> I agree with most of the stuff you said. However in the case of > Duncan III, Duncan was trying to use disclosure of the decryption > keys as a mean to bargain for a lesser sentence. Whereas if US had > something similar to RIPA2000, the DA office would have the upper > hand in the negotiation.
This is a problem with the sentencing structure. This problem should be corrected in the sentencing structure, not by changing the laws for gathering evidence. I realize that our sentencing structure leads to some weird incentives, and that changing that to align incentives with desired outcomes is not an easy prospect, but that is definitely the right way to solve the problem. Compelling someone to provide evidence against himself is regarded as a fundamental weak point in our justice system, because it is far too easy to allow institutionalized abuse. > Why was decrypting the information so important? Decrypting the > information on the laptop would provide a complete list of his > victims, and bring closure for the victim's families. This is not relevant. I'm sorry, I know that sounds abysmally cold, but this line of reasoning assumes that knowing brings closure, which is not universal. Allowing violation of principle of preventing self-incrimination for ethereal benefits isn't compelling. Put another way: Let's assume that you do provide closure for N families. I grant this could be a great thing. However, in opening up a back door attack on self-incrimination, you have opened up a vector for abuse for every M persons in the country, a number bigger than N by a few orders of magnitude. You've also enabled an instant, guaranteed way to throw anyone in jail with little or no recourse. Now instead of carrying throwaway guns, corrupt cops can carry a throwaway laptop. Want to arrest someone and make sure they go to jail? Book 'em for Disorderly Conduct, put in your arrest report that they were committing public urination, and then enter your throwaway laptop as evidence (which is handily encrypted using a key *the defendant doesn't know*). Since public urination could be considered a sex crime (exposure), demand the key to the laptop's encrypted hard drive to make sure that the "pervert" doesn't have any incriminating photos on the drive. Voila! You can now imprison them for 2 years (or more, depending upon the sentencing guidelines). If closure is regarded as important, the proper way to solve this dilemma is to give the suspect immunity from any crimes other than the one for which he is currently being tried. No prosecutor wants to do this (what if the guy has a snuff tape on his hard drive that he made?). > Also, in similar cases, RIPA2000 would provide the means to keep > the suspects in violent crimes off the streets while the DA builds > the case. We already have a mechanism for this. A judge can deny bail for suspects of violent crimes. _______________________________________________ FDE mailing list [email protected] http://www.xml-dev.com/mailman/listinfo/fde
