Posted on 05/24/2005 9:56:37 PM PDT by atomic_dog
A Minnesota appeals court has ruled that the presence of encryption software on a computer may be viewed as evidence of criminal intent.
Ari David Levie, who was convicted of photographing a nude 9-year-old girl, argued on appeal that the PGP encryption utility on his computer was irrelevant and should not have been admitted as evidence during his trial. PGP stands for Pretty Good Privacy and is sold by PGP Inc. of Palo Alto, Calif.
But the Minnesota appeals court ruled 3-0 that the trial judge was correct to let that information be used when handing down a guilty verdict.
"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," Judge R.A. Randall wrote in an opinion dated May 3.
Randall favorably cited testimony given by retired police officer Brooke Schaub, who prepared a computer forensics report--called an EnCase Report--for the prosecution. Schaub testified that PGP "can basically encrypt any file" and "other than the National Security Agency," nobody could break it.
The court didn't say that police had unearthed any encrypted files or how it would view the use of standard software like OS X's FileVault. Rather, Levie's conviction was based on the in-person testimony of the girl who said she was paid to pose nude, coupled with the history of searches for "Lolitas" in Levie's Web browser.
Judge Thomas Bibus had convicted Levie of two counts of attempted use of a minor in a sexual performance and two counts of solicitation of a child to engage in sexual conduct. The appeals court reversed the two convictions for attempted use of a minor, upheld the two solicitation convictions, and sent the case back to Bibus for a new sentence.
Liberal judges to save the last vestages of our privacy, or conservative judges to stop the daily idiocies.
Don't they call this a Hobson's choice?
I guess having a car can be construed as intent to rob a bank, or using envelopes instead of postcards means you are hiding criminal messages. Encryption is all around us, in programs, embedded in hardware, on the backs of your credit cards. What these crypto-marxists (pun intended) want is to outlaw private citizens from protecting themselves in a society brimming with surveillance and intrusions into privacy. But it's fine I suppose for the music industry. The kiddie-porn thing isn't even an issue here, it's the presumption of intent by possessing something not only not unusual but will probably be even more necessary in the future i.e. personal encryption software. Joseph Stalin would be proud of these judges.
More like "Calvin & Hobbes" choice..
"...the mere "existence of an encryption program" on a computer can be admitted as evidence of criminal intent."
I guess that means that putting letters in envelopes is also a sign of criminal intent.
Unbellyfeelingingsoc! Thought criminal!
Does anyone else see something wrong here or am I just being paranoid?
Coming soon to a courtroom near you... "Today, the Supreme Court ruled that "taking the fifth," i.e. stating that you will not answer a question is a right protected by the fifth amendment, will now be taken to mean that you're guilty.
Mark
It is criminally negligent NOT to encrypt your important files.
And not just for encryption, either... PGP can be used to generate a "Digital Signature," which, when used, can authenticate the source of a document, and ensure that it has not been changed in any way.
Banks use encryption software (and hardware, for FEDLINE and other transactions). Does that mean that banks are suspected by those courts of criminal intent?
While I'm all for taking someone with kiddie porn and locking them up and throwing away the key, having encryption software does NOT indicate criminal intent, and I hope he's able to appeal this ruling.
Mark
I have a text file containing all my passwords for all my accounts. It's encrypted by PGP. If that's not a legitimate use, without any possible implication of criminal intent, then keys, locks, passwords and passcards are all just as incriminating.
Does anyone else see something wrong here or am I just being paranoid?
This is scary as hell. I use encryption to deliver files to my office, now all my encyrption software is considered criminal intent ?
I might as well rig the PC with a thermite demo system now.
And following this standard, all men are equipped to be rapists and all women, whores.
I do. Do I have to explain why?
As a blanket statement that is utter drivel. This computer has XP with all service packs and updates and co-exists just fine with PGP, and I have installed it on 4 others also.
Perhaps there is a specific problem with your setup but you should avoid making sweeping and untrue statements.
The latest versions of Winzip optionally use DES 256 bit encryption which is very strong. I think that is basically what banks use when wiring funds around the planet. So really it is no different than PGP, which can also optionally be used to encrypt files. Other uses are digitally signing software and email to ensure it has not been tampered with.
Therefore anyone with Winzip on their computer should have to justify why they installed it (/sarcasm)
http://www.pgp.com/support/legacy/desktop8.x.html
Desktop Systems Supported
„h Windows XP SP1 and SP2
„h Windows Server 2003
„h Windows 2000 SP3
„h Windows NT 4 SP6a
„h Windows ME
„h Windows 98SE
„h Windows 98
„h Mac OS X 10.3
„h Note: PGP Corporate Desktop 8.x (including PGP Disk) on Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger) is incompatible and unsupported.
bump for later
"Is that really what the court is saying in this case though? I mean, they had the testimony of the girl herself plus the guy's web browser history."
The posts against the decision are only on the single issue of encryption. Change encryption to a "gun". You can legally own a gun. You can use that gun for legal purposes. But when you use the gun for an illegal purpose, it figures into the crime.
In this case the pervert was a child pornographer. He used encryption to keep from being caught, so a legal tool was used to conceal illegal acts. He had something to hide and the tool to hide it becomes an issue.
Change the illegal act to spying, and that encryption was part of showing guilty intent as in this trial. It seems self evident that a judge would allow the prosecution to use it as a part of their case to show intent to hide the guilty act.
You mean that when a perp "lawyers up," he's not to be assumed as guilty? Someone will probably claim that one can own a gun without intent to commit murder.
More can be built. Money from speed trap cameras continues to flow in.
When encryption is outlawed, only outlaws terá limas seguras.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.