This is a good reminder to keep your phones locked with a PIN, not with biometrics. They can force you to give up a fingerprint, but they can't force you to remember a "forgotten" passcode.
-- John > On Feb 12, 2017, at 5:28 PM, Steven Schear <schear.st...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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.
