The case itself is at
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mn&vol=apppub\0505\opa040381-0503&invol=1
"Finally, Schaub testified that, in a file entitled “research,” he
found the text of Minn. Stat. § 617.246, which included “the definition of
minor sexual performance, sexual conduct, things of that nature.” He also
testified that he found an encryption program, PGP, on appellant’s
computer; PGP “can basically encrypt any file;” and, “other than the
National Security Agency,” he was not aware of anyone who could break such
an encryption. But Schaub also admitted that the PGP program may be
included on every Macintosh computer that comes out today, and appellant
may have had the text of Minn. Stat. § 617.246 in his computer because of
prior allegations against him."
...
"Appellant first argues that he is entitled to a new trial because
the district court erred in admitting irrelevant evidence of his internet
usage and the existence of an encryption program on his computer. Rulings
involving the relevancy of evidence are generally left to the sound
discretion of the district court. State v. Swain, 269 N.W.2d 707, 714
(Minn. 1978). And rulings on relevancy will only be reversed when that
discretion has been clearly abused. Johnson v. Washington County, 518
N.W.2d 594, 601 (Minn. 1994). “The party claiming error has the burden of
showing both the error and the prejudice.” State v. Horning, 535 N.W.2d
296, 298 (Minn. 1995).
Appellant argues that his “internet use had nothing to do with the
issues in this case;” “there was no evidence that there was anything
encrypted on the computer;” and that he “was prejudiced because the court
specifically used this evidence in its findings of fact and in reaching its
verdict.” We are not persuaded by appellant’s arguments. The record shows
that appellant took a large number of pictures of S.M. with a digital
camera, and that he would upload those pictures onto his computer soon
after taking them. 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. See Minn. R. Evid. 401."
At 11:07 PM 5/24/2005 -0700, Arash Partow wrote:
OK, the subject was a little exaggerated.
But in anycase feel free to read the following article:
http://news.com.com/Minnesota+court+takes+dim+view+of+encryption/2100-1030_3-5718978.html
Regards
Arash
--------------------------------------------------------------------
James S. Tyre mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Law Offices of James S. Tyre 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax)
10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969
Co-founder, The Censorware Project http://censorware.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
