Posted by: David Scott
bank fraud, data encryption, data privacy, decryption, file access, file passphrase, IT passphrase, IT password, money laundering, PGP passphrase, privacy, Ramona Fricosu, Supreme Court encryption, U.S. Justice Department, U.S. Supreme Court data encryption, wire fraud
Does your right to remain silent, as protected by the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, extend to encryption on a personal laptop?
It’s an interesting subject, and one that might be settled soon – by the Supreme Court. A woman accused of, and being prosecuted for, a mortgage scam in Colorado is under pressure to disclose her passphrase for decrypting her laptop, which police found in her bedroom upon the raid of her home – she has refused.
The Obama administration is asking a federal judge to order the defendant, Ms. Ramona Fricosu, to decrypt the laptop. As a slight aside, prosecutors don’t want the passphrase itself. They want Ms. Fricosu to simply type it in, and make the files available in their decrypted form. This may seem a minor point, but it does remove any wrinkles that may be encountered upon court rulings that make divulgence of the passphrase itself a protected item within the Fifth Amendment’s protections.
At the heart of the matter is whether a defendant can be compelled to serve up something from the privacy of their mind: Other courts have ruled that protections extend there. Prosecutor’s, however, liken passphrases to physical keys, and defendants can be made to produce keys to safes, for example. It’s an interesting situation.
One could make the argument that forcing a defendant to divulge a passphrase (or password, encryption keys, etc.) enters the realm of breaking protections against self-incrimination. While the Supreme Court has not yet ruled in matters such as these, lower courts have – and their rulings have, essentially, gone both ways: In one case stating that an individual did not have a Fifth Amendment right to keep files encrypted; in the other, that the defendant did – thus “protecting his invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination.”
Ms. Fricosu is charged with money laundering, wire fraud, and bank fraud in an alleged attempt to gain titles to homes via falsified court documents. She’s facing up to 30 years or more in prison.
For the rest of us, with – hopefully – more mundane privacy concerns, we can understand a desire to keep business secrets, diaries, and privileged communications from friends and associates private.
For us, and most definitely for business, the case does bear watching.
On this day: July 12, 1962, the Rolling Stones make their first public appearance (Marquee Club, London).