Guess he never heard of hidden partitions and plausible deniability (e.g., via TrueCrypt)
Warrant Canary creator On Feb 12, 2017 1:14 PM, "jim bell" <jdb10...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/justice-naps- > man-jailed-16-months-for-refusing-to-reveal-passwords/ > > > Francis Rawls, a former Philadelphia police sergeant, has been in the > Philadelphia Federal Detention Center for more than 16 months. His crime: > the fired police officer has been found in contempt of court for refusing a > judge's order to unlock two hard drives the authorities believe contain > child pornography. Theoretically, Rawls can remain jailed indefinitely > until he complies.Francis Rawls > The federal court system appears to be in no hurry to resolve an > unresolved legal issue: does the Fifth Amendment protect the public from > being forced to decrypt their digital belongings? Until this is answered, > Rawls is likely to continue to languish behind bars. A federal appeals > court heard oral arguments about Rawls' plight last September. So far, > there's been no response from the US 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, based in > Philadelphia. > Rawls was thrown in the slammer on September 30, 2015 "until such time > that he fully complies" (PDF) with a court order to unlock his hard drives. > A child-porn investigation focused on Rawls when prosecutors were > monitoring the online network, Freenet. They executed a search warrant in > 2015 at Rawls' home. The authorities say it's a "foregone conclusion" that > illicit porn is on those drives. But they cannot know for sure unless Rawls > hands them the alleged evidence that is encrypted with Apple's standard > FileVault software. > His plight is not garnering public sympathy. Men suspected of possessing > child pornography never do. But his case highlights a vexing legal vacuum > in this digital era, when encryption is becoming part of the national > discussion. For years, both Apple and Microsoft have offered desktop users > the ability to turn on full disk encryption. And data on Android and Apple > mobile phones can easily be encrypted. > Rawls' attorney, Federal Public Defender Keith Donoghue, declined comment > for this story. But he has argued in court that his client is being "held > without charges" (PDF) and that he should be released immediately.FURTHER > READINGIndefinite prison for suspect who won’t decrypt hard drives, feds say > In winning the contempt-of-court order, the authorities cited a 1789 law > known as the All Writs Act to compel (PDF) Rawls to decrypt—and he refused. > The All Writs Act was the same law the Justice Department asserted in its > legal battle with Apple, in which a magistrate judge ordered Apple to > produce code to enable the FBI to decrypt the iPhone used by one of two > shooters who killed 14 people at a San Bernardino County government > building. The government dropped the case when the authorities paid a > reported $1 million for a hack. > The reason why Rawls is idling behind bars without charges is twofold: > first, the nation's appellate courts have no deadlines on when they must > issue an opinion. And second, the Supreme Court has never addressed the > compelled decryption issue. > The Supreme Court in 2000, however, ruled that demanding too much > assistance from a suspect is unconstitutional because it would be akin to > "telling an inquisitor the combination of a wall safe." However, the > closest federal appellate case on point was decided by the 10th US Circuit > Court of Appeals in 2012. That court, based in Denver, said a bank-fraud > defendant must decrypt her laptop. But that ruling wasn't enforced because > prosecutors obtained the password elsewhere. > At issue in the decryption battle is the Fifth Amendment. At its core, it > says people cannot be compelled to testify against themselves. But that is > the real-world view. When it comes to the virtual world, things change—at > least insofar as the government is concerned. The government claims that > Rawls isn't being ordered to testify against himself and that he isn't even > being ordered to produce his passwords.FURTHER READINGChild porn suspect > jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives > Rawls, the government argues, (PDF) "repeatedly asserts that the All Writs > Act order requires him to divulge his passcodes, but he is incorrect: the > order requires no testimony from [Rawls], and he may keep his passcodes to > himself. Instead, the order requires only that [Rawls] produce his computer > and hard drives in an unencrypted state." > The Electronic Frontier Foundation told the court in a friend-of-the-court > brief (PDF) that "compelled decryption is inherently testimonial because it > compels a suspect to use the contents of their mind to translate > unintelligible evidence into a form that can be used against them. The > Fifth Amendment provides an absolute privilege against such > self-incriminating compelled decryption." > When the appeals court finally rules on Rawls' plight, it won't be the > final word on the topic. That's because the nation's circuit courts of > appeal are not obligated to follow the decisions of their sister circuits. > This means uncertainty over this issue could linger until the nation's > highest court weighs in. > All the while, a jailed man named Francis Rawls, who the authorities > believe is hiding kid smut, remains the poster child surrounding the debate > on forced decryption. >