At 11:33 AM 10/3/2007, Garrett M. Groff wrote: >It's probably not a bad thing provided that robust checks and balances exist >as well as adequate oversight. Furthermore, it's substantially better than a >more "blanket" solution like key escrow, where the gov't holds the keys to >all legally available encryption. > >- Garrett > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Ali, Saqib" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[email protected]> >Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 11:01 AM >Subject: Re: [FDE] FDE Digest, Vol 13, Issue 2 > > > But is granting this power to law enforcement really that bad? > > Especially in the light of the recent Duncan III case [1]? Duncan is > > a sex offender, pedophile and a murderer who encrypted all the > > information about his victims on his laptop. If the US had similar > > laws in place, Duncan could have be forced to hand over the decryption > > keys back in 2005. And this would have brought some closure to > > families of his victims. > > > > saqib
Saqib/Garret: According to http://www.cpiu.us/statistics.php "About 10% of violent offenders with child victims received life or death sentences and the average prison term was 11 years, somewhat shorter average sentences than received by those with adult victims." So, even if we were to have such a law in the US, Duncan would certainly opt for the two year jail term for refusing to decrypt his data. Chances are, law enforcement could find sufficient evidence to convict him of something with a longer sentence -- murder, say? Without decrypting anything. (I think a body would be more compelling evidence than his plaintext, anyway.) So, in fact, the law would probably have limited positive effect here... and the negative effects on our constitutional freedoms would be devastating. Is it really that bad? If you don't place any value whatsoever in the fifth amendment, then you might not think so. I, however, would rather see the street filled with pedophiles than lose (or weaken) any part of the bill of rights. (I've kinda' gotten used to living with them -- rights, that is, not pedophiles.) And what checks and balances/oversight are we talking about? You want something like the FISA court deciding whether you can refrain from incriminating yourself? What's next? A court to decide on a case-by-case basis whether due process is reasonable? How 'bout double jeopardy? (Is this the US or some 3rd world country we're talking about? Or just something the Bush administration is capable of?) The 'right of silence' is rather fundamental here... it's been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court numerous times, in several guises. The situation in the UK/EU is considerably different as Albert previously reported. There the related human rights have undergone serious erosion for at least 20 years. Here are more references: http://www.legalday.com/commentaries/sally-ramage/right-to-silence-part-i.html http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/InterimReport.pdf/Files/InterimReport.pdf -mjm _______________________________________________ FDE mailing list [email protected] http://www.xml-dev.com/mailman/listinfo/fde
