Mass. Supreme Court Says Defendant Can Be Compelled To Decrypt Data 560
Trailrunner7 (1100399) writes ... Security experts have been pounding the drum about the importance of encrypting not just data in transit, but information stored on laptops, phones, and portable drives. But the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court put a dent in that armor on Wednesday, ruling that a criminal defendant could be compelled to decrypt the contents of his laptops. The case centers on a lawyer who was arrested in 2009 for allegedly participating in a mortgage fraud scheme. The defendant, Leon I. Gelfgatt, admitted to Massachusetts state police that he had done work with a company called Baylor Holdings and that he encrypted his communications and the hard drives of all of his computers. He said that he could decrypt the computers seized from his home, but refused to do so. The MJSC, the highest court in Massachusetts, was considering the question of whether the act of entering the password to decrypt the contents of a computer was an act of self-incrimination, thereby violating Gelfgatt's Fifth Amendment rights.
The ruling.
I lost the password (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I lost the password (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ruling doesn't change much. (Score:4, Funny)
You would think a lawyer would know better than to talk to the police.
Re:The relevant part (Score:2, Funny)
So what they're saying is that since the decryption key isn't "testimony" it doesn't count under the 5th Amendment. (IANAL)
Guess I'm safe then. My decryption key is "testimony". Lowercase, no special characters or digits.
That's a nice tax bracket you have there... (Score:4, Funny)
That only applies to people who have no authority that could ever possible impact the judge in question.
"That's a nice tax bracket you have there... it'd be a shame if it got audited for the last seven years, and every year from here on out, into the foreseeable future"