the government can't allow people to just encode all their illegal stuff and then just say "oh well you can't ask me to unlock it" because child molesters and pedophiles would have a rock solid lock on all their stuff. This is one of those situations where the Constitution is outdated.
I think he lost his right to use the 5th ammendemnt when he decided to download child porn ILLEGALLY. I think when anyone breaks the law, they should lose ALL rights. Besides, he's obviously a sick pedophile, not a law abiding citizen. I also believe that the FBI is correct in saying that it could cause other criminals and or terroists to encrypt their files. I hope he rots in prison.
Why did the officer even turn on the laptop in the first place? This guy was right to plead the 5th but dumb not to do that in the first place. And if I was that I I would have thought of the 4th amendment first. Search and Seizure people, what reason did the officer have for checking out the laptop. That guy was dumb from the get go, they should convict him.
SEO Good post.Search engine optimization is a method of increasing the amount of visitors and the awareness of a website by ranking high in the search engines.
Please enable your browser's cookies to activate the My Tech column.
| Computers | Home Office | Wi-Fi & Networking | Phones & PDAs | Cameras & Camcorders | TV & Home Theater | Portable Audio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
6 Posted by collarncuffsboy on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:28PM EDT Report Abuse
Why was his laptop searched in the first place? I think he should have refused to allow the border guards to examine it.