[turtle]

Can American's be forced to decrypt their HDD?

I modified the title to be more open from the CNet article. This is a hard topic for me and I wanted to know what you all thought and even more so since this is a global forum the thoughts of those outside of the US. Are there laws in your country that already rule over this debate here in the US?

I have the hardest time the the fact that if I were to be required to decrypt my drive I would have to provide some testimony to enable the unlocking. You can do what you want and crack it if you can, but forcing me to provide the "key" (mental and non-tangible forcing this to be a testimony of sorts) may or may not provide incriminating evidence.

However, if I were to have a physical safe with paper documents in it I would be expected to provide access to those papers. Why would providing access to my data be any different?

Background on this case:

Ramona Fricosu, who is accused of being involved in a mortgage scam, has declined to decrypt a laptop encrypted with Symantec's PGP Desktop that the FBI found in her bedroom during a raid of a home she shared with her mother and children (and whether she's even able to do so is not yet clear).

The judge in this case says yes, she should have to provide the decrypted files.

I find and conclude that the Fifth Amendment is not implicated by requiring production of the unencrypted contents of the Toshiba Satellite M305 laptop computer.

The prosecution is quick to point out that they are not requiring her to divulge the "key", just decrypted files.

A Vermont judge agrees with this case as mentioned in this earlier case:

A year earlier, a Vermont federal judge concluded that Sebastien Boucher, who a border guard claims had child porn on his Alienware laptop, did not have a Fifth Amendment right to keep the files encrypted. Boucher eventually complied and was convicted.

For the side of you can't force me to provide:

In March 2010, a federal judge in Michigan ruled that Thomas Kirschner, facing charges of receiving child pornography, would not have to give up his password. That's "protecting his invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination," the court ruled (PDF). Originally Posted by PDF Short version Compelled testimony that communicates information that may "lead to incriminating evidence" is privileged even if the information itself is not inculpatory. Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201, 208, n. 6 (1988). Hubbell at 2044. Accordingly, the Court quashes the subpoena requiring Defendant to testify -- giving up his password -- thereby protecting his invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination. SO ORDERED.

So can I or should I be forced to provide details that can incriminate me? While I don't have anything to hide and would be willing to decrypt due to that lack of needing to hide something it still is one of those issues where if nothing is done we might lose one more freedom. Is this losing one more freedom, or something we never really had privacy on to begin with?

At this point, I'm of the persuasion that I should not be force to divulge anything. The Prosecution should be forced to gain all details and evidence as thought I were dead and unable to offer any support in the case that may be against me.

Side bar: That's some pretty good encryption.

Don't worry, I'm not being monitored or in a case personally.